Military Review

“Russia has nothing to offer ... like others”: in Vietnam on the replacement of MiG-21 fighters

164
“Russia has nothing to offer ... like others”: in Vietnam on the replacement of MiG-21 fighters

The acquisition of a light interceptor to replace the long-term “retired” MiG-21 remains one of the most difficult tasks facing the Vietnam People’s Army. However, the situation in this regard looks like a dead end.


According to the Vietnamese edition VietDefense, Russia - the traditional supplier of jet aircraft for Hanoi - no longer produces single-engine fighters.

All their advanced MiG and Sukhoi fighters are twin-engine

- notes the media.

As VietDefense points out, the United States showed off the F-16 Block 70/72, delivering it to Vietnam in 2019 for a defense exhibition. But there is no opportunity to purchase it, because at the moment, Hanoi is able to buy only guns from America weapon and "non-lethal equipment."

India proposed HAL Tejas along with the construction of logistics facilities in Vietnam.

The problem here is that Tejas uses a General Electric F404-GE-IN20 ... American-made turbofan engine ... which may cause US objections for the reasons stated above

- explains the publication.

Chinese single-engine fighters, such as the JF-17, are not suitable by default.

The Chinese will not sell what they know is primarily intended to oppose them, not without extreme concessions that Vietnam obviously will not allow

- says VietDefense.

As a result, there remains only the Swedish JAS-39 Gripen. Moreover, he managed to prove himself: Thai JAS-39 fighters demonstrated their superiority over the Chinese J-11A during training battles. However, it should be taken into account that it is unlikely that Russian-made missiles can be combined with the Gripen. If you buy Western counterparts, you have to thoroughly fork out.
Photos used:
https://travelforaircraft.wordpress.com/
164 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. apro
    apro 2 July 2020 01: 29
    38
    The logical conclusions of the Vietnamese ... and extremely sad for Russian aircraft manufacturers. The loss of the niche of single-engine and accordingly cheap aircraft narrowed the export potential.
    1. Private-K
      Private-K 2 July 2020 07: 49
      11
      Quote: apro
      The logical conclusions of the Vietnamese ... and extremely sad for Russian aircraft manufacturers. The loss of the niche of single-engine and accordingly cheap aircraft narrowed the export potential.

      And then there were doubts about why, they say, the UAC "MiG" wants to start the development and production of single-engine light fighters. I then explained why. Here's a hot example.
      But there is no sadness - even twin-engine Russian fighters are more profitable than all the others in terms of money.
      1. Alexey Sommer
        Alexey Sommer 2 July 2020 09: 34
        +3
        Quote: Private-K
        But there is no sadness - even twin-engine Russian fighters

        But they are expensive to maintain.
      2. pavelty
        pavelty 2 July 2020 09: 37
        +5
        Of course, I'm not an expert, but why do we need a single-engine fighter?)) Maybe you know something that I don’t know?
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. svp67
          svp67 2 July 2020 11: 48
          +6
          Quote: pavlentiy
          Of course, I'm not an expert, but why do we need a single-engine fighter?)) Maybe you know something that I don’t know?

          Well, at least in order to spend less resources on their manufacture and in which case lose not two, high-tech and very expensive engines, but only one
          1. AU Ivanov.
            AU Ivanov. 2 July 2020 15: 38
            +2
            In many cases, losing one engine is much easier than two.
            1. svp67
              svp67 2 July 2020 17: 30
              +5
              Quote: AS Ivanov.
              In many cases, losing one engine is much easier than two.

              As the history of the combat use of the F-16 and the operation of the F-35, this rule does not strongly confirm ...
              1. AU Ivanov.
                AU Ivanov. 2 July 2020 17: 41
                13
                One engine: ate a bird on takeoff, surge - goodbye to the car. In the event of combat damage, the picture will be the same. "Rook" is not a fighter, but how many of them returned on parole and one engine.
                1. svp67
                  svp67 2 July 2020 19: 15
                  +3
                  Quote: AS Ivanov.
                  but how many of them returned on parole and one engine.

                  To each his own ... and you just noticed
                  Quote: AS Ivanov.
                  "Rook" is not a fighter
                2. sivuch
                  sivuch 2 July 2020 21: 06
                  +3
                  This is laid in advance. Instead of 100 twin-engine fighters, you can buy 120 single-engine fighters with similar performance characteristics. Even though during operation 5-10 will break.
                  1. Yok Migarek
                    Yok Migarek 2 July 2020 23: 31
                    +4
                    Quote: sivuch
                    This is laid in advance. Instead of 100 twin-engine fighters, you can buy 120 single-engine fighters with similar performance characteristics. Even though during operation 5-10 will break.

