Why is the VKS another plane, or Passion for the LFMS


Recently, an interesting article by Roman Skomorokhov appeared on VO "Why is the VKS another plane?", in which the author assessed the need of our military-space forces for a new light multi-purpose combat vehicle (the “photo” above is not her, it's just someone’s creative fantasy).


The fact is that recently in the media there was information about the start of work on the creation of a light multi-purpose front-line aircraft (LFMS). Money for primary aerodynamic calculations in this direction in the amount of as much as 4 million rubles. allocated RSK "MiG". And so, dear R. Skomorokhov asked the question: why do we need this plane?

The argument against the LFMS is completely sound. Today, there are already 12 types of operational tactical aircraft serving in the Russian Aerospace Forces and the Navy aviation: MiG-29, MiG-29K, MiG-35, MiG-31, Su-24, Su-25, Su-27, Su-30, Su-33, Su-34, Su-35, Su-57. Yes, the MiG-29, Su-24, Su-27 serve their last terms, but even after that we will have 9 types of operational-tactical aviation! Isn't it a bit much?

Well, let's try to compare the "typology" of operational-tactical aviation of our airborne forces with the same USA.

Interceptors



Everything is simple here. In the United States, there are no such aircraft either in the Air Force or in creation projects. We have a MiG-31 in service and a certain MiG-41 in development. It is rather difficult to say why it is needed, but, fortunately, this is not the topic of this article: we only note that this interceptor must be able to “work” not only in the air, but also in near space, and also have an unmanned version. From this point of view, the development of such a machine, at least as a concept, probably has a right to life. And maybe not only as a concept - in the end, someone must “clean” the near space from spy satellites, and even hypersonic drones. In addition, the MiG-41 will not be useless in more “mundane” conflicts. Indeed, along with the ability to conduct long-range aerial combat, he should also receive the latest stealth technologies, which in combination with a speed of 4M or higher, as well as a large combat radius, if used correctly, will give him certain tactical advantages.

High-altitude scouts


We have no such aircraft, neither in formation nor in development. Another thing is the Americans. True, the Americans who have become famous SR-71 Blackbird have already written off, but they are developing the unmanned SR-72 with might and main. Moreover, according to reports, we are talking about high-altitude and hypersonic aircraft - it was stated that the speed of the SR-72 can reach 6M.

Thus, it turns out that the Russian Federation retains the MiG-31, which it inherited from the USSR, as part of the VKS, and it seems quite reasonable and rational not to abandon dozens of completely capable combat units with the existing infrastructure just for the sake of unification of the composition! And we and the Americans are designing high-altitude and high-speed aircraft, only we - in the form of an interceptor, they - in the form of a scout. In other words, the United States and I have no particular difference in this area.

Air conquest fighters


The top of the "food pyramid" among the Americans is the F-22 - a heavy fighter that turned out to be too expensive even for the Americans, which is why it was released in a very limited batch.


Our analogue is the Su-57 - this is the best we have today, even with engines of the 1st stage. But, apparently, the aircraft also proved to be excessively expensive for mass construction.

Alas, no matter how good the fighter, it cannot be in two or three places at the same time. In real conflicts, the number of combat vehicles is of great importance. That is why, with the advent of the F-22, the Americans were in no hurry to abandon the gradually aging F-15Cs, which still occupy the place of the “workhorse” in the US Air Force. An analogue of this aircraft in the Russian Federation should be considered the Su-27. At the same time, the Su-27 is serving its last terms, and even in its modernized version it clearly does not reach the American Eagles, since the modernization was of a very budgetary nature.

But the Americans are not going smoothly. No matter how good the F-15C is for its time, it is physically obsolete and it’s time to dump this type of aircraft stories". As a result, the United States found itself in a very unimportant situation - in the near future they will be forced to write off a little more than half of the fighters at their disposal to gain air supremacy. Of course, for the United States this is unacceptable, we need new planes, but where to get them? Reviving F-22 production is too expensive; the USA does not have the latest heavy multi-functional fighter projects. As a result, the Americans, oddly enough, took the path of saturating their Air Force with heavy fighters of the “4 ++” generation: we are talking, of course, about the F-15CX. An analogue of this aircraft in the Russian Federation is the Su-35. As the F-15CX is the pinnacle of the F-15 family’s development, the Su-35 is the pinnacle of the Su-27 family, and both of these planes have gone very far from their “grandparents” and are, to a large extent, new cars.


As for naval aviation, the situation here is this: the Americans at one time saved on the development of a carrier-based fighter to gain superiority in the air, deciding that "it will do," and that the Hornets and Super Hornets will successfully cope with any remaining enemy after the collapse of the USSR. We still have a bit of Su-33 - perhaps they are not physically worn out as Su-27, but their avionics are categorically outdated today, and it makes no sense to start an expensive upgrade for the sake of a dozen aircraft. The presence of such aircraft still gives certain tactical advantages to the only Admiral TAVKR fleet Soviet Union Kuznetsov ”, and indeed, today, sailors are happy with any aircraft, but still the Su-33 will also leave for a well-deserved rest, and soon enough.

Thus, the United States currently has three types of aircraft gaining dominance in the air, of which in the next decade, apparently, there will be two - F-22 and F-15СХ. We have four such aircraft, of which in the near future will also remain two - Su-57 and Su-35. Thus, we don’t have any particular disastrous “diversity” in this type of combat aircraft.

Strike aircraft


Here everything is much more interesting. To date, the Americans have one aircraft of this type - F-15E. This aircraft is essentially a two-seater variation of the F-15C, optimized for striking at ground targets. And, despite the known differences, the F-15C and F-15E are modifications of the same aircraft, which greatly simplifies the maintenance and servicing of these machines.

Of course, the F-15E is also aging, like the F-15C, and the day is not far off when cars of this type will not be able to rise into the air simply due to physical wear and tear. Therefore, the Americans are preparing to replace him with might and main. Functionality F-15E will pass "by inheritance" F-15EX, which will be a shock modification of the fighter to gain air superiority F-15СX. Simply put, due to physical aging, the F-15E / F-15C pair will be replaced by the F-15EX / F-15CX.

Everything is much more complicated here. An analogue of the F-15E is the Su-30SM.


But, in addition to the “Su-thirtieth”, our Sukhoi Air Force and Navy also have Su-24 and Su-34 at their disposal, which are also “sharpened” for shock functionality! And if everything is generally clear with the Su-24, since its unmodified version has already been withdrawn from service, and the modified one, whatever one may say, has survived in recent years, then the presence of both the Su-30 and Su-34 is obviously irrational.

There are two ways of building strike tactical aviation. You can make attack aircraft based on multi-functional fighters, or you can - as a separate project. Each of these approaches has its pros and cons. A specialized aircraft will be more successful in its main function, but its creation and operation will be much more expensive than the modification of an existing fighter into an attack aircraft. Alas, we went all the way at once.

Due to its not-so-modern design, the Su-30SM cannot be considered a promising aircraft for gaining air supremacy, although today it is still capable of effectively fighting 4th generation fighters. As a strike aircraft, it is not bad, but still, most likely, will be inferior to the latest American F-15EX. An analogue to the latter could be a shock double version of the Su-35, but nothing is heard about the development of such.

The Su-34 is still a clean “drummer” of a separate project, which in its main function, and if equipped with the latest avionics, is quite capable of surpassing the F-15EX. Thus, we can say that we needed to either make a shock version of the Su-35, abandoning the Su-30SM and Su-34, or not to do this, and replenish the troops of the Su-34, but abandoning the Su-30SM. Or, as an option, abandon the Su-34 and the strike version of the Su-35, pull up the Su-30SM avionics “designate” it as the main attack aircraft.

Alas, for a number of objective reasons this was not done, and where the Americans will soon have only one F-15EX, the Su-30SM and Su-34 will be in the VKS. Two attack aircraft against one. Moreover, the "American" will be unified with the F-15CX air conquest fighter, and the Su-30SM and Su-34 will have nothing of the kind with the Su-35. As a result, where the United States will manage, in fact, with one aircraft (F-15EX / CX), we will have as many as three - Su-35, Su-30SM and Su-34. Not good.

Light fighter


The name “light” is very arbitrary here: the author simply “reduced” to this category all multi-functional fighters that are not heavy. The United States has such aircraft ... it's hard to even count. We will say - three, that is, F-35 of all modifications, F / A-18E / F and, of course, F-16. Although one can count four, if we single out separately the VTOL F-35D variant. Or even five, if you consider separately the modification of the "Hornet" - the electronic warfare aircraft "Growler", although this is not a fighter. But let’s stop at three.

In this case, the F-35, in some reasonable perspective, should replace the F-16, but with the F / A-18E / F, everything is not so clear. The latter were being built with might and main after 2010, so, most likely, the fleet is not at all ready to abandon the Super Horn in favor of the F-35C. Sailors are going to use both types of aircraft for at least two more decades.


What about us? There are MiG-29 of old modifications, which are already quite “pensioners”, there are a small number of “remodels” of the MiG-29SMT that will still serve, and there are still new MiG-29Ks - the ship version, which is also the most advanced. At the same time, the MiG-29K is the backbone of the Russian carrier-based aviation and will remain so for a long time. As a matter of fact, there are quite a lot of differences between the MiG-29SMT and MiG-29K, but hardly more than the F-35A and F-35D, so perhaps our MiG-29SMT and K forces can be counted for modifications of the same same plane. In addition, formally, we also have the MiG-35. Why - formally? There are two reasons for this. Firstly, the MiG-35 is a land variant of the MiG-29K, and the author is not sure that they should be considered as two different aircraft. And secondly, because, alas, no one is going to replenish the MiG-35 VKS in any mass order. In fact, deliveries of the MiG-35 to the VKS look like a “for show” action, which helps keep the MiG RSK afloat on the one hand, and increases the export potential of the MiG-35 on the other. For, as you know, those planes that the manufacturing country has put into service are better sold. And there are no other light fighters in the Russian Air Force and Navy.


Thus, in the near future, the Russian Federation will have three modifications of the MiG-29 (SMT, K and "thirty-fifth"), and the United States - three modifications of the F-35 and "Superhornet." We can say that we will have one type of light fighter, and the Americans - two. At the same time, the saddest thing is, the MiG-29 in its current form is inferior to American aircraft in the capabilities of avionics.

Stormtroopers


The Americans have an old A-10 already, we have a no less elderly Su-25. These planes are very different, but belong to the same class, and neither we nor the United States are pushing for the development of new attack aircraft. Apparently, in the foreseeable future, both we and the Americans will finally lose this class of combat aircraft.

But what about other countries?


Yes, Germany, England, France, etc. cost fewer types of combat aircraft. But you need to understand that their Air Force, in general, is not self-sufficient. They are suitable for “admonishing” third-world countries that do not have any serious air force and air defense, or for supporting Big Brother, that is, the US air force in a global conflict.

And now, twenty years later ...


The last remaining in service of the MiG-31BM by this time, of course, will already retire, so there will be no interceptors at the Russian Air Force. The Americans will be left with two heavy fighters to gain air supremacy F-22 and F-15СX - and we will have the same number, Su-57 and Su-35. The United States will have a strike F-15EX, we - the Su-30SM and Su-34. In terms of light fighters, the Americans have F-35s of three modifications and, possibly, the latest F / A-18s, we have a handful of completely outdated MiGs of three modifications. The attack aircraft will not remain with us, nor with them.

And, strangely enough, we can be a plus for heavy fighters, since the American "Raptor" by 2040 will be on the verge of complete physical deterioration. But on strike aircraft and light fighters in the red we find ourselves, on the contrary, we. In the case of attack aircraft, this will happen because the United States will begin mass re-equipment of its air forces with new aircraft after 2020, while we have a large number of Su-30SM and Su-34 commissioned in 2010-2020, and the first of they will have to be written off already due to physical wear and tear.

A modern combat tactical aircraft is capable of serving about 30 years. About as much is planned for the F-35, for example. Strategic bombers / missile carriers, of course, are capable of more, but not about them. And we must understand that twenty years later, the first aircraft received by the Russian Aerospace Forces under the GPV 2011-2020 program will need to be decommissioned. That is, by about 2040, the whole question will arise of updating the fleet of combat aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Forces and the Navy.