                    "5-10 will crash." Fuck !!!
                    Friends are theoretical theorists, why do you always forget about laying between the control handle and the chair? Yes, about that of bones and meat. She wants to live! Give any pilot a choice of single-engine and twin-engine. How many pilots will choose a single-engine ?!
                    1. sivuch
                      sivuch 3 July 2020 08: 35
                      +2
                      This peacetime pilot's life is priceless - like any person. in the military - the life of any soldier has a price. for the pilot it is many times higher. than an infantryman, but also finite. And it is better (including for the pilots themselves) that for the same money either build more aircraft, or so that they have the best performance characteristics.
                      By the way. R. Belyakov’s argument when pushing the ig-29 was enough to lose pilots in peacetime. He didn’t stutter about the military
                      1. Cyril G ...
                        Cyril G ... 3 July 2020 11: 33
                        0
                        And that’s why in the USSR Air Force the losses of the 29s were in the 80s higher than the 23/27 families, even quantitatively, as I understand it. Of course, the novelty factor affected here, however, as if the twin-engine is not impressive here
                    2. your1970
                      your1970 3 July 2020 14: 08
                      0
                      Quote: Yok-Migarek
                      Yes, about that of bones and meat. She wants to live!

                      В to wartime daily killed up to 3 aircraft !!!
                      Actually, for which Rychagova was removed ....
                      Nevertheless, the rest flew !!
                      Quote: Yok-Migarek
                      laying between the control handle and the chair?
                      - if there is a pilot - and not a gasket, then he will get out. A gasket and 5 engines will not help .....
                    3. awdrgy
                      awdrgy 5 July 2020 23: 23
                      0
                      What problems? -Pull the handle and bones overboard
          2. NEOZ
            NEOZ 2 July 2020 16: 47
            +1
            Quote: svp67
            Well, at least in order to spend less resources on their manufacture

            maybe it is worth starting from technical specifications, and not from resources?
            because, if you follow your logic, then MIG21 (or maybe MIG15 !!!!!!) is an ideal airplane ...
            1. svp67
              svp67 2 July 2020 17: 32
              +5
              Quote: NEOZ
              because, if you follow your logic, then MIG21 (or maybe MIG15 !!!!!!) is an ideal airplane ...

              For its time - YES.
              Quote: NEOZ
              maybe it is worth starting from technical specifications, and not from resources?

              To do this, you just need to create it. But we do not yet have the necessary powerful and reliable engine to create a single-engine strike aircraft
              1. Cyril G ...
                Cyril G ... 2 July 2020 17: 47
                +5
                But in the 60s and 70s for some reason it was. The riddle! So in the Air Force appeared MiG-23 family fighters and MiG-23B / Mig-27 family fighters. And by the way, in the 80s, the accident rate of the 23rd and 27th was not more than that of 29 MiGs
                1. Yok Migarek
                  Yok Migarek 2 July 2020 23: 34
                  +2
                  Quote: Cyril G ...
                  But in the 60s and 70s for some reason it was. The riddle! So in the Air Force appeared MiG-23 family fighters and MiG-23B / Mig-27 family fighters. And by the way, in the 80s, the accident rate of the 23rd and 27th was not more than that of 29 MiGs

                  This is an absolute lie! There were practically no Mig-29 accidents due to engine failure. Well, he got up one - turned it off and then drank ...
                  But there are a lot of accidents and, unfortunately (!) Disasters on MiGs 21, 23, 27. Very, very much!
                  1. Cyril G ...
                    Cyril G ... 3 July 2020 00: 01
                    0
                    Exactly not true? And why then did the MiG-29 fight at one time? Well, there are statistics /
                    I now looked at the well-known non-combat losses of the Soviet Air Force according to Aviation Security Network in the 80s. The result is a terrible one lost 13 MiG-23/27 and 18 MiG-29. Well then give a different list refuting me ...
                    1. Yok Migarek
                      Yok Migarek 3 July 2020 22: 02
                      +4
                      Quote: Cyril G ...
                      Exactly not true? And why then did the MiG-29 fight at one time? Well, there are statistics /
                      I now looked at the well-known non-combat losses of the Soviet Air Force according to Aviation Security Network in the 80s. The result is a terrible one lost 13 MiG-23/27 and 18 MiG-29. Well then give a different list refuting me ...

                      I know without a list. He flew both on those and on these. Therefore, so confidently and argue. I am not a theorist, I am a practitioner!
              2. Mikhail Alexandrov
                Mikhail Alexandrov 5 July 2020 15: 08
                0
                I think that he simply is not needed!
          3. akarfoxhound
            akarfoxhound 2 July 2020 19: 03
            +5
            This is a typical opinion of an otherworldly layman who did not sit in a fighter with a failed engine and returned to the point on the second.
            P.S. Yes it was, yes more than once. And over the very cold water of the Pacific Ocean and no less "warm" sea. AND? Tell me for the price ... wink
            1. svp67
              svp67 2 July 2020 19: 17
              +5
              Quote: akarfoxhound
              with a failed engine and returning to a point on the second.

              And here, I’m sorry, you need to improve the quality of the manufacture of engines, and put more advanced self-diagnosis systems on aircraft. Sorry, but the accident statistics of our twin-engine and single-engine aircraft are not very different. What is there, what is there it is quite extensive.
              1. Yok Migarek
                Yok Migarek 2 July 2020 23: 38
                +3
                Quote: svp67
                Quote: akarfoxhound
                with a failed engine and returning to a point on the second.