Creating a combat aircraft


It is not only costly, but also very lengthy. Take, for example, the same American Raptor. Competition for this aircraft was announced in 1986, and began to operate in 2005, that is, 19 years after the competition. And even if we count from the moment the first serial aircraft arrived in the army, what happened in January 1, it still turns out almost 2003 years. The creation of the Su-17 started in 57, that is, we can say that the cycle of its creation will take about 2001 years.

And finally, LFMS


What can be expected from this program? Alas, there is little information about it, and indeed, news from afar is rarely true. We are talking about a relatively light twin-engine aircraft, which can be built in versions of a fighter gaining dominance in the air, strike and, possibly, attack. Moreover, it is obvious that work on this aircraft is in its earliest preliminary stage.

Thus, it can be assumed that the LFMS will be ready for deliveries to the Air Forces in 20 years, just when the Su-30SM, Su-34, MiG-29 of all modifications begin to retire. And if our designers succeed, then with the help of the LFMS we will just get rid of the different types of operational tactical aircraft.

By the time the rearmament is completed, the Russian Air Forces will include heavy fighters gaining air supremacy (Su-57) and more massive ones based on the LFMS, as well as attack and maybe even assault based on the same LFMS. Also, perhaps, the MiG-41 interceptor will appear and ... actually, that's all. By the way, based on this, it can be assumed that the LFMS will not be too light, rather, it will be an average multi-functional fighter.

If this is so, then the decision to create a LFMS should be considered absolutely correct and timely. But if under the abbreviation “LFMS” we get another MiG-3 variation in 5-35 years, then we should unconditionally agree with the position of the respected R. Skomorokhov.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vladimir61 4 May 2020 05: 34 New
    • 26
    • 8
    +18
    And so, dear R. Skomorokhov asked the question: why do we need this plane?
    And really! Why in the kitchen a few knives? Why buy an enameled bowl if there is a galvanized basin?
    1. Civil 4 May 2020 07: 17 New
      • 7
      • 2
      +5
      Lightweight single-engine aircraft with an unmanned option, a no brainer that the future lies with drones and with artificial intelligence. As cheap as possible. For example, if the air defense is built from a continuous swarm of small drones, some three-dimensional minefields. It makes no sense to break through a heavy and expensive aircraft.
      1. awdrgy 5 May 2020 00: 13 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Hedgehog is incomprehensible Drones AI- They played games over toys?))) They say a lot of exhaust zero They crash a special bomb and the whole AI will burn garbage and the road to nowhere Only people only "meat" and blood Will not be easy, forget War is not police operations where heels of super-airplanes fly or a “bunch of cheap mosquitoes” (they’ll besiege them with a penny) Therefore, all American ideas are “police” ideas that are not worth a damn in real combat eggs (at best, very auxiliary things) Such ideas are also harmful because lead to a futuristic world where people a sheep - just a afraid TV-set sitting in a shelter and raising its paws to the top like a current - "PATRONS END" (exaggerate) Typically European-American thinking Because both drones and AI are needed so-so that they would "hold their finger on the pulse" and in conditions low birth rates (from hopelessness)
    2. Stas157 4 May 2020 09: 44 New
      • 9
      • 2
      +7
      As a result, where the United States will manage, in fact, with one aircraft (F-15EX / CX), we will have as many as three - Su-35, Su-30SM and Su-34. Not good.

      They would call the modifications of the Su-27, as the Su-27 - then it was good. Then it would be one plane (with different modifications), and not three.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 May 2020 10: 09 New
        • 15
        • 2
        +13
        Quote: Stas157
        They would call the modifications of the Su-27, as the Su-27 - then it was good.

        Only the Su-34, Su-27, Su-30 and Su-35 are four different aircraft
        1. Stas157 4 May 2020 10: 12 New
          • 8
          • 6
          +2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Only the Su-34, Su-27, Su-30 and Su-35 are four different aircraft

          From this point of view, various modifications of the F-16 (as well as the F-15) can be considered as different aircraft. But Americans do not, if there is one glider.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 May 2020 10: 14 New
            • 8
            • 1
            +7
            Quote: Stas157
            From this point of view, various modifications of the F-16, like the F-15, can be considered as different aircraft.

            Stas, the differences between the Su-27 and Su-35, for example, are an order of magnitude greater than between any modification of the F-15 except the F-15CX, but I consider them as separate planes And I "count" the Americans F-15C and F -15E for two different planes, if that.
          2. NEXUS 4 May 2020 12: 25 New
            • 6
            • 1
            +5
            Quote: Stas157
            From this point of view, various modifications of the F-16 (as well as the F-15) can be considered as different aircraft. But Americans do not, if there is one glider.

            Excuse me, from which hangover on the 27th, 30th, 34th and 35th planets there is one? There is at least some similarity in the glider of the SU-27 and SU-30, and then, the 30th has small wings in front, which the SU-27 does not have ... and the 34th, in which the pilots sit shoulder to shoulder , and the SU-35, which is single, and even with a hump behind the lamp, has nothing in common and similar with either the 27th or the 30th. This I speak purely about visual perception.
            1. Stas157 4 May 2020 13: 35 New
              • 6
              • 7
              -1
              Quote: NEXUS
              Excuse me,what hangover on the 27th, 30th, 34th and 35th there are one planets there?

              You know better from what hangover. But they even have the same dimension, not to mention geometry. These are modifications of the same Su-27 family.
              1. Bad_gr 4 May 2020 14: 21 New
                • 11
                • 0
                +11
                Quote: Stas157
                You know better from what hangover. But they even have the same dimension, not to mention geometry. These are modifications of the same Su-27 family.

                The Su-35S (not to be confused with the first Su-35), in comparison with the Su-27, in addition to the hull, even the wing profile is different. Instead of aluminum, aluminum-lithium alloys were used, the use of composite materials was significantly expanded (EPR was reduced by several times), a new wing with an increased relative thickness, which allowed to place a larger volume of fuel (11,3 tons against 9,4 on the Su-27). Accordingly, the chassis for a greater weight of the aircraft (front strut dual). The degree of longitudinal static stability of the Su-27 is negative and amounts to 5% of the average aerodynamic chord of the wing (SAX), and for the Su-35C the degree of static instability is increased to 20% of the SAX. Avionics on the fifth generation Su-35S.
              2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 May 2020 20: 36 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: Stas157
                But they even have the same dimension, not to mention geometry.

                The geometry, by the way, is completely different there.
        2. venik 4 May 2020 14: 24 New
          • 4
          • 2
          +2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Only the Su-34, Su-27, Su-30 and Su-35 are four different aircraft

          ======
          A highly controversial statement!
          At least in relation to the Su-27 / Su-30. The latter is nothing but the result of the modernization of the Su-27UB, with the transformation of the shock version! Exactly. By the way, the first T-10PU-5 and T-10PU-6 (factory code 10-4PU) were converted from serial Su-27UB, Yes, they added electronic filling, they changed something, modified it, but in fact it’s just another modification Su-27 (at least logistics and service).
          As for the Su-34 and Su-35, this is such a deep modernization of the "source" of the Su-27 that it may well qualify for the status of "independent" structures (especially the Su-34).
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 May 2020 16: 34 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Quote: venik
            A highly controversial statement!
            At least in relation to the Su-27 / Su-30. The latter is nothing but the result of the modernization of the Su-27UB, with the transformation of the shock version!

            I won’t argue, I’ll just ask one question - do you really think that the Su-27 and Su-30SM differ less than the F-15S and F-15D, which I counted the Americans for 2 different planes?
            1. venik 4 May 2020 16: 50 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Do you really think that the Su-27 and Su-30SM differ less than the F-15S and F-15D, which I credited to the Americans for 2 different planes?

              ========
              "... I won’t argue, I’ll just ask one question -..." AND WHY did you count them for TWO different planes if the F-15D is just a double training variant of the F-15D? request
              So you can agree to the point that the Americans do not have ONE F-16 aircraft, but 10 pieces of different types! How many of them were there, I didn’t count (there, with these “blocks”, the devil would break his leg!).
              Here we risk in such "wilds" to climbfrom which then figs get out!
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 May 2020 17: 10 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: venik
                And WHY did you count them for TWO different planes, if the F-15D is just a two-seat training version of the F-15D

                Olepyatka, it was about the F-15S and F-15E, of course
              2. Bad_gr 4 May 2020 19: 06 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: venik
                So you can agree to the point that the Americans do not have ONE F-16 aircraft, but 10 pieces of different types!

                By the way, but from the point of view of the supplier, what is the difference: these are two different planes, or two varieties of the same aircraft, which differ from each other in the cabin, engines, type of missiles used, locators and even a bunch of small things?
        3. opus 4 May 2020 14: 30 New
          • 5
          • 1
          +4
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Only the Su-34, Su-27, Su-30 and Su-35 are four different aircraft

          well yes. like ... 2a wheels on the front strut?

          On the basis of Su-27 developed a large number modifications: combat training Su-27UB, carrier-based Su-33 fighter and its combat training modification Su-33UB, multi-role fighters: Su-30, Su-27M, Su-35, front-line bomber Su-34 and others.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. BREAKTHROUGH READY 4 May 2020 13: 15 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      It all depends on the cost.
      When it comes to cheap tools (knives in particular), this rule still works, albeit with reservations (it is often better to have one good blade than a dozen “highly specialized” ones). But from expensive equipment you will be required to extract the maximum benefit from available resources.
    5. 3danimal 6 May 2020 18: 29 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Bad comparison.
      The development of the WTO and sighting systems, the appearance of radar with headlight and AFAR allows one aircraft to perform a wide range of tasks.
  2. Thrifty 4 May 2020 05: 45 New
    • 11
    • 14
    -3
    Andrei hi I’m afraid that in 5 years we won’t get anything either, because our authorities have such fun as financing many defense projects and programs on the principle of “rush and unhook me” when you need at least a thousand! This I conditionally showed the ratio of allocated funds, and needed! So, on such "donations" the plane cannot be developed. ..
    1. I agree. The author’s too optimistic forecast for 20 years. Like, we’ll stay ... With the Su-57 ...
      If you catch up with amers even in quantity, then every year you need to do 9-10 aircraft.
      It doesn’t work out yet.
      1. Stalllker 4 May 2020 06: 58 New
        • 12
        • 17
        -5
        No need to chase anyone !!! Russia has its own path, its own doctrine. This is the USA fighting all over the world and with everyone, but we are not. And riveting planes for what they were and stood, it makes no sense, as well as spending money on it. In the case of an attack on mother, Russia, we have excellent air defense of the Russian Federation and the guys will land all these raptors, shmaptora, hornets and other flying evil spirits. And there we will already see xy from xy and who has how many planes in service.
        1. VENOM 4 May 2020 07: 16 New
          • 7
          • 3
          +4
          And riveting planes for what they were and stood, it makes no sense, as well as spending money on it. In case of an attack on mother, Russia, we have excellent air defense of the Russian Federation
          Well, what can I say ... Actually, fighter aircraft is no less important component of air defense than SAM.
          1. bars1 4 May 2020 10: 19 New
            • 4
            • 3
            +1
            Ground-based air defense has always performed and will continue to fulfill only the AUXILIARY role with respect to aviation in repelling an air strike.
            1. Stalllker 4 May 2020 12: 06 New
              • 5
              • 9
              -4
              This "auxiliary air defense" will take the first blow and bring down the KR and the planes of various ambassadors while your fighters take off. So your planes will not be at the right time and in the right place. They are only suitable for cover, strategists or drummers
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 May 2020 12: 31 New
                • 7
                • 2
                +5
                Quote: Stalllker
                This "auxiliary air defense" will take the first blow and bring down the KR and the aircraft of various ambassadors

                I do not want to ruin your fantasies, but in no conflict did the ground-based air defense components defend the country from the enemy air forces.
                1. Stalllker 4 May 2020 13: 05 New
                  • 3
                  • 11
                  -8
                  You worry about your fantasies
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 May 2020 16: 37 New
                    • 7
                    • 2
                    +5
                    Quote: Stalllker
                    You worry about your fantasies

                    It is not necessary to experience reality so painfully. Which, however, is that ground-based air defense is just an addition to the Air Force, and it’s incapable of “clearing” the sky on its own. And it was never capable
                2. Stalllker 4 May 2020 13: 07 New
                  • 1
                  • 8
                  -7
                  We do not have a single modern example, who would be right, you or me. Syria certainly does not count, when fired by cruise missiles, the enemy air force did not enter the territory of Syria. But at the same time SAM
              2. Alexey RA 4 May 2020 17: 11 New
                • 6
                • 1
                +5
                Quote: Stalllker
                This "auxiliary air defense" will take the first blow and bring down the KR and the planes of various ambassadors while your fighters take off.