                And here, I’m sorry, you need to improve the quality of the manufacture of engines, and put more advanced self-diagnosis systems on aircraft. Sorry, but the accident statistics of our twin-engine and single-engine aircraft are not very different. What is there, what is there it is quite extensive.

                No quality can save a foreign object (bird, rocket or shell ...) from getting into the engine.
                And with statistics you do not need to juggle or just invent. Give figures - we will estimate, we will argue. Here I do not believe you ....
                1. svp67
                  svp67 3 July 2020 05: 23
                  -1
                  Quote: Yok-Migarek
                  Here I do not believe you ....

                  Well, in order to be objective, let's compare fighters of one time. Name the brand, raise the data, since they are now available
                  Quote: Yok-Migarek
                  No quality can save a foreign object (bird, rocket or shell ...) from getting into the engine.

                  Well, yes, nothing ... only the trouble is that the flying fragments damage the second engine in most cases, and it does not save much. And how did two engines aboard our Su-34 in the Far East and their pilots save?
                2. Doctor
                  Doctor 7 July 2020 19: 58
                  0
                  No quality can save a foreign object (bird, rocket or shell ...) from getting into the engine.

                  That's right, but why is the F-35 single-engine?
            2. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 2 July 2020 23: 01
              0
              Recently, a twin-engine Su-27 was killed over the sea. The presence of two engines did not help to save at least the pilot ...
              1. akarfoxhound
                akarfoxhound 2 July 2020 23: 10
                +2
                Are you aware of the real reason for the loss of equipment? Or is it just to blurt out, not in the subject, but about the loss ???
                In Russia, unfortunately, the same as you are a pro, Roscosmos controls. He doesn’t understand anything in the subject, but the opinion is weak
                1. Cyril G ...
                  Cyril G ... 2 July 2020 23: 24
                  -2
                  And you? or just anyhow blurt out the topic?
                  The same as you talker and USC taxis. Nothing in the subject but the opinion has a deep opinion.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
      3. NEOZ
        NEOZ 2 July 2020 16: 44
        0
        Quote: Private-K
        I then explained why.

        give a link (or repeat) very interesting !!!!
      4. EvilLion
        EvilLion 3 July 2020 08: 22
        +2
        To develop a new aircraft, it will take 10-15 years, even if it is a designer from ready-made components, and not the Su-57, it will be necessary to make several prototypes, and then introduce it into the series. Despite the fact that the market for such machines is negligible, you can not make money for those who do not have them. And whoever has them, they will buy both the MiG-35 and Su-30, and maybe even the Su-57, if they sell it to them.
    2. NEOZ
      NEOZ 2 July 2020 16: 42
      -2
      Quote: apro
      and extremely sad for Russian aircraft manufacturers. The loss of the niche of single-engine and, accordingly, cheap aircraft narrowed the export potential.

      but no ...
      tell us about the size of the single engine fighter market. and we will appreciate!
      why Vietnam is not interested in buying a used SU27 and MiG29?
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 3 July 2020 12: 37
        0
        Because he has a Su-30MKV.
    3. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 2 July 2020 17: 42
      +2
      It's a pity these cars did not go:
      Su-137

      Or S-54/55/56

      Would be quite appropriate in the weapons market or as attack aircraft for their Air Force
      1. AU Ivanov.
        AU Ivanov. 2 July 2020 21: 37
        +2
        Single engine battlefield aircraft?
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 3 July 2020 06: 45
          -1
          Fighter bomber. A battlefield plane lives only over such a field, where the most formidable AIA is the DShK machine gun.
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 3 July 2020 08: 19
        +2
        You would be familiar with sales of cars of similar sizes and not write nonsense.
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 3 July 2020 11: 30
          -1
          I got acquainted. In comparable performance characteristics, the most massive in recent years is 40 F-16. So you write nonsense, not me.
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 3 July 2020 12: 42
            0
            The F-16 started with an empty weight of 7.5 tons, and now has exceeded 9. Comparing this with projects like the S-54, which is one and a half times smaller, is ridiculous, the F-16 is simply totally surpassing them. Learn the materiel. Similarly, the Mirage-7.5 began with 2000 tons, because this is the minimum dimension in which it was possible to build an aircraft with, more or less, adequate performance characteristics.
      3. EvilLion
        EvilLion 3 July 2020 12: 46
        0
        Firstly, the Su-1 did not exist; there was the Su-137 project, the index of which later received the Su-37M variant with UVT. Secondly, this project was a direct analogue of the F-27, in technologies of the 2th generation, but they did not make the right engine for it. And now such an engine is only on the F-35.
    4. Pacifist
      Pacifist 2 July 2020 17: 54
      +6
      IMHO
      There is no logic here. This is just an Asian trick and a desire to cheaply enter paradise. Two engines are thrust-weight ratio and survivability. For us, this is not very profitable, because to make a really high-quality single-engine aircraft, in fact, shove the 4 ++ stuffing and the second-stage engine into this wunderwafle, well, or as a last resort AL-41 (there’s nothing more interesting by thrust). And what is the result? The price will not be small anyway. In general, I doubt that it will be much cheaper than the instant-35, and to do something less technically meaningful there is not the slightest sense, no one will buy in significant volumes. How much will Vietnam buy? 10-20 pieces? You can actually make such a product with a batch of about 300-400 pieces in order to recoup R&D and pilot production. Those.
      1. The order portfolio must be guaranteed
      2. The machine must be in the arsenal of the country that sells and produces it, but to us it didn’t fall.
      3. If Vietnam plans to confront China in the air, then let it forget. To hundreds of J-11s, J-20s, and J-31s, even if, according to Grippen, they beat J-11s they would be crushed quantitatively at the very first sneeze.