                If ZRV came into action, it means that the full polar fox is already looking directly into our eyes. For this means that the carriers of the URO or the URO itself approached the objects protected by the ZRV.
                Plus, the air defense system has known problems with the radio horizon and work on the MV and PMV.
                Quote: Stalllker
                So your planes will not be at the right time and in the right place. They are only suitable for cover, strategists or drummers

                ZRV chances to be at the right time in the right place even less. For the location and position of the strategic missile forces are well known. And the speed of the march zrdn somewhat ... inferior to the speed of flight of the fighter.
                What is good about fighter aircraft - it can be quickly concentrated in any direction at a distance of the combat radius of the fighter. Simply put, a group of fighters can cover any direction in a radius of 1000-1200 km from the airfield (including not provided with a road network) in an hour. Can ZRV perform such a maneuver? wink
          2. Mooh 4 May 2020 10: 24 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Well, what can I say ... Actually, fighter aircraft is no less important component of air defense than SAM.
            Generally more important. Reliably covering our entire territory with air defense systems is not possible in principle, therefore interceptors are vital for us. As for airplanes gaining superiority in air in large numbers, this is not a simple question and depends on the concept of development of the Russian Aerospace Forces.
            Regarding the development of a new aircraft in the current situation, I believe that we will not pull economically. Now there are quite a few promising aircraft in development, and this is quite expensive. A light fighter is a necessary and useful thing, but in the current moment, a new interceptor and strategist are needed. We have fighters, although in insufficient quantities, but there are, and the interceptors are ending. What kind of beast PAK YES is not very clear and how it will simultaneously replace the Tu-95 and Tu-22 is a mystery to me personally, but they need to be changed urgently, they are outdated mentally and physically.
            1. Narak-zempo 5 May 2020 17: 01 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: MooH
              Reliably covering our entire territory with air defense systems is not possible in principle

              Why cover the territory? It is necessary to protect facilities, and if they want to hammer on the territory - then please, we have more than one million square kilometers of empty territory.
              1. Mooh 6 May 2020 17: 12 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                It is necessary to protect objects, and if they want to hammer on the territory

                A very common misconception. In short, a purely objective air defense is a deliberate transfer of initiative into the hands of the enemy.
          3. Stalllker 4 May 2020 11: 58 New
            • 3
            • 9
            -6
            Of course, only pilots are afraid to fly into the air defense zone, and not fighter aircraft. Hindus will now deploy the S-400 and you will see how Pakistanis sit on the “ass”
            1. futurohunter 25 May 2020 16: 13 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Do not sit down. There are mountains and a range of air defense systems, even though the S-400 is limited. And the S-400s themselves will not live long if you do not cover them with Torahs and Carapace
      2. Stas157 4 May 2020 09: 06 New
        • 10
        • 3
        +7
        Quote: Leader of the Redskins
        If you catch up with amers even in quantity, then every year you need to do 9-10 aircraft.
        It doesn’t work out yet.

        Well yes. Therefore, it surprised me:
        F-22 - a heavy fighter, which turned out to be too expensive even for the Americans, why he was released a very limited batch.

        We would have a Su-57 in such a limited batch!
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 May 2020 10: 12 New
          • 7
          • 0
          +7
          Quote: Stas157
          We would have a Su-57 in such a limited batch!

          Yes it would be nice. Nevertheless, there is a fact - to replace the F-15 Raptor failed
          1. Avior 4 May 2020 11: 48 New
            • 4
            • 2
            +2
            replace the F-15 Raptor did not work

            more precisely, at the time of the production of the Reptor it was no longer necessary.
            And now it makes no sense to release the old Raptor either, on the F-35 avionics has gone ahead.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 May 2020 11: 58 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: Avior
              more precisely, at the time of the production of the Reptor it was no longer necessary.

              Sergey, the gradual replacement of an aging aircraft with a newer one is necessary :)))) Another question is that it turned out to be too expensive and the Americans refused it, which I wrote about
              1. Avior 4 May 2020 12: 06 New
                • 3
                • 1
                +2
                In general, you are right.
                But in this particular case, it was at that time by the end of development that the Raptor was not needed.
                The USSR was gone, China was not yet as an adversary in the war.
                There was no sense in making a large batch of expensive raptors, moreover, there is still no sense in this, the party was cut off, which means that the price has risen significantly, as you know.
                Moreover, there is still no great reason to make the Raptor, they have enough aviation both now and in the near future.
                But on the distant, about which you wrote, everything can change, and then the idea will be embodied, and not in 20 years.
          2. futurohunter 25 May 2020 16: 14 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Here they are discussing the Su-57, as if it were a real plane. While there are 10-15 pieces of very different prototypes
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 25 May 2020 16: 35 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: futurohunter
              Here they are discussing the Su-57, as if it were a real plane.

              You are so late for 7 years, he already went into the series :)))
      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 May 2020 10: 09 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: Leader of the Redskins
        If you catch up with amers even in quantity

        It's impossible.
      4. NEXUS 4 May 2020 12: 29 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Leader of the Redskins
        I agree. The author’s too optimistic forecast for 20 years. Like, we’ll stay ... With the Su-57 ...

        Is there anything that F-15/16/18 and our Dryers serve for 40 years? No? Or do you think that new fighters should appear every 5 years? Look at the same F-22 ... it’s been in service since the 90s, and this is already 30 years old. And given the development date, which began in 80- x years, then all 40 years. And F-22 mattresses are not going to be written off, but they extend its life to the 40th year.
      5. 3danimal 6 May 2020 18: 32 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        To succeed, you need a different industry and economy. What has been said there over the past 5 years about “getting off an oil needle” and entering the Top 5 economies of the world? sad
  3. bober1982 4 May 2020 05: 46 New
    • 11
    • 15
    -4
    What type of aircraft is needed by our Air Force can be determined only by the General Staff, the main headquarters of the Air Force, intelligence and aviation research institutes, and therefore such articles are very naive.
    Comparing the different types of our and American aircraft is not correct, because in this regard we have always traditionally been different from the Americans.
    1. VENOM 4 May 2020 06: 41 New
      • 3
      • 4
      -1
      It used to be that way. But now who and how determines it is not clear. Andrei had 2 cycles of articles about the Navy. So, the state of the fleet is shown very well there and what and how is being done to solve the problems. The situation with corvettes, patrol ships and small missile ships is indicative. But this is far from a cheap pleasure - to build such ships. And what a mess there ... And all this with limited budget opportunities. Those funds allocated for the construction of the fleet could be spent on other types and types of troops with greater efficiency. Problems with the fleet can also be projected on aviation, since the root cause is a leadership that does not know what to do or does not want to do it. So your comment rather than the article is naive. Excuse me
      1. bober1982 4 May 2020 06: 44 New
        • 3
        • 6
        -3
        Quote: VENOM
        Andrei had 2 cycles of articles about the Navy. So, the state of the fleet is shown very well there and what and how is being done to solve the problems.

        What can I say here - you can wish, write a series of articles about Armata, and how to solve problems.
      2. Alex flanker 4 May 2020 08: 37 New
        • 7
        • 5
        +2
        The article is naive. And the competence of the author is far from desired.
        1. Avior 4 May 2020 11: 18 New
          • 10
          • 2
          +8
          And you relate to the article, how easy it is to express a competent opinion on this matter, everyone will be interested to read hi
    2. bayard 4 May 2020 17: 03 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      In the analysis, the moment of the future modernization of the entire Su-30 fleet (the project is being developed by order of India) with unification with the Su-35 for engines, radar, avionics and avionics is somewhat missed. That is, at the same time, the issue of increasing combat value and unification is being resolved, which will facilitate and reduce the cost of maintenance, training of technical personnel of the Air Force and significantly extend the combat service of such aircraft. A similar upgrade option is being prepared for the entire Su-34 fleet, whose avionics are already significantly behind modern requirements, and an increase in thrust and engine life will never hurt.
      And as for the LFMI, Andrei is certainly right, earlier than in 15 to 20 years, you should not expect which aircraft. And by that time, it will just be optimally in line with the requests of the Moscow Region and the Air Force.
      In addition, in 15 years, the need for a carrier-based fighter will become urgent (there is no need to hope for the appearance of aircraft carriers before, but there will certainly be a need for them), and the promising LFMI of MiG Corporation will do just fine.
  4. VENOM 4 May 2020 05: 49 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    Thus, the United States currently has three types of aircraft gaining air supremacy, of which in the next decade, apparently, there will be two - F-22 and F-15СХ. We have four such aircraft, of which in the near future there will also be two - Su-57 and Su-35. Thus, we don’t have any particular disastrous “diversity” in military aircraft of this purpose.

    There will also be a Su-30 (in 2 versions - SM and M2). After all, 130 aircraft. More correctly they will be attributed primarily to fighters, and then to attack aircraft. In the light of the soon decommissioning of the Su-27 and MiG-29 from the "clean" fighters, only Su-35 will remain. And they alone will not be enough. The Americans alone have about 22 F-200s. And these are fairly new aircraft - most are not older than 15 years. With normal maintenance and repair can be in service 35-40 years. Soviet “drying” and “twinky” still fly. Let them remain a little, but we should not forget what happened in the 90s and the first half of the 2000s. About the same as the Americans F-15S. Plus just a wild amount of F-16 and FA-18. Even if we assume that the Americans will write off the old versions of these aircraft, there will remain hundreds of aircraft that are old and undergoing modernization. Do not forget about Europe with the "Typhoons", "Rafals" and "Flu". So leave a hundred and a half Su-35s and how many Su-57 will manage to release there against this armada ... Whereas with attack aircraft everything is much better - the Americans have two hundred “Strike-Eagles”, Russia has 120-130 Su- 34.
    Thank you for the article! When you see that the author - Andrei from Chelyabinsk - you must read :)
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 May 2020 10: 19 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Quote: VENOM
      There will also be a Su-30 (in 2 versions - SM and M2). After all, 130 aircraft. More correctly, they will be attributed primarily to fighters, and then to attack aircraft

      I still believe that this is not so, especially for the future - the Su-30SM is still not the most modern aircraft for air combat right now, but as an attack aircraft it is quite capable of serving
      1. alexmach 4 May 2020 12: 06 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Su-30SM is still not the most modern aircraft for air combat right now

        They talked about the Su-30 about open architecture and wide modernization potential. What do you say about the idea of ​​modernizing it by unifying it with BRO and engines with SU-35? Or is it time for the SU-35 itself to modernize?
  5. bober1982 4 May 2020 06: 40 New
    • 7
    • 8
    -1
    This article looks like a clumsy attempt to justify the more than unsuccessful previous article on the creation of a light fighter.
  6. Free wind 4 May 2020 06: 53 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    Nobody is going to write off attack aircraft, Warthogs in America seem to be still being produced. We can’t understand WHAT WITH SU-25. The Americans plant for the production of Raptor mothballed. Personnel transferred to other plants, production can theoretically be started at any time. Hardly anyone will do it, but ....
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 May 2020 10: 24 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Quote: Free Wind
      Nobody is going to write off attack aircraft, Warthogs in America seem to be still being produced.

      Wings to them and avionics, to increase the resource.
    2. Avior 4 May 2020 11: 21 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      I think, as the spread of guided ammunition and guidance systems for them, such as modern AFAR and high-resolution cameras, for attack aircraft, the scope may narrow.
      1. Alexey RA 4 May 2020 17: 15 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: Avior
        I think, as the spread of guided ammunition and guidance systems for them, such as modern AFAR and high-resolution cameras, for attack aircraft, the scope may narrow.

        The ambush is that in most wars today, the cost of a typical target is several times less than the cost of guided ammunition: to destroy a rusty Toyota with a machine gun, they throw off a Mercedes or even a Rolls-Royce. smile
        1. fider 30 June 2020 07: 51 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Alexey RA
          Who will explain to me, where does the "ambush"? I open Google:
          AMBUSH
          Feminine
          1.
          Hidden location e.g. troops with the aim of an unexpected attack on the enemy.
          "Tank in ambush"
          2.
          Troop troop, so located.
          Why clog the Russian language?
  7. mark1 4 May 2020 07: 02 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    The idea of ​​creating an LMFS has the task (at the moment and not over 20 years) to ensure the survival of the MiG unit by attaching at least a carcass with at least a scarecrow to the MiG-AT project (they entered the Yak-130 from one side, now attempt No. 2)
    In fact, we got the Su-30 from the Indians in conditions of a catastrophic lack of equipment and facilities as an alternative solution
    1. alexmach 4 May 2020 12: 08 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      by attaching at least a carcass even with a stuffed animal of the MiG-AT project

      But which of them is LMFS? This is a light training aircraft.
      1. mark1 4 May 2020 12: 22 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        There may be discrepancies between the LMFS and the LMFI, one fighter and the other just a wide-profile aircraft, as I understand the development of both
  8. illi 4 May 2020 07: 04 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    In the light of our latest military developments (super expensive). The bathroom that the new lightweight fighter also comes out is super expensive. All countries of the world have such single-engine aircraft, but we cling tenaciously to two. In general, we get Migg-35 but three times more expensive.
    IMHO it is necessary in the long run single-engine multifunctional, and now start the mass modernization of the blink.
    1. VENOM 4 May 2020 07: 25 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      start mass modernization of miggs
      Massive? What instant? Those 30 or a little more that entered the troops when Algeria abandoned them? Because the other 29s will soon be gone due to complete wear and tear. They also need to be modernized, of course. But such a modernization cannot be called "mass"
  9. Vita vko 4 May 2020 07: 14 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    I do not understand the skepticism of the author. Money for LFMS studies is relatively small. And such studies must be carried out on a systematic basis among competing design bureaus with the prospect of creating the next generation of combat aircraft.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 May 2020 10: 25 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: Vita VKO
      I do not understand the skepticism of the author.

      Where's the skepticism? Is it that the author considers the development of the LFMS to be completely justified?
  10. Avior 4 May 2020 07: 25 New
    • 14
    • 1
    +13
    I want to say two things that Andrei, in my opinion, lost sight of
    1. Americans will not sit for 20 years without developing a new aircraft
    And it is very possible that this will be either a modified version of the f-22 or a fundamentally new aircraft of a similar purpose.
    Of all the previous logic of their approaches, most likely the first is the new version of the F-22, revised and cheaper.
    2. In the future, a relatively inexpensive single-engine universal aircraft is needed. it could be done on the basis of the engine of the second stage.
    But, true, first su57 you need to start releasing stably
    1. Cyril G ... 4 May 2020 09: 28 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      A relatively inexpensive single-engine universal aircraft is needed in the future. it could be done on the basis of the engine of the second stage.


      That's right !!!
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 May 2020 10: 27 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Avior
      Americans will not sit for 20 years without developing a new aircraft
      And it is very possible that this will be either a modified version of the f-22 or a fundamentally new aircraft of a similar purpose.

      Will not. But judging by the pace of "work" on the next-generation aircraft, this is a matter of a very distant future.
      1. Avior 4 May 2020 11: 04 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        I don’t think that one can say something like that for 20 years in advance.
        modernization is not the development of a completely new aircraft, and even a new generation, especially since there are no requirements for it yet, it has not been required for 20 years, such ideas have already been for the Japanese.
        while the Americans do not need it, but that the Chinese, that other countries are backed up by new developments
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 May 2020 11: 19 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Avior
          I don’t think that one can say something like that for 20 years in advance.

          Can. If the Americans are not working now, after 20 years they won’t have a plane for sure.
          Quote: Avior
          modernization is not the development of a completely new aircraft, and even a new generation

          Yes, but they have nothing to upgrade. F-22, whatever one may say, is already an old car, so if they do what, there’s already a new, 6th generation, movement in that direction.
          1. Avior 4 May 2020 11: 24 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            For the Japanese, there was talk of a proposal to make a mix of F-22 and F-35.
            Cheaper and modern version of the F-22. Obviously, the old F-22s will not be in service for more than 40 years, which means that something will be prepared in return.
            For this, 20 years are not needed, and ideas about the 6th generation will go separately.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 May 2020 11: 48 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Avior
              For the Japanese, there was talk of a proposal to make a mix of F-22 and F-35.

              Everything is still there at the level of conversations, and conversations are not so much Japanese as Americans.
              1. Avior 4 May 2020 11: 53 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                It is the Americans. They have a suggestion.
                They would have suggested to the native Pentagon, but so far there is no request.
                And when it appears, others will go into service with such aircraft — this option will also be offered to the Pentagon.
                Yes, he himself knows about him. And 20 years is not needed for this. There will be a less expensive modern version of the F-22
          2. illi 4 May 2020 11: 45 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            For the sixth generation, breakthrough technologies are needed. But there are none. Look at civil aviation, perfect old schemes, there is nothing new. I think the ceiling has been reached in military aviation. Something revolutionary giving super-advantage, no longer build. So it’s easier to improve old designs.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 May 2020 11: 48 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: illi
              For the sixth generation, breakthrough technologies are needed. But there are none.

              Well, over the course of 20-25 years, they’ll work out :)))
              1. illi 4 May 2020 12: 10 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                Unlikely. Technology is closely related to science. Scientists have discovered the designer introduced. Science has long been buried in such distances (string theories and all that) that it offers nothing to designers. Recent advances in microelectronics and lasers have long been introduced and polished. So photon engines are not worth the wait. Consequently, each subsequent fighter will be slightly better, but significantly more expensive.
          3. alexmach 4 May 2020 12: 10 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Yes, but they have nothing to upgrade. F-22, whatever one may say, is already an old car

            Hmm .. a week or two ago there was news about their modernization and updating avionics. In addition to the Japanese, they proposed it modernized not so long ago.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 May 2020 12: 33 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: alexmach
              Hmm .. a week or two ago there was news about their modernization and updating avionics.

              So we upgrade old planes, which does not make them new
  11. Eug
    Eug 4 May 2020 07: 33 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    I suspect that the MiG wants to suck in its light duck fighter. As for me, it would be worthwhile to do the following - we will dance from the “product 30” engine - it is there, 11tn thrust and full thrust 18. There is also a Su-57, which must be upgraded to a heavier impact modification - these are already 2 UNIFIED types. Now - LMFS (I’m more familiar with paralay.com) - SINGLE-ENGINE (Vol. 30) with a take-off mass of 20 tons, equipment with a Su-57 with somewhat reduced capabilities, weight and size, and accordingly cost, and a double LBS-advanced UTS based on one afterburner ed. 30. In principle, if the VKS rests on a twin-engine LMFS, it is realistic to make it on the basis of two afterburning ed. 30. As a result, we get non-specialized, but as much as possible unified planes from a heavy fighter with all its many functions to an advanced TCB .. As for me, it is more expedient to have specialized, as much as possible unified planes than universal ones.
    1. Cyril G ... 4 May 2020 09: 26 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      absolutely right!!!
    2. illi 4 May 2020 11: 54 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Of course, the videoconferencing will stall. Twin engine is better in all respects. And the fact that he will turn out to be worth its weight in gold according to the New Russian tradition is not their problem. They are warriors and not businessmen. As a result, we will again create a unit of equipment for public relations. And the old checked will go to the troops. Of course they will buy a couple of dozen, for the same PR.
      1. Eug
        Eug 4 May 2020 12: 11 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Sukhoi Design Bureau at one time very persistently advocated for single-engine aircraft, and not unfoundedly, but with data on the operation of the Su-17 and Su-24 with the same engines.
  12. Vasily Ponomarev 4 May 2020 08: 28 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    > but they’re developing an unmanned SR-72 with might and main.
    um, can I link where they are "developing" it?
    > F-22-a heavy fighter that turned out to be too expensive even for the Americans, which is why it was released in a very limited batch.
    limited party due to the fact that the opponent is khe-khe,
  13. Alex flanker 4 May 2020 08: 32 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    “Su-30SM and Su-34 will not have anything like that with Su-35.”

    Strictly speaking, there were statements in the media that the newly ordered Su-30SM will be upgraded, and the AL-41F-1S installation will be included in this modernization, and if it is lucky, another part of the Su-30 systems will be transferred to the Su-35.
    So there is a sound approach to filling domestic VKS. Apparently before this, everything happened in a hurry.
  14. Sergei 777 4 May 2020 08: 54 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Two attack aircraft against one. Moreover, the “American” will be unified with the fighter of gaining air supremacy F-15СX, and the Su-30SM and Su-34 will not have anything like that with the Su-35.
    So after 2021, the Su-30cm will be upgraded to Su 30cm1 Here you have the same engines and radar as the Su 35. But this of course will not solve the problem of “stress”.
    1. bars1 4 May 2020 10: 26 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Sergey 777, while the Su-35S itself needs to be modified, by introducing AFAR, first of all
      1. 5-9
        5-9 5 May 2020 09: 13 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        He then, with the most powerful radar in the world, why? How can AFAR so dramatically help him?
        But the Su-30 needs a new radar ...
  15. alex aircraft 4 May 2020 08: 59 New
    • 3
    • 12
    -9
    The author needs to go to work with Mr. Serdyukov. He really loves to optimize everything. Why should he have 30/34/35? Have one type of la idiocy! And support for factories and jobs (high-tech) how much la have lost in Syria? no air force or air defense. leaving one su-35 with Su-80 is to undermine defense in the event of war, losses are inevitable and the factories should quickly make up for them. With one plant this is unrealistic. Who remembers the fire on the KAMAZ diesel? Then KAMAZ and BTR XNUMX were left without engines.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 May 2020 10: 34 New
      • 9
      • 1
      +8
      Quote: alex aircraft
      why su 30/34/35? have one type of la idiocy!

      Idiocy is what your comments on this topic are filled with.
      Simple question. Why do Americans quite successfully manage with one type of attack aircraft, which is a modification of a heavy fighter where we have three types of such aircraft, none of which are unified with the Su-35? Just don’t need this noodle on your ears
      Quote: bober1982
      What type of aircraft is needed by our Air Force can only be determined by the General Staff, the main headquarters of the Air Force, intelligence and aviation research institutes

      Because the Americans have all this too.
      Quote: alex aircraft
      and support for factories, and jobs (high-tech)

      And turn on your head and understand that if the plant can’t produce the right airplane, then you need to modernize the plant and produce the right airplane - is there not enough intelligence?
      1. Sky strike fighter 4 May 2020 11: 11 New
        • 2
        • 3
        -1
        I think today it is necessary to focus on the production of the heavy Su-57, the Su-34 drummer, the relatively light two-seater Mig-35 as a multifunctional workhorse. You can also upgrade the factories producing the Su-35S and Su-30SM under their release. Focus on the development of Mig -41 and LMFS. Moreover, the engine product 30 can be put on a single-engine LMFS, which will save both time and money, you can put the Zhuk-AM radar from the Mig-35, the fuselage materials from the Su-57, and borrow new weapons from it. So, with a rational approach, it is possible to develop LMPS relatively quickly in 5 years. Key technologies can be taken from the Su-57 and Mig-35.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 May 2020 11: 22 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Sky Strike fighter
          I think today we need to focus on the release of the heavy Su-57, the Su-34 drummer, the relatively light two-seater Mig-35 as a multifunctional workhorse.