      So if Vietnam wants good airplanes, then it does not have options except for advanced 2-engine ones, but if it's just cheap ... let them offer us to develop a modern version of the MiG-21 with a new dvigl and radar, and with the transfer of technology, and let them pretend that guard.
      1. sivuch
        sivuch 2 July 2020 21: 10
        0
        Vitality - yes, and then with reservations. Thrust-to-weight ratio - no
        1. Andrey.AN
          Andrey.AN 8 July 2020 11: 11
          0
          two smaller turbines, gaining speed faster than one bigger, throttle response is also throttle response.
    5. chingachguc
      chingachguc 2 July 2020 19: 24
      0
      if you produce propulsion aircraft, then you need to take them into service, and they are previously losing to aircraft with two engines. It makes no sense to develop. The program will not pay off
      1. sivuch
        sivuch 2 July 2020 21: 12
        0
        Can you prove it? And not everyone agrees with this
        1. Yok Migarek
          Yok Migarek 2 July 2020 23: 43
          0
          Quote: sivuch
          Can you prove it? And not everyone agrees with this

          No need to prove anything here. Vitaly Ovcharov is right. Absolutely right.
          By a set of criteria, a 2-engine aircraft will always win.
    6. av58
      av58 2 July 2020 23: 39
      +1
      Why should we create single-engine fighters for the sake of the Vietnamese market ???
      This segment is very small. Russian designers create machines according to the technical specifications of the Russian military, and everything else, strictly speaking, on the residual principle wink
    7. EvilLion
      EvilLion 3 July 2020 08: 18
      +2
      But nothing that Vietnam itself has long been sitting on the Su-30MKV and the article is just nonsense?
  2. Well done
    Well done 2 July 2020 01: 39
    14
    Vietnam is the only country that has not launched a car into space and won the war against the United States. So there is enough intelligence and wisdom there. And by savvy, they are only inferior to the Russians.
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 2 July 2020 04: 10
      16
      Quote: Welldone
      Vietnam is the only country that ...

      ... gave the Soviet Union a former American military base in Kamrani for 25 years without rent:
      Unique military facility! And now, all this good passed into our hands - on May 2, 1979, between Vietnam and the USSR, a 25-year agreement was signed on the use of the Kamran base by the USSR Navy. Soon, the largest Soviet military base abroad was built on the basis of Kamran. A regular military unit 31350 was formed in the bay with a total strength of about 6000 troops.

      Quote: Welldone
      and won the war against the USA ...

      ... with the help of Soviet specialists, the training of Vietnamese and the supply of military equipment from the USSR, in the absence of which the US Air Force would simply "roll" the Vietnamese territory with carpet bombing to such an extent that there would be nothing alive.
      1. surok1
        surok1 2 July 2020 14: 37
        0
        Do not underestimate.
      2. Mikhail Alexandrov
        Mikhail Alexandrov 5 July 2020 15: 18
        0
        important TOTAL! mattresses in the ass ....
      3. Mikhail Alexandrov
        Mikhail Alexandrov 5 July 2020 15: 24
        0
        There is no question that they rolled away ... history does not tolerate "if-only." Agree that our deliveries of S-75 turned the tide, mattress toppers were already afraid to fly with impunity, Yes, he himself still served on S-75, a good complex, hard to deploy ...
    2. Ros 56
      Ros 56 2 July 2020 05: 57
      +4
      Specify who won the war in Vietnam.
    3. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 3 July 2020 16: 28
      +2
      Quote: Welldone
      and won the war against the USA

      Did they parade in Washington?
      1. Americans are just tired of a war that brought them nothing
      2. They did not have at that time a professional army
      3.SSSR and China helped with money and weapons
      4.North Korea also conditionally did not lose
      1. Well done
        Well done 3 July 2020 16: 42
        +1
        Well, probably the Americans were parading somewhere? Remind me where? Only at home. And if we recall the countries included in NATO, it will become clear who helps the United States. Well, Kim sent Trump (not his one) in three letters and deserves respect for that.
        1. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 3 July 2020 16: 54
          0
          Quote: Welldone
          Well, probably the Americans were parading somewhere?

          Well, figuratively, Baghdad, Haiti, Tokyo, Berlin (twice). I’m saying that defeating the USA is a little said. Let’s say that the Americans did not achieve their goals
          1. Well done
            Well done 3 July 2020 17: 07
            0
            I agree. The key word is "figurative".
      2. meandr51
        meandr51 3 July 2020 20: 54
        0
        And who helps Afghanistan keep up the United States?
        1. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 4 July 2020 10: 49
          0
          Quote: meandr51
          And who helps Afghanistan keep up the United States?