          Not sure, but as an option - why not?
          Quote: Sky Strike fighter
          Moreover, the engine product 30 put on a single-engine LMFS

          LFMS will be twin-engine, that's for sure.
          Quote: Sky Strike fighter
          So, with a rational approach, you can develop LMPS relatively quickly in 5 years

          Can. But it’s not necessary - current needs will close existing aircraft models, and they should be replaced by something substantially newer. This is the case when it is better to spend time and make a truly new plane
        2. Cyril G ... 4 May 2020 18: 09 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          And what about the MiG-41?
          1. Sky strike fighter 4 May 2020 20: 36 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            Replacement of the Mig-31BM, Mig-31K. Well, we must somehow resist the SR-72 being developed by the Americans. For this, we need a new Mig-41 interceptor.
            1. Cyril G ... 4 May 2020 21: 25 New
              • 2
              • 3
              -1
              Do we have a lot of extra money? Su-35 will cope, why the zoo need to breed again?
              1. Sky strike fighter 4 May 2020 23: 29 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                The Su-35S will not be able to cope. It will not be able to fly in 4 Machs and withstand the SR-72. The Su-35S will not be able to carry the Dagger, an anti-satellite missile.
                1. Cyril G ... 5 May 2020 00: 20 New
                  • 1
                  • 4
                  -3
                  Of course he can. And to carry a pair of daggers, the carrying capacity of the Su-35/34 is quite possible. And yes, no one flies at M-4.
  16. 123456789 4 May 2020 09: 12 New
    • 0
    • 4
    -4
    Our analogue is the Su-57 - this is the best we have today

    To the One (in every sense) laughing not hard to be the best laughing
    The start of work on the LFMS shows that not everything is good with the best either.
    All the others, as shown by experience in WWII, can be ignored.
    1. Cyril G ... 5 May 2020 00: 23 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      The beginning of initiative work shows that who wants to cut a lot of dough for OCD, and calmly cut this OCD for about 20 years. And then donkey vs padish.
  17. Cyril G ... 4 May 2020 09: 25 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    We still have a bit of Su-33 - maybe they are physically not so worn out as Su-27, but their avionics


    - Physically, they are worn out much more heavily than even the older Su-27s, because they were operated from the deck.
    - And from what budun LFMS should be twin-engine? If you can equip it with one product 30.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 May 2020 10: 35 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Cyril G ...
      and from what Budun LFMS should be twin-engine?

      With such a twin-engine aircraft that is being developed
      1. alexmach 4 May 2020 12: 26 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        With such a twin-engine aircraft that is being developed

        Here I join the rest of the commentators. In my opinion, the solution is not the most obvious.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 May 2020 12: 30 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: alexmach
          In my opinion, the solution is not the most obvious.

          From the point of view of creating just a light aircraft - unobvious, of course. But from the point of view of creating an aircraft, the modifications of which can be used both in air combat and in shock functions, the twin-engine engine has no alternative. It just will not be easy, although it will not be heavy either. Today in this niche Rafal, the Super Hornet
          1. alexmach 4 May 2020 16: 46 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            But from the point of view of creating an aircraft, the modifications of which can be used both in air combat and in shock functions, the twin-engine engine has no alternative

            The argumentation is not entirely clear. Why is that non-alternative? What can a single-engine aircraft not be able to? Conduct a maneuverable air battle?
            But what about the F-16 and F-35?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 May 2020 18: 29 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: alexmach
              The argumentation is not entirely clear. Why is that non-alternative?

              In its performance characteristics, of course.
              Quote: alexmach
              But what about the F-16 and F-35?

              You gave a great example. And the F-16 and F-35 can neither fulfill the functions of a fighter of gaining dominance in the air, nor strike functions in full. That is why, despite the massive supply of F-35s, the Americans are going to simultaneously commission heavy fighters, in general, of the previous generation 4 ++ - F-15SX / EX. That is, a single-engine platform is obviously not self-sufficient, and can only serve as an addition to a twin-engine platform, even if we are talking about aircraft of different generations.
              Our Su-57, as I suspect, will only be equipped with "fighter" units.
              In general, either twin-engine LFMS + Su57, or single-engine + Su-57, but then you will still need a specialized attack aircraft and a heavy fighter, cheaper than the Su-57.
              1. alexmach 4 May 2020 18: 40 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                That is why, despite the massive deliveries of F-35, the Americans are going to simultaneously commission heavy fighters, in general, the previous generation 4 ++ - F-15SX / EX

                But there are problems with shock functions there, not because of single-engine, but because of not the largest ammunition in the internal compartments. That is, because of the "stealth" with which it is more rational to use it as a scout-navigator, and a heavy 4 ++ aircraft as a flying arsenal with a bunch of everything on an external sling, or am I wrong here?
                That is, a single-engine platform is obviously not self-sufficient, and can only serve as an addition to a twin-engine platform, even if we are talking about aircraft of different generations.
                Our Su-57, as I suspect, will only be equipped with “fighter” units

                And you understand that you already wrote off other twin-engine platforms?

                In addition, it is not at all clear how one or two motor in general is associated with shock functions. If one “large” engine is capable of providing the same thrust and fuel efficiency as two “small” engines, then what are the advantages of a twin-engine aircraft?
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 May 2020 19: 06 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Quote: alexmach
                  But there are problems with shock functions there, not because of single-engine, but because of not the largest ammunition in the internal compartments. That is, due to the "stealth"

                  Of course not. On the Penguin, you can put external pendants, there are no problems. But this will not make it a heavy aircraft with sufficient payload / combat radius.
                  Quote: alexmach
                  and a heavy aircraft 4 ++ like a flying arsenal with a bunch of everything on an external sling, or am I wrong here?

                  This is fiction IMHO :)))) The key parameters I indicated above
                  Quote: alexmach
                  In addition, it is not at all clear how one or two motor in general is associated with shock functions. If one “big” engine is able to provide the same traction and fuel efficiency as two “small” ones

                  If it can - it’s not connected in any way. But usually it cannot :)))
                  1. alexmach 4 May 2020 19: 27 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    If it can - it’s not connected in any way. But usually it cannot :)))

                    Just checking wikipedia
                    RD-33K
                    Emergency take-off thrust: 9 kgf
                    Afterburner thrust: 8 800 kgf
                    Maximum thrust draft: 5 kgf

                    And here is what they write in one of the VO materials on the SU-57 engines
                    the maximum thrust of the Product 30 engine reaches 11000 kgf, afterburning - 18000 kgf. For comparison, the engine of the first stage AL-41F1 has a thrust of 9500 and 15000 kgf, respectively

                    here without links to sources ...
                    Of course, the AL-41F1 on the afterburner is somewhat inferior to the two RD-33Ks, and the “Product 30” is still in development and it is not completely correct to compare it with an engine which for almost 40 years has been completed.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 May 2020 20: 28 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: alexmach
                      And here is what they write in one of the VO materials on the SU-57 engines

                      So everyone writes correctly, that's just engines of different generations. It’s correct to compare just RD-33 and Al-31
                      1. alexmach 4 May 2020 21: 52 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Here I agree. In this case, 2 engines really give more traction.
                2. Bad_gr 4 May 2020 19: 14 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Quote: alexmach
                  If one “large” engine is capable of providing the same thrust and fuel efficiency as two “small” engines, then what are the advantages of a twin-engine aircraft?

                  In vitality, that will pay for itself both in saving technology and in saving flight personnel.
                  1. alexmach 4 May 2020 19: 18 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    In survivability, which will pay for itself both in saving technology and in saving flight personnel

                    This is the only argument for me in favor of twin-engine, but then again, is there any practical statistical confirmation of this thesis? Is a twin-engine aircraft really more tenacious than a single-engine? And if so, is it possible to bring the single-engine to the same survivability parameters as a service culture there or by early diagnosis of malfunctions?
                    1. Bad_gr 4 May 2020 20: 47 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      Quote: alexmach
                      Is a twin-engine aircraft really more tenacious than a single-engine?

                      To do this, just look at the statistics on the Su-25. How many cases were there when they returned to their airfield on one engine.
                      [Center]


                      1. alexmach 4 May 2020 21: 55 New
                        • 3
                        • 0
                        +3
                        To do this, just look at the statistics on the Su-25. How many cases were there when they returned to their airfield on one engine.

                        There is no. Not enough. Su-25 is a very specific case in terms of performance characteristics and tactics of use. Now, if you look at such statistics on the SU-24, Su-27, Su-30, Su-35 ...
                3. 1976AG 5 May 2020 09: 28 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  The requirements for MTBF for a single-engine circuit for the engine are much higher. The plus is that if one engine fails, the plane is not yet doomed to death, because there is a second. With a single-engine scheme, it will be doomed.
                  1. alexmach 5 May 2020 09: 33 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Single-engine MTBF is much higher

                    This is a serious argument.
                    The plus is that if one engine fails, the plane is not yet doomed to death, because there is a second. With a single-engine scheme, it will be doomed.

                    This is logical, just how often this happens in practice, what is the proportion of cases of one engine failure in the total number of failures? On twin-engine aircraft, too, critical failures occur. Therefore, I ask about statistics.
                    1. 1976AG 5 May 2020 09: 38 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      So it’s not only or even not so much the time between failures. In combat conditions, when one of the engines can be damaged, only the second can help out. That is why they try not only to install two engines on aircraft, but also to distribute them from each other whenever possible, so that if a rocket or projectile hits one engine, the second would not suffer.
                    2. 1976AG 5 May 2020 09: 40 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      Accordingly, you need to look at the statistics in combat use. On the same Su-25 in Afghanistan there were many cases when the second engine came to the rescue.
                      1. alexmach 5 May 2020 09: 44 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        A little higher have already been discussed.
                        - How significant is the experience with the Su-25 for the Su-35?
                        - How often is one of the two engines damaged by modern weapons? And while remaining critical aircraft systems remain in order?
                      2. 1976AG 5 May 2020 09: 48 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        Well, I probably missed it, it's hard to keep track of everything from the phone, but in any case, a combat aircraft is not a civilian airliner and neglect of security is too expensive.
        2. Cyril G ... 4 May 2020 18: 11 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Technically forgot about the F-35, the Chinese Thunder and J-10 built by the way around one Al-31?
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 May 2020 18: 30 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Cyril G ...
            Technically forgot about the F-35

            Answered above on Alexander's comment
    2. Cyril G ... 4 May 2020 14: 47 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      There is no development. There are dances with a tambourine around the maximum shape definition. I repeat the question why twin-engine?
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 May 2020 16: 45 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Cyril G ...
        There is no development. There are dances with a tambourine around the maximum shape definition.

        Everything is very simple
        “In particular, at the end of last year, MiG RSK placed an order for the study“ aerodynamic calculation of a light multifunctional front-line aircraft twin engine scheme, comparison with foreign analogues "for the period 2020-2025. Information about this was posted on the public procurement portal. The cost of work is estimated at 4 million rubles, ”the UAC said.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 May 2020 18: 30 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Cyril G ...
            Why do we not need to make a new product 30 from RD-33

            And who said that it would be an RD-33?
            1. Cyril G ... 4 May 2020 19: 39 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              What is his last, otherwise it will not be LFMS
        2. Cyril G ... 4 May 2020 19: 51 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          That is, the MO is proposed to fully fund the new five, which has nothing to do with the Su-57? Say it like stupidity, treason or just an attempt to cut? Moldy folders from 1.42-1.44 will be pulled out of the storerooms ...
          This will lead the mini to develop a new engine in the dimension RD-33. Why spend billions on this? If there is extra money, let the military better then salaries rise.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 May 2020 20: 27 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Quote: Cyril G ...
            That is, the MO is proposed to fully finance the new five that have nothing to do with the Su-57? Say it like stupidity, treason or just an attempt to cut?

            No, this is absolutely correct action. Life on the Su-57 does not end; we need other modern aircraft of the same generation. Full-fledged Air Force is inconceivable to build on a machine of the same type
            1. Cyril G ... 4 May 2020 21: 26 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              No. This is a fundamentally wrong decision.
              And by the way, a full-fledged Air Force is completely built on a machine of the same type. Example? France at least. They have 300 tactical aircraft, we have about 1000. They have two types of aircraft, the old Mirage-2000 and Rafal, we have a zoo
      2. D16
        D16 7 May 2020 07: 50 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        I repeat the question why twin-engine?

        Because there is Klimov OJSC, which also wants to bite off this pie.
        1. Cyril G ... 7 May 2020 10: 33 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Right! That's why there are two motors, because they want to cut the headstock on the new OKR RD 33 product 50.
          1. D16
            D16 7 May 2020 13: 16 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            So yes, it’s just that you can’t squeeze out any more from the RD-33 in the old dimension, and the development of something between RD-33 and product 30 will bring the aircraft to the SU-57 price tag and there will be no economic feasibility.
            1. Cyril G ... 7 May 2020 14: 09 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              So I think so .... So they want to make a twin-engine five, even at their own expense. There, the Tops get a lot of money, gold powders and so on, so let them chip in and work out for themselves.
  • demiurg 4 May 2020 09: 36 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    It is necessary to dance from the engine, tasks and prices. The most promising at the moment, product 30 gives 18 tons for afterburner. This is a lot for a light aircraft, but leave it as it is, for the sake of unification.
    Empty weight 10-11 tons, maximum 23-25. Stealth within reason, the EPR is less than a meter for little money. And then combining the load, conformal tanks, hanging containers, you can get a universal and inexpensive substitute for the MiG-29 and Su-30 of all modifications, including deck ones. It makes sense. And if the price is also at 1/2 of the Su-57, then it’s generally great.
    Two engines and MiG AT go to the forest.
    By the way, if the Su-34 is replaced by engines with the same products 30, and lower the EPR, then it will be generally great. Its shock capabilities will increase many times over. And the time has come for modernization.
    1. Zaurbek 4 May 2020 09: 48 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The time for modernization is already approaching the Su35C itself ...
      1. demiurg 4 May 2020 09: 55 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Remotorize Su-35 is too early. The resource of native engines has not been developed. In about 5 years it will reach them. But at the first Su-34s, most likely the motor resource will end here. Anyway, drive 34 to the Chkalovsky aircraft factory. At the same time and reduce the EPR. It is possible to update avionics.
        1. Zaurbek 4 May 2020 10: 02 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          And the fact that the AL-41 with an OVT and larger does not hurt?
      2. Cyril G ... 7 May 2020 14: 11 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Is that the radar with AFAR should be screwed
        1. Zaurbek 7 May 2020 14: 47 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Yes, and avionics in the cockpit to do as in the Su57.
    2. Zaurbek 4 May 2020 10: 05 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      The "light" F35, in fact, weighs like an F-18. And this is already average. Product "30" will be just right. It is also necessary to take into account that avionics and weapons produced by the Russian Federation are heavier than the United States.
    3. Cyril G ... 7 May 2020 10: 34 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      exactly .. the best option
  • Zaurbek 4 May 2020 09: 46 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    I completely agree with the article ..... The Americans made a fighter and an AFAR radar (which is already more modern than the MiG-2BM from a 15-seat F31). And this is one production line and some pilots and efficient use of the aircraft. Our analogue must be done Su35C (once again upgraded) in 2-seater version (or it will be Su30SM 1,2,3,4). And from Su34 you need to make a version of the Grorower software which we don’t have or to hang with AFARs, let them supplement and command.
  • Pvi1206 4 May 2020 09: 48 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    the development of new military equipment must be conducted continuously ... otherwise we will lag behind ... then we will lose ...
  • Doccor18 4 May 2020 10: 28 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Our entire civilization is steadily moving towards universal robotization.
    The Air Force also will not ignore this.
    I foresee in a not so distant future the basis of the Air Force as an ultramodern heavy fighter, which works more quickly,
    as a command post going
    ahead of the shock squadron
    UAV. And in the long run,
    like swarms of UAVs for various purposes, which on the basis of AI will themselves
    to conduct hostilities.
    So now you need to bring to
    crazy SU-57 and also intensify
    work on creating a long-range UAV
    radius of action. As well as modernize the existing
    fleet of aviation, while it is possible.
  • iouris 4 May 2020 10: 31 New
    • 1
    • 5
    -4
    I went to write the province! Passions ... These are not passions, but speculations on passions. Point number 1 - military doctrine.
  • 1976AG 4 May 2020 11: 20 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    The author comes to the conclusion that we have nothing to replace the aging aircraft, but stubbornly ignores the MiG-35, although it can perform both shock and fighter functions. Moreover, the MiG-35 has a reinforced structure based on the functions of a ship fighter. So today he has good chances to fill the gap, a new aircraft has been created in Russia for decades and you should not rely on it, it is not known when and what will come of it, and the Su-35 will not be enough for everyone.
    1. Cyril G ... 4 May 2020 18: 14 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The price issue in the Su-35 and MiG-35 series is critical. Will there be any difference
      1. 1976AG 4 May 2020 18: 22 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        MiG will certainly be cheaper, this is firstly, and secondly, the scale of production of the Su-35 does not allow them to plug all the holes in a reasonable amount of time. At the same time, the MiG-35 is almost ready and production facilities are ready for it.
        1. Cyril G ... 4 May 2020 18: 25 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Let’s say differently what is the price of delivery in 2016 of the MiG-29SMT and Su-35S and preferably Su-30SM
          1. 1976AG 4 May 2020 18: 44 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            And let’s do it in a completely different way, what was the price of the Su-57 before the conclusion of the contract, and at what price did the manufacturer and the manufacturer shake hands? It was the same with the Mi-28 NM. The manufacturer always initially overprices, but in the same way, the manufacturer and the customer are doomed to a compromise, otherwise everyone will be left with nothing. And the cost of MiG in the series will be necessarily lower than Su
            1. Cyril G ... 4 May 2020 19: 44 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              And still, what we have with the price, otherwise I’m not sure, but I remember that at that time the prices were 2 yards for the Su-35, and the Su-30SM and MiG-29 went one and a half yards. This is not sure. We do not live in the States, there, in this regard, by law, all information of such a plan is open ... They secret what is supposed to be. We have everything in a row. Their approach is more robust, unfortunately. As a result, something that in principle cannot be disclosed leaks out. These are the consequences of devastation in the heads.
              1. 1976AG 4 May 2020 20: 23 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                I don’t remember exactly what prices, but I consider the example with the contracts for the Su-57 and Mi-28NM indicative. There was a lot of noise and harsh remarks about prices, and then somehow we agreed abruptly and signed a contract.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 May 2020 18: 31 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: 1976AG
      The author concludes that we have nothing to replace the aging aircraft

      The author does not come to this conclusion
      1. 1976AG 4 May 2020 18: 45 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Quote: 1976AG
        The author concludes that we have nothing to replace the aging aircraft

        The author does not come to this conclusion

        And what does he expect to replace with a shortage of capacities?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 May 2020 19: 04 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Quote: 1976AG
          And what does he expect to replace with a shortage of capacities?

          The author does not offer anything - he states the fact that today our needs are covered by the supply of Su-30/34/35/57, but this gives rise to an excessive number of aircraft types in the aerospace forces.
          You suggest also to aggravate all this MiG-35.
          1. 1976AG 4 May 2020 19: 15 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            There are no Su-57s yet, so do not share the skin of an unkilled bear. Su-34 is difficult to fight with enemy fighters, and Su-30 is rapidly becoming obsolete. And compare the airplane costs and the drying volumes, be realistic
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 May 2020 20: 29 New
              • 2
              • 2
              0
              Quote: 1976AG
              There are no Su-57s yet, so do not share the skin of an unkilled bear.

              There is not a single serial, despite the fact that contracts for them have already been signed. So do not hope, the Su-57 is already there.
              1. 1976AG 4 May 2020 21: 05 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                I hope that the Su-57 will justify all our expectations and will arrive in combat units in the required quantity, but I have often witnessed how often our deadlines are shifted to the right and therefore I’m not used to giving out wishful thinking. So forgive me, but so far not a single production aircraft is available. That's when stable deliveries to combat units begin, then another thing.
  • zyablik.olga 4 May 2020 11: 27 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    High-altitude scouts
    We have no such aircraft in the ranks or in development. Another thing is the Americans. True, the Americans who have become famous SR-71 Blackbird have already written off, but they are developing the unmanned SR-72 with might and main.

    Dear author, apparently forgot Lockheed U-2S, of which about 20 cars are in the US Air Force in flight condition. Passage about the SR-72 is not clear.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 May 2020 12: 38 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: zyablik.olga
      Dear author, apparently forgot Lockheed U-2S

      So I did not deny their presence. Apparently, he built the phrase unsuccessfully.
      Quote: zyablik.olga
      Passage about the SR-72 is not clear.

      And what's wrong with it?
      1. Bongo 4 May 2020 14: 05 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And what's wrong with it?

        Andrei, hello!
        I confess, Olga wrote about SR-72 from my submission, after she asked what kind of aircraft it was. Tell me, do you have information that the program for creating this machine continues?
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        So I did not deny their presence. Apparently, he built the phrase unsuccessfully.

        Well, you didn’t mention them ... request
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 May 2020 16: 52 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Bongo
          I confess, Olga wrote about SR-72 from my submission, after she asked what kind of aircraft it was. Tell me, do you have information that the program for creating this machine continues?

          It seems like in November 2018, Lockheed Martin announced that the prototype SR-72 should fly by 2025.
          1. Bongo 5 May 2020 02: 26 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            It seems like in November 2018, Lockheed Martin announced that the prototype SR-72 should fly by 2025.

            Andrey, I don’t recognize you ... request “Like” is not the answer. no
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 May 2020 02: 36 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Bongo
              Andrey, I don’t recognize you ... the request "It seems like" is not the answer.

              Sergey, there is data on the development of the device, for example, from 2017, an article
              Lockheed Confirms Secretive SR-72 Hypersonic Plane Will Be Made
              As for the later data, that is, in the English-language wiki, the statement In November 2018, Lockheed Martin stated that a prototype of the SR-72 was scheduled to fly by 2025
              But the problem is that the link to the source is broken, I can’t check. However, now I found the info from 2019 in military watch. Article
              American SR-72 Hypersonic Spy Plane Reportedly Already at Prototype Stage - Bomber Variant Expected
              And, if you can’t recognize me, then give the stranger some kind of link to stopping work on SR-72 :))))
              1. Bongo 5 May 2020 02: 43 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                And, if you can’t recognize me, then give the stranger some kind of link to stopping work on SR-72 :))))

                Andrey, I remember you very well! Long time no talk.
                As for the SR-72, the mention of work on this machine I met in 2015. I admit that some research is underway, but the scope is clearly not the same.
  • fa2998 4 May 2020 12: 34 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: Stas157
    They would call the modifications of the Su-27, as the Su-27 - then it was good.

    Only the Su-34, Su-27, Su-30 and Su-35 are four different aircraft

    The Americans are putting a new letter, and we are the number, supposedly a new plane. But these are deep modifications of the Su-27. hi
  • Doctor 4 May 2020 12: 45 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    All these classifications are interceptor, gaining dominance, etc. very conditional.
    The difference in performance characteristics is so insignificant that it makes no sense to block a separate plane for its sake.
    Su 35C in single and double version (shock) will cover all niches.
    If you do not try to conquer the whole world, of course.
    1. Sancho_SP 4 May 2020 15: 06 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      And the Su-57, in turn, is such a plane, just in a stealth body kit.
      1. Doctor 4 May 2020 15: 10 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        And the Su-57, in turn, is such a plane, just in a stealth body kit.

        I agree. But this is in perspective.
    2. Bad_gr 4 May 2020 17: 13 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Arzt
      All these classifications are interceptor, gaining dominance, etc. very conditional.

      With the same success we can say that the laws of physics are arbitrary.
      The Su-30cm, designed for Russia, has a PGO that, when operating at low altitude and high speed, relieves the load on the glider of the aircraft and the pilot, and the Su-35s is better sharpened for work on air targets. Although both aircraft are universal and can be used for different tasks, but with a great chance of success, it is better to use the Su-30cm on the ground, and the Su-35 on air targets.
      PS
      By the way, in some districts, the Su-30cm replaced the Su-24, not the Su-27.
    3. 1976AG 4 May 2020 19: 06 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Arzt
      All these classifications are interceptor, gaining dominance, etc. very conditional.
      The difference in performance characteristics is so insignificant that it makes no sense to block a separate plane for its sake.
      Su 35C in single and double version (shock) will cover all niches.
      If you do not try to conquer the whole world, of course.