          Afghanistan or the Taliban? Actually, Afghanistan does not fight America. Nobody helps the Taliban either, well, maybe Pakistan is throwing something
  3. dim13
    dim13 2 July 2020 01: 47
    +5
    On the Saabs, too, the American engine is (modified by Volvo)
  4. Magic archer
    Magic archer 2 July 2020 01: 54
    +9
    I did not understand the last paragraph of the article. What does Eurofighter and Rafal have to do with it, if they are both twin-engine !? Somehow it doesn’t fit into the general outline, since Vietnam needs a light, single-engine fighter ....
  5. Sergey39
    Sergey39 2 July 2020 02: 21
    +6
    Let them buy twin-engine. What is the problem?
    1. Graz
      Graz 2 July 2020 02: 41
      +8
      Well, apparently expensive for them in content, as a result, I think the Yankees will use f-16
    2. chingachguc
      chingachguc 2 July 2020 19: 24
      0
      expensive for them
  6. Revolver
    Revolver 2 July 2020 03: 18
    +4
    What did they not have MIG-29? What do they need, a cheap light fighter, or a number of engines? SAAB with one engine will cost much more than a MIG with two, and which one is better still flies a question. Or let their MIG-21 upgrade. Israel offers electronics with which it will be quite adequate as an interceptor, and Russia will provide spare parts for the glider and dviglo Russia.
    1. kytx
      kytx 2 July 2020 03: 51
      13
      Mig29 is not at all cheap. Neither for the price nor for the operation. Well, F16 is certainly even cooler.
      Now there is no such plane as the Vietnamese want, about which there is an article.
      1. kytx
        kytx 2 July 2020 03: 53
        +1
        Israel is unlikely to undertake the modernization of the Vietnamese Migi.
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 2 July 2020 11: 58
          0
          Quote: kytx
          Israel is unlikely to undertake the modernization of the Vietnamese Migi.

          It and ours can be upgraded. I came across information: both the locator and the engine are changed. After which he may well compete with more modern fighters.
  7. Lipchanin
    Lipchanin 2 July 2020 04: 06
    +2
    If you buy Western counterparts, you have to fork out thoroughly.

    Think guys and don't forget the wisdom about cheese and mousetrap what
  8. gregoryivanov
    gregoryivanov 2 July 2020 04: 21
    -8
    And what about our Yak, is not quoted anymore? Great car. Single-engine, as the Vietnamese want. Weapons do not need to be redone for existing ammunition - all of our, dear, practically, all the nomenclature can be used.
    1. Magic archer
      Magic archer 2 July 2020 04: 25
      +4
      Do not write nonsense. Yak is UBS. And how can not compete with a full fighter. What do you mean. From the word no matter how. Just google it. And don't ask stupid questions
      1. gregoryivanov
        gregoryivanov 2 July 2020 05: 12
        10 th
        The key word is training-BATTLE, my dear Google lover. He is completely free to carry out combat missions.
        1. Lipchanin
          Lipchanin 2 July 2020 05: 28
          +5
          [quote = gregoryivanov] Keyword - training-BATTLE, [/ quote]
          Actually, they don’t just need combat
          [quote] lung interceptor [/ Quote]
          I don’t think that Yak can be an interceptor
          1. Avior
            Avior 2 July 2020 08: 32
            +6
            You are completely right
            The Yak-130 is a subsonic aircraft with a maximum speed of 960 km per hour, taking into account suspensions.
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 2 July 2020 12: 03
              +1
              Quote: Avior
              The Yak-130 is a subsonic aircraft with a maximum speed of 960 km per hour, taking into account suspensions.

              Moreover, twin-engine and not at all cheap.
              And I would rearrange the accents: from "combat training" to "combat training". Since combat pilots should learn on it, there is an opportunity to use weapons on this desk. It is for study, not for battles.
      2. PROXOR
        PROXOR 2 July 2020 11: 16
        0
        Well, if you face the truth, then the MIG-21 in the latest version does not compete with modern fighters.
      3. NEOZ
        NEOZ 2 July 2020 16: 51
        0
        Quote: Magic Archer
        Do not write nonsense. Yak is UBS.

        he Yak3 meant.
    2. mmaxx
      mmaxx 2 July 2020 05: 46
      +8
      There are 2 dvigla
    3. Avior
      Avior 2 July 2020 07: 04
      12
      And where did you get that yak single-engine?
      Where is the prime mover of the business? smile
      1. Revolver
        Revolver 2 July 2020 07: 21
        0
        Quote: Avior
        Where is the prime mover of the business?