      This is with the release of 12-14 aircraft per year, it will close all the niches ??? Yes you are an optimist however
      1. Doctor 4 May 2020 19: 47 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        This is with the release of 12-14 aircraft per year, it will close all the niches ??? Yes you are an optimist however

        All the plants on it ...
        1. 1976AG 4 May 2020 20: 06 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Arzt
          This is with the release of 12-14 aircraft per year, it will close all the niches ??? Yes you are an optimist however

          All the plants on it ...

          How loudly said! And what is the volume of output?
          1. Doctor 4 May 2020 21: 38 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            How loudly said! And what is the volume of output?

            Maximum! fellow

            The target is 20 mixed aviation regiments, 1 attack squadron 2-seater, 2 squadrons 1 - local fighters. There are 12 aircraft in the squadron + stock, total 40.
            A total of 800 aircraft.
            1. 1976AG 4 May 2020 22: 03 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Arzt
              How loudly said! And what is the volume of output?

              Maximum! fellow

              The target is 20 mixed aviation regiments, 1 attack squadron 2-seater, 2 squadrons 1 - local fighters. There are 12 aircraft in the squadron + stock, total 40.
              A total of 800 aircraft.

              I agree - the more the better, but I did not correctly formulate the question, what is the release rate? How many years will it take to patch ALL holes? 20-30 years is not an option
              1. Doctor 4 May 2020 22: 22 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                I agree - the more the better, but I did not correctly formulate the question, what is the release rate? How many years will it take to patch ALL holes? 20-30 years is not an option

                Well, for example, the real production rate for 2014 of the same type of aircraft.

                https://regnum.ru/news/polit/1898196.html

                In 2014, the Russian Air Force received 24 Su-35S multi-functional fighters, 21 Su-30SM multi-functional fighters, 8 Su-30M2 fighters, 18 Su-34 front-line bombers, 10 Mig-29K / KUB carrier-based fighters,


                Total 89.

                If you strain up and abandon the unnecessary, such as the Tu-160, I think you can bring it to 120-130 per year.
                For 6-7 years we’ll manage. During this time, bring to mind the Su-57, which will then be easier to retrain than to train new pilots, conduct R&D on the new generation unmanned aircraft.

                And of course, you need a couple of hundred new upgraded Su-25s. They have been buried many times, and they both plowed and plowed. The entire Dudaev aviation was taken out in Chechnya, the APU is also praised, and this despite the air defense.
                If there were Rooks in Syria behind our PMCs, everything would be different.
                1. 1976AG 5 May 2020 00: 11 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Is it your Tu-160 that went into the category of unnecessary? You famously bent! Are you planning to maintain nuclear parity by fighters?
                  1. Doctor 5 May 2020 07: 51 New
                    • 2
                    • 1
                    +1
                    Is it your Tu-160 that went into the category of unnecessary? You famously bent! Are you planning to maintain nuclear parity by fighters?

                    These flying fortresses have no chance with the current air defense. Maybe a few will work, but given their cost, the game is not worth the candle.
                    There are also our SSBNs.
                    In fact, we now have neither MLNF nor bomber carriers. However, no one attacks and does not even aggress. That is, there is enough ground component.
                    They can be limited.
                    1. Sky strike fighter 5 May 2020 08: 35 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      There are also our SSBNs.
                      In fact, we now have neither MLNF nor bomber carriers. However, no one attacks and does not even aggress.

                      How can you carry such nonsense?
                      Ships of this type are designed to deliver ballistic missile strikes at strategically important military-industrial targets of the enemy.

                      The Russian Navy is armed with 13 strategic missile submarines, including eight in the Northern Fleet and five in the Pacific.

                      These are six Project 667BDRM Dolphin missile cruisers, three Kalmar Project 667BDR missile cruisers, three Borey Project 955 nuclear missile submarine cruisers, and one Dmitry Donskoy Project 941UM heavy nuclear missile submarine cruiser.

                      Read more at RBC:
                      https://www.rbc.ru/photoreport/28/07/2017/597b04729a79479453c0f858

                      The Americans in the ranks as we have about 12-13 SSBN Ohio. They also don’t have a strategic nuclear bombardment? For 75-80 strategic bombers both we and they have.
                      1. 5-9
                        5-9 5 May 2020 09: 27 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        In real life, for the war with us, the United States has only 37 ancient B52Ns with ancient Agm86s with a range of 2500 km. B2A carries only cast-iron bongs .... Today, our strategic aviation with missiles of 3500-5000 km is stronger than the American ... Surprisingly
                      2. Doctor 5 May 2020 13: 35 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        In real life, for the war with us, the United States has only 37 ancient B52Ns with ancient Agm86s with a range of 2500 km.

                        Probably so. And what does this prove? Only the fact that even Americans, fans of air fortresses, do not believe in the possibility of their use in modern conditions. We focused on the MSNF as the most effective.
                        In general, everyone clung to this mantra "nuclear triad, nuclear triad." Do we need it?
                      3. 5-9
                        5-9 6 May 2020 09: 04 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Well, they profiled the AGM-129 KRBD for a reason not completely clear for the V-2A, so they are considered useless. But they saw the B-21 to replace Spirit. They do not believe that strategic aviation is not needed. For the Last War, it may not play a key role, but it gives flexibility and the possibility of limited use
                2. 1976AG 5 May 2020 09: 15 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Arzt
                  Is it your Tu-160 that went into the category of unnecessary? You famously bent! Are you planning to maintain nuclear parity by fighters?

                  These flying fortresses have no chance with the current air defense. Maybe a few will work, but given their cost, the game is not worth the candle.
                  There are also our SSBNs.
                  In fact, we now have neither MLNF nor bomber carriers. However, no one attacks and does not even aggress. That is, there is enough ground component.
                  They can be limited.

                  These flying fortresses can use strategic missiles without entering the enemy’s air defense zone. Moreover, the ability to overcome air defense largely depends on electronic warfare systems on board, and you imagine the most sophisticated equipment at the level of a flying piece of iron. But then our submarines have little chance of survival. Let’s write them off as unnecessary Yes, and why not waste time on things, why are silo-based ICBMs needed, if everyone knows their coordinates .. We’ll write everything off, discard everything, leave only the SU-35. You’re just like Nikita Khrushchev .. God forbid you get to power, at once leave everyone without pants.
                  1. Doctor 5 May 2020 12: 19 New
                    • 0
                    • 2
                    -2
                    You’re just like Nikita Khrushchev .. God forbid you get to power, at once leave everyone without pants.


                    Nikita just saved the USSR.
                    And then in the 70s, because of militarism, they fell apart and remained without pants.
                3. 5-9
                  5-9 5 May 2020 09: 24 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  You just joked about the vulnerability of Tu-160 with missiles with a range of 3500 and 5000 km ??? Yes, even in no theory will anyone prevent him from shooting at Nyurk ... Not if there is a huge airbase in Greenland to build, all F22 there to catch up and continuous patrols at the Pole to arrange ....
                  1. Doctor 5 May 2020 12: 17 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    You just joked about the vulnerability of Tu-160 with missiles with a range of 3500 and 5000 km ???


                    Article by aviation expert Andrei Gorbachevsky.

                    https://aviator.guru/blog/43503100781/Tu-160.-Stoit-li-vozobnovlyat-proizvodstvo?nr=1
            2. 1976AG 5 May 2020 00: 25 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              What makes you think that in 2014 24 Su-35s were launched? In the period from 2009 to 2015, 48 Su-35s were built. From 2015 to 2019, about 40. So sorry, the pace of 10-12 aircraft per year.
              1. Doctor 5 May 2020 08: 06 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                What makes you think that in 2014 24 Su-35s were launched? In the period from 2009 to 2015, 48 Su-35s were built. From 2015 to 2019, about 40. So sorry, the pace of 10-12 aircraft per year.


                Report data and forecast for the release of UAC from their official website.
                They are quite capable of releasing 5 aircraft in 1000 years if they work hard.
                Reorient everyone to the Su-35 and the spark, money and incentives, and everything will work out.
                The problem is more with the pilots.
                1. 1976AG 5 May 2020 09: 08 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Judging by this table, everything is mixed up in a heap, both civilian and military and special, and you dared civilians in one fell swoop and drove fighters under these numbers, but it doesn’t happen. Moreover, assembly volumes also depend on the capabilities of suppliers, and these are hundreds of enterprises! And note, from 2014 to 2017 this is the FORECAST period. And I asked you a specific question, where did you get that in 2014 24 Su-35s were launched? Read the wash comments above, it indicates how much is delivered and for what period. And leave your fantasies please. And it turns out that instead of 50 superjets at an unprepared production, you will collect 50 Su-35
                  1. Doctor 5 May 2020 12: 03 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Judging by this table, everything is mixed up in a heap, both civilian and military and special, and you dared civilians in one fell swoop and drove fighters under these numbers, but it doesn’t happen.

                    The top line is military and civilian, the second military for export, the third military for yourself.
                    Civil further, here is the complete table.


                    As you can see, the UAC plans to release a total of 760 military aircraft in 5 years.
                    So there are opportunities.
                  2. Doctor 5 May 2020 12: 06 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    And I asked you a specific question, where did you get that in 2014 24 Su-35s were launched?

                    Already answered above. I repeat.

                    https://regnum.ru/news/polit/1898196.html
  • alexmach 4 May 2020 23: 06 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    This is with the release of 12-14 aircraft per year, it will close all the niches ??? Yes you are an optimist however

    And what is the issue of the Su-35 limited to? After all, it is most likely limited by financing rather than production capacity, because in the best years they have been rushed out to 20 in recent years, in addition to defense, the Chinese zakz was served. Technically, their release should be easy to double only at KAZ. And for the release of the Mig-35 it is necessary to establish a new production.
    1. 1976AG 4 May 2020 23: 37 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      On MiG everything is already settled. Capacities allow producing at least 36 aircraft per year. Well, at a price they are certainly noticeably cheaper than dryers.
      1. alexmach 5 May 2020 08: 22 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Well, at a price they are certainly noticeably cheaper than dryers.

        But where does this come from? Why are they "of course" cheaper, are they more noticeably cheaper?
        1. 1976AG 5 May 2020 08: 55 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          A simpler technique is always cheaper, does it surprise you? Well, representatives of production and the Moscow Region also spoke about this more than once. The cost is about 20-30 percent lower, plus it is cheaper to operate. This has also been said more than once.
          1. alexmach 5 May 2020 09: 11 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            A simpler technique is always cheaper, does it surprise you?

            And always inferior in TTX?
            Well, representatives of production and the Moscow Region also spoke about this more than once. Well, representatives of production and the Moscow Region also spoke about this more than once. Cost approximately 20-30 percent lower

            With slot radar, BRO and past generation engines?
            And they remembered talking about the fact that with such characteristics it is not needed. Is not it so?
            And if you put a modern BRO on it, then it will probably come close to the SU-35 in price.
            plus it is cheaper to operate

            It is quite possible.
            1. 1976AG 5 May 2020 09: 20 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: alexmach
              A simpler technique is always cheaper, does it surprise you?

              And always inferior in TTX?
              Well, representatives of production and the Moscow Region also spoke about this more than once. Well, representatives of production and the Moscow Region also spoke about this more than once. Cost approximately 20-30 percent lower

              With slot radar, BRO and past generation engines?
              And they remembered talking about the fact that with such characteristics it is not needed. Is not it so?
              And if you put a modern BRO on it, then it will probably come close to the SU-35 in price.
              plus it is cheaper to operate

              It is quite possible.