        They probably communized
    4. chingachguc
      chingachguc 2 July 2020 19: 25
      0
      this is not a fighter
  9. Grits
    Grits 2 July 2020 04: 48
    +4
    This is another argument in favor of those who argue that Russia needs to have (or at least start developing) a light, cheap single-engine fighter. And I would have come in handy and exported would have gone for a sweet soul.
    But we are great, we are not exchanging trifles. We gigantomania is more important.
    1. Avior
      Avior 2 July 2020 07: 07
      10
      The error, in my opinion, went from the Mig-29
      It was necessary to implement the conceived combination of single-engine instant 29 + twin-engine su-27, as was originally intended, even if it were necessary to invest in the creation of a suitable engine
      1. zadorin1974
        zadorin1974 2 July 2020 09: 08
        +6
        Good Sergey. There was no mistake. The Air Force ordered the development of two engine aircraft for themselves and not for sale. They do not save for themselves (the same SU-25, having received a missile in one of the engines, calmly returned to base.). Separately for foreign It’s not profitable to develop customers now.
        1. sivuch
          sivuch 2 July 2020 10: 03
          +5
          The Air Force did not specify how many engines are needed for LFI. Here are the Mikoyans and used their previous achievements of a promising fighter instead of starting a new development from scratch.
          Despite the fact that the single-engine fighter was definitely more promising. I hope there is no need to explain why a fighter with an engine of 10 tons of thrust will be better than from 2 to 5 tons?
          Have you heard of a fighter of a special period? It was a very interesting story. The developers were asked to slightly adjust the LTX so that they were not better than 9-12.
          1. zadorin1974
            zadorin1974 2 July 2020 10: 19
            0
            I haven’t heard. I’ll sing it)))) I’m reading it. A special period, as I understand it, is the conduct of a global conflict?
            1. sivuch
              sivuch 2 July 2020 10: 41
              +1
              Yes . then created a fighter and attack aircraft of a special period (ed. 101). Unfortunately . they did not come out of the paper stage.
            2. sivuch
              sivuch 2 July 2020 11: 06
              +1
              I recommend - it reads like a novel
              http://forums.airbase.ru/2005/11/t35600_7--v-rossii-mozhet-byt-razrabotan-odnodvigatelnyj-istrebitel-py.html
              In Russia, a fifth-generation single-engine fighter can be developed (part 7, and beyond, too). And also it
              http://forums.airbase.ru/2008/02/t59670_23--neskolko-voprosov-pro-mig-29.html
              A few questions about the Mig-29 (part 23 onwards) are also here about the choice of 1 or 2-motor schemes.
          2. NEOZ
            NEOZ 2 July 2020 16: 57
            -1
            Quote: sivuch
            I hope there is no need to explain why a fighter with an engine of 10 tons of thrust will be better than from 2 to 5 tons?

            please explain
            1. sivuch
              sivuch 2 July 2020 17: 22
              0
              post from 17.20
        2. Avior
          Avior 2 July 2020 14: 57
          +3
          I had to read something like that from the very beginning I saw a bunch by analogy with the American
          But really, moment 29, like the Yak-45 competition presented, were originally twin-engine
          I believe that the decision to design a single-engine aircraft would make it possible to obtain a very massive inexpensive aircraft with good export potential.
          But in practice, the Mig-29 and Su-27 were too close
          1. NEOZ
            NEOZ 2 July 2020 16: 59
            0
            Quote: Avior
            would allow you to get a very massive inexpensive aircraft,

            what for? pilots then a limited number?
          2. NEOZ
            NEOZ 2 July 2020 17: 00
            -2
            Quote: Avior
            with good export potential.

            sound volume of the given market in pieces (country / quantity)
            1. Avior
              Avior 2 July 2020 17: 13
              +3
              widespread in the world, Mig-21 would have long been changed to a single-engine, inexpensive Mig-29, if it was.
              but it is not, and there’s nothing to change 21 ....
              1. NEOZ
                NEOZ 2 July 2020 17: 15
                -4
                Quote: Avior
                widespread in the world, Mig-21 would have long been changed to a single-engine, inexpensive Mig-29, if it was.
                but it is not, and there’s nothing to change 21 ....

                I see ... in fact you have nothing to say ....
                1. Avior
                  Avior 2 July 2020 17: 39
                  +4
                  But would you like me to conduct a full-fledged marketing research for free and attach to each statement of protokorla of intent?
                  Are you planning to produce fighter jets and want to save some money?smile You did not specify a time frame, so I give you the alignment of the market since its inception
                  The modern market and the past, which could become the market of the single-engine instant-29, if it were. In reality, those MIG-21 that remained in service would have long been replaced by a new single-engine engine and delayed MIG-21, because there was nothing to change. Including current NATO countries and others.
                  Chinese J-7 do not count.


                  Angola - 20 MiG-21bis / MF, as of 2016 [24].
                  Vietnam - 25 MiG-21bis, 8 MiG-21UM, as of 2016 [25].
                  Egypt - about 50 MiG-21 / U, as of 2016 [25].
                  Zambia - 8 MiG-21MF and 2 MiG-21U, as of 2016 [26].
                  India - 115 MiG-21, 40 MiG-21M / MF and 40 MiG-21U / UM, as of 2016 [27] [28]. In total, the Indian Air Force received 946 MiG-21, by the way.
                  And now they are trying to replace it with their crafts.
                  Cambodia - 4 MiG-21 of the latest modifications, as of 2011 [33].
                  North Korea - 120 Mig-21F-13 / J-7 / PFM, 30 Mig-21bis and some Mig-21U / UM, as of 2016 [34] [35].
                  we do not take into account the PRC today - 200 JJ-7, 216 J-7, 192 J-7E and 120 J-7G, as of 2016 [36]. The MiG-21F-3 in the form of a licensed copy of Chengdu J-7 was produced from 1966 to 2008 and for a long time formed the basis of the Chinese Air Force. The export version of the aircraft was designated F-7 and was widely shipped worldwide. In total, more than 2 Chengdu J-400 / F-7s were produced [7].
                  Cuba - 4 MiG-21ML and 8 MiG-21U, as well as 70 Mig-21bis, 30 Mig-21F, 28 Mig-21PFM and 7 Mig-21UM in storage, as of 2016 [37] [38].
                  Libya - more than 1 Mig-21bis and more than 5 Mig-21MF, as of 2016 [39].
                  Madagascar - 9 MiG-21, as of 2011 [40].
                  Mali - 1 Mig-21MF and 1 Mig-21UM, probably not operational, as of 2016 [44] [45]. In 1986, 12 MiG-21MF and MiG-21UM arrived from the USSR. In 2005, three more MiG-21MF were acquired in the Czech Republic. Aircraft are based in Bamako [41] [42] [46] [47].
                  Mozambique - 6 MiG-21bis and 2 MiG-21UM, as of 2016 [48].
                  Romania - 10 MiG-21 Lancer A, 6 MiG-21 Lancer B and 20 MiG-21 Lancer C, as of 2016 [49] [50]. They were modernized in the early 2000s. Work on modernization of aircraft was carried out by the Romanian company Aerostar and Israeli Elbit Systems. Decommissioning of obsolete aircraft will begin in 2013.
                  Serbia - 20 MiG-21bis Fishbed L&N and 6 MiG-21UM, as of 2016 [51] [52]. After the collapse of Yugoslavia, most of its Air Force withdrew to Serbia, including a large number of MiG-21R, MiG-21M, MiG-21MF, MiG-21bis and MiG-21UM. A number of MiG-21M, MiG-21bis and MiG-21UM still remain in service with the Serbian Air Force [53]. In 2014, 1 aircraft is maintained in a flightable state [54].
                  Syria - 79 MiG-21, as of 2016 [55] [56].
                  Uganda - 5 MiG-21bis, 1 MiG-21U and 1 MiG-21UM, as of 2016 [57].
                  Croatia - 5 MiG-21bis and 4 MiG-21UM-D, as of 2016 [58] [59]. The first MiG-21 of the Croatian Air Force was hijacked by a Yugoslav Air Force pilot: on February 4, 1992, Captain Danila Borovich deserted and flew from Bihac to Pula on his MiG-21bis. Two more MiG-21bis were hijacked by Croatian pilots on May 15, 1992. After the ceasefire, the Croats in Germany acquired about two dozen MiG-21bis and four MiG-21UM. In 2003-2004, eight MiG-21bis and four MiG-21UM were modernized in Romania, after which the fighters received the designations MiG-21bisD and MiG-21UMD (D - Doradien, revised), respectively [60]. In 2013, the Ukrainian state-owned company Ukrspetsexport won the tender for the modernization of 7 Croatian MiG-21s and the delivery of another 5 upgraded MiG-21s from the presence of the Odesaviaremservis SE [61]. The transaction amount is estimated at $ 13,7 million.
                  Guinea - 3 MiG-21 (non-operational), as of 2016 [62]
                  Ethiopia - 15 MiG-21MF / UM, probably not operational, as of 2016 [63]
                  Was in service [edit | edit code]
                  The countries represented on this list do not include those in the air forces of which Chengdu J-7 / F-7 (Chinese-made MiG-21) was in service.