              This is where you heard representatives of the Ministry of Defense say that we need the MiG-35 with a slot radar, etc. ? It is with the latest equipment that it is still cheaper in both construction and operation. There alone engines give a good price difference.
  • BREAKTHROUGH READY 4 May 2020 13: 23 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Another change of shoes after changing the "party line".
    But even about 5 years ago the sofa exporters did not want to hear about the unification of combat aircraft :)
  • 123456789 4 May 2020 14: 22 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: illi
    So photon engines are not worth the wait.

    Detonation on the way. And this is incorruptible laughing hypersound
  • Sevastiec 4 May 2020 14: 45 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Today, there are already 12 types of operational-tactical aircraft serving in the Russian Air Force and Navy: MiG-29, MiG-29K, MiG-35, MiG-31, Su-24, Su-25, Su-27, Su-30 , Su-33, Su-34, Su-35, Su-57. Yes, MiG-29, Su-24, Su-2


    Well, that’s not literate. There are not all “types”, here are modifications. Different stages of modernization, for the most part unified.
  • Sancho_SP 4 May 2020 15: 04 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Extra labels to glue on.

    Light, heavy, fighter, interceptor, percussion - these are all about the same machine. One can say, if not compare with each other.

    Aircraft today is a platform with parameters that carries weapons. The platform is universal anyway.

    And the choice of this platform comes down to the purchase and operation price in relation to the effective delivery of a ton of load.


    Why, at the same technological level, it is advisable to have one machine, compensate for its lightness / severity (or rather, cost) quantity.

    Did you make a Su-57? Is it normal? Well, that’s good - we also rivet them until we do something technologically fundamentally different.

    Unification will reduce the cost so much that the relatively low efficiency for any task will be compensated by quantity.


    So, as for the LFMS or something similar, the task should be set not to "do the same as the Su-57, but worse and cheaper", but "to be fundamentally different, qualitatively superior."
  • Whirlwind 4 May 2020 16: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    From what I’ve drawn, I understood one thing - it’s about a supernova hypersonic winged ... rocket.
  • 5-9
    5-9 4 May 2020 17: 48 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Shta, SuperKhornet and Fy-35 light fighters ??? Did they watch their maximum take-off? The Penguin is like a Su-35 ...
    LFMS, except for one second-stage jerk for the Su-2, nafig is not needed ... More precisely, it is not needed at all, because with the required range there will be an iron like a Penguin. With our open spaces you need a range.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 May 2020 18: 32 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: 5-9
      Shta, SuperKhornet and Fy-35 light fighters ???

      Learn to read, please. The article is DIRECTLY written
      The name “light” is very arbitrary here: the author simply “reduced” to this category all multi-functional fighters that are not heavy.
      1. 5-9
        5-9 4 May 2020 19: 09 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Ok, accepted ...
  • Konstantin Pekhlivanov 4 May 2020 18: 31 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    But has the F-35D already appeared? Or is it a typo?
    1. Cympak 5 May 2020 01: 08 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      judging by the text F-35D = F-35B
  • The comment was deleted.
  • smersh chek 4 May 2020 18: 52 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    You can make a drone based on Mig 21

    1. Narak-zempo 5 May 2020 17: 50 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: smersh chek
      You can make a drone based on Mig 21

      He will shine on the radar like a Christmas tree.
    2. futurohunter 25 May 2020 16: 07 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Already been ... Moreover, in Russia, all MiG-21s have long been decommissioned
  • Newone 4 May 2020 22: 04 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Another great article from Andrei from Chelyabinsk.
  • barin 5 May 2020 07: 19 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Need a single engine plane.
    1. 1976AG 5 May 2020 08: 51 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Quote: barin
      Need a single engine plane.

      No. In the single-engine variant, much stricter reliability requirements will be imposed on the engine, which will lead to a significant increase in its cost. And in the event of its failure, even for technical reasons, even as a result of damage, the aircraft will no longer be able to continue flying and is doomed to die, which is an impermissible luxury for modern expensive equipment.
    2. futurohunter 25 May 2020 16: 06 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      A few years ago, the Air Force command decided that we would have only 2-engine aircraft
  • Dormidont Evlampievich 5 May 2020 16: 41 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    After 20 years, there will be no USA on earth
    1. agond 5 May 2020 17: 53 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Speaking about multifunctional and universal airplanes and, as a result, about the reduction of their types, we must assume that somewhere there are universal pilots or should be in the right quantity, but meanwhile people always wherever possible strive for a narrow specialization, take the same doctors or teachers at school (go find someone immediately and conducts physics and mathematics.) it turns out narrow specialization, the first sign of professionalism, the second sign, is the work of a highly specialized tool, and the work of a universal tool is the lot of lovers ...
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 May 2020 18: 41 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: agond
        Speaking about multifunctional and universal airplanes and, as a result, about the reduction of their types, we must assume that there are universal pilots somewhere

        Tell me, is an article on 4 sheets of A4 format so difficult to read? What other versatile pilots when it comes to platform unification? That is, the same LFMS can be produced in fighter versions of gaining dominance in the air and in the strike version. Both those and other machines will be operated by pilots of the corresponding (strike or fighter) specialization.
        Or we write a comment on the principle: "I have not read the article, but I want to speak out"? :)
  • Diverter 5 May 2020 22: 10 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In the press there was an info that ALL SU 30 will be upgraded to SU 35 by installing identical systems, power plants, etc., etc. Thus, the Su 30 and Su 35 can be counted as one machine ..
  • Diverter 5 May 2020 22: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The construction of a single-engine light complex should be based on an engine from SU 57 using the same systems and components from it.
    And yes. We need such a complex.
    1. agond 6 May 2020 11: 35 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      is it about platform unification? That is, the same LFMS can be produced in fighter versions of gaining dominance in the air and in the strike version

      I don’t want to argue, I just know how difficult it is to immediately meet both good and universal, for example, a tool, and to create an equally good fighter and attack aircraft "attack aircraft" on the same platform .. is it possible?
    2. futurohunter 25 May 2020 16: 03 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      What kind of engine is this from the Su-57 ?! Firstly, there is no airplane yet, but there are only flying prototypes that are very different from each other. Secondly, the plane is not a site of any kind and the engine cannot be there! Aircraft is a single system, which is immediately developed with all subsystems. It is impossible to separately design a glider, control system, engines and weapons system - everything is created at the same time and linked to each other. The smaller and lighter aircraft are another aircraft and are designed separately.
      1. Diverter 25 May 2020 22: 05 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        1. For that matter, specialists have not used the word airplane for a long time. Correctly speak the air complex.
        2. My proposal is not clear to you, so I’ll explain in more detail.
        There are Su 57 on two engines. It is necessary to make the same but smaller on one engine.
        To save money, it is necessary to make the most of what is being implemented on the Su 57.
        3. And yes! Engines are designed separately from the glider))))
  • peter rusin_2 6 May 2020 14: 46 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Why are you fucking crazy? Blur out all the secrets of the Motherland! ??
  • 3danimal 6 May 2020 15: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    About attack aircraft: the proportion of aircraft undergoing modernization varies greatly.
    As well as with the F-15: many have the latest radars with AFAR. How many of them are on our planes? ..
    The USA and the Russian Federation have incomparable production and financial capabilities, therefore, the maximum reduction in aircraft types is needed to simplify logistics and pilot training.
    Say, instead of Su-30 and Su-34, MiG-31, produce Su-35. To rebuild factories under new needs, not to buy, "because they produce it."
    A light fighter, of course, is needed. It may be Mig-35 / Mig-29K (although where will this “K” be located? More for export to India ...).
    Obviously, the number of Su-57 will NEVER reach the number of F-22.
    It is worth considering that there is no world conspiracy (3 years ago) to capture Russia, which at different times tried to realize reptilians through the Pechenegs, Mongols, Napoleon or the Nazis smile
    Strong (due to the training and a share of modern technology) air force may be needed, first of all, to contain China, which has historical grievances and territorial claims, IMHO.
  • Vladimir SHajkin 6 May 2020 21: 00 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    LFMS most likely during its development will be converted into a robot
  • Lew
    Lew 7 May 2020 17: 28 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    If a person wonders why we need another plane, but he is either a layman in this matter, or someone else’s agent.
  • futurohunter 25 May 2020 15: 58 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    A strange article ... The author completely forgot about the Yak-130. It is his presence that just raises the question of the LFMS, for this is the LFMS. Why is LFMS needed? Yes, just releasing and operating "big" tactical vehicles is too expensive. I do not remember the price, but the cost of one MiG-29/35 will be approximately 3 Yak-130, and the cost of the Su-27 ... 35 - 5-6 Yak-130. In peacetime, in the absence of a real global threat (and the degradation of the aircraft of the "probable" enemy), the LFMS will completely cope with the great tasks of maintaining airworthiness. With the suppression of militants - too. "Big" cars - rather, like the Strategic Missile Forces, to demonstrate readiness for a "real" war and the ability to repel the aggression of this very "probable". Comparison of the combat characteristics of machines is also strange ... For some reason, the author believes that the F-15 family is better than the Su-27 family, forgetting that initially the family of "dryers" was created with an eye to superiority over the "Needles". Yes, and, corny, "drying" developed later and released later. Disabled F-35 is such a problem aircraft that there is nothing to compare it with. And the F-35 is not a fighter, but a weak front-line bomber! MiG-31 - the aircraft is generally unique, both in terms of performance and purpose, which has nothing to compare with. The Americans now have nothing close. Only few Foxhounds remain and are worn out in order. In the same vein, you can go through other comparisons of the author. About the disagreement of "sushki". There is nothing wrong with the simultaneous presence of the Su-30SM and Su-34. The Su-30 can well complement the Su-34 drums when you need to increase work on the ground. And the Su-34 can stand up for itself in an air battle. By the way, again, the author considers the Su-30CM the antipode of the F-15E. This is not true. The obvious antipode is the Su-34. But the Su-30SM is, nevertheless, more likely a fighter with strike capabilities. By the way, nothing prevents to give shock capabilities and the Su-35, if necessary. However, I'm not a professional, but just for many years interested in the topic, and express my personal opinion
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 25 May 2020 16: 38 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: futurohunter
      A strange article ... The author completely forgot about the Yak-130.

      The author did not forget the Yak-130. The author knows that the Yak-130 is not a combat aircraft.
      Quote: futurohunter
      For some reason, the author believes that the F-15 family is better than the Su-27 family, forgetting that initially the Sushki family was created with an eye to superiority over Igla

      The author does not forget about it. Only now, the author knows that the F-15 underwent very serious upgrades, and the Su-27 did not, and in its present form the Su-27 is quite inferior to the Eagles.
      Quote: futurohunter
      By the way, again, the author considers the Su-30CM the antipode of the F-15E. This is not true. The obvious antipode is the Su-34.

      You are completely mistaken.
  • kris_67 4 June 2020 16: 10 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Funny, "it turned out to be too expensive and was released in a very limited batch" - 187 pcs. ! And Su 57 is much cheaper for this, it was released in large circulation - 5 pcs.
    Expensively or cheaply does not depend on the cost of goods but on the ability of the buyer to purchase this product.
    Almost all articles on Western technology begin with the words “expensive”, F22-expensive, Abrams-expensive, Sea Shadow - expensive, etc. Expensive for Russia but not for the West.
  • alanmal82 14 June 2020 09: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The author, what kind of stupid questions is that the military aviation fleet you listed was developed even in Soviet times, well, let's stop developing, introduce innovations, let our opponents develop, develop and introduce new technologies, and we will sit and see, so what? It’s like with the auto industry, we have been producing classics 01, 06, 07 for decades and the world author has gone ahead in development, but in the auto industry we are only faced with a lag and loss of markets in the military sphere, aviation, this threatens us with the loss of sovereignty and even existence as such Do not forget also that developments in the military sphere are pushing forward the development of both the civilian sphere and the introduction of innovative technologies there and the economy as a whole, the defense industry is the locomotive of the economy, so I think it's a stupid question not to fit such an edition as this.
  • Vitaly Sviridenko 3 July 2020 18: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    All you just need to expect is heels of clumsy planes, Beautiful, but slightly unfinished and cut very decent amounts, but what to call the PAK FA or LFMS project is the 10th .... And taking into account the education reforms, the 20th and neither will be constructed or assembled no one.