                  USSR - MiG-21 of the last production series remaining in the newly formed republics after the collapse of the USSR, were withdrawn from service in the early 1990s.
                  Yugoslavia - On December 25, 1962, the Air Forces of Yugoslavia began to receive the MiG-21, the first option received in Yugoslavia was the MiG-21F-13 (Yugoslav designation L-12). 45 fighters were delivered, the last aircraft of this modification were withdrawn from service in 1980. Subsequently, the Air Force received 9 MiG-21U (NL-12), delivery began in 1965, 36 MiG-21PFM (L-13) in 1968, 9 MiG-21US (NL-14) in 1969, 12 MiG-21R (L-14I) and 25 MiG-21M (L-15) in 1970, as well as 6 MiG-21MF in 1975. In 1977, the MiG-21bis and MiG-21UM began to arrive; the Yugoslav Air Force received 100 fighters and 35 training aircraft, respectively. After the collapse of Yugoslavia, all MiG-21s, with the exception of a few hijacked ones, went to Serbia [64] [65].
                  Algeria
                  Azerbaijan. They shot the MiG-21 in 2012.
                  Afghanistan
                  Bangladesh - At the beginning of 1973, the Bangladesh Air Force received 12 MiG-21MF and 2 MiG-21UM. The latest MiG-21UM were withdrawn from service in 1994 and transferred to the military museum. [66] [67]
                  Bulgaria - 10 MiG-21bis and 2 MiG-21UM, as of 2011 [68]. Starting in September 1963, the 19th fighter aviation regiment received 12 MiG-21F-13, subsequently some of these aircraft were converted into a reconnaissance version of the MiG-21F-13R [69] and transferred to the 26th reconnaissance aviation regiment. Decommissioned in 1988. In January 1965, the second squadron of the 18th air regiment received 12 MiG-21PF, as in the case of the F-13, some of these aircraft were converted into a reconnaissance version of the MiG-21PFR [70] and transferred to the 26th reconnaissance air regiment. Discontinued in 1991. In addition to the MiG-21PF, in 1965 the Bulgarian Air Force received 12 MiG-21PFM. In 1977-1978, they were followed by another 36 used Soviet MiG-21PFM and two such fighters in 1984. All MiG-21PFM were in service with the 15th regiment until 1992. In 1962, the 26th rap received six reconnaissance MiG-21Rs. In 1969-1970, in the 19th IAP, 15 MiG-21M arrived; these aircraft finished their service in 1990 in the 21st IAP. In 1974-1975, she received twenty MiG-21MFs in Bulgaria, some of which were later converted to the reconnaissance version of the MiG-21MFR [69] and transferred to the 26th reconnaissance regiment. These aircraft were withdrawn from service in 2000. From 1983 to 1990, the Bulgarian Air Force received 72 MiG-21bis. Half of them were self-propelled guns (30 new, 6 second-hand), these fighters received the 19th air regiment, and the second half with the Lazur system. In addition to the combat MiG-21s, the Bulgarian Air Force received 39 munitions in the variants MiG-21U (1 in 1966), MiG-21US (5 in 1969-1970) and MiG-21UM (27 new in 1974-1980 and 6 second-hand Soviet in 1990). The latest MiG-21 training was withdrawn from service in 2000, and before that, in 1994, ten MiG-21UMs were sold to India. December 18, the operation of the MiG-21 in Bulgaria ceased [71] [72].
                  Burkina Faso - In 1984, 8 MiG-21MF were delivered from the USSR. The fighters were stationed at the air base in Ouagadougou. The last serviceable aircraft was decommissioned in 2000 [66] [73].
                  Hungary - in the early 1960s, the USSR delivered 48 MiG-21F-13 fighters to Hungary. In 1964, the first of 24 MiG-21PF interceptors entered service, in 1971 the first of 48 MiG-21MF. In 1975-1979, the Hungarians received 62 MiG-21bis fighters. In addition to combat aircraft, the Hungarian Air Force received a twin - 16 MiG-21U and 24 MiG-21UM. In 1978, the MiG-21F-13 were withdrawn from service, and in 1990–2000, the rest of the MiG-21 modifications followed. The MiG-21bis / UM variants lasted the longest. [74]
                  Guinea
                  Guinea-Bissau
                  GDR - In May 1962, their first MiG-21F-13 was received by the JG-8 regiment in Neuhardenberg, followed by these fighters JG-9 in Peenemuende and JG-3 in Nice-Malxetall, a total of 75 fighters. In 1978-1985, the MiG-21F-13 was withdrawn from service. In March 1964, the first MiG-8PF entered the JG-21 aviation regiment. A total of 53 fighters of this model were obtained, which served until 1986-1988. From April 1965, until July 1967, 45 MiG-21 training units were distributed, distributed between air regiments armed with the MiG-21 and the FAG-15 training unit. In June 1968, deliveries of the MiG-21PFM began, they were received 134 copies. In December 1968 - August 1970, the number of sparks increased by seventeen MiG-21US. At the same time, in July 1969 - December 1970, the GDR Air Force received 87 MiG-21Ms. Twelve MiG-21Ms from the JG-8 were transferred to the Syrian Air Force in 1973. From June 1971 to March 1978, 37 MiG-21UM trainers were delivered. In April 1972, the first 3 MiG-14MF entered the JG-21 aviation regiment, followed by 48 more fighters of this type. The last option received in the GDR was the MiG-21bis. From October 1975 to May 1978, 46 fighters of this type arrived from the USSR. In total, the GDR Air Force received 456 MiG-21s, of which 251 were still in service at the time of German unification [75].

                  .

                  to be continued....
                2. Avior
                  Avior 2 July 2020 17: 40
                  0

                  Flag of DR Congo Democratic Republic of the Congo - in 1997, four MiG-21PFM were acquired from Serbia [73] [76].
                  Flag of the Republic of Congo Republic of the Congo - in 1986 in the USSR 14 MiG-21bis and 2 MiG-21UM were acquired. By 1997, 5 fighters and one spark remained in service. Discontinued. [73] [77] [78]
                  Kyrgyzstan - 21 MiG-21, as of 2010 [79]
                  Laos

                  Mozambique
                  Mongolia - 10 MiG-21, as of 2011 [80]. In early 1977, the Mongolian Air Force received the first 8 MiG-21PF and 4 MiG-21UM. In total, in 1977-1984, the Mongolian Air Force received 44 aircraft of this type. After the reforms in the army of Mongolia, they were removed from the country's air force.
                  Nigeria - in 1975, the Nigerian Air Force received 25 MiG-21MF and 6 MiG-21UM from the USSR. In the early 90s, fighter flights were discontinued due to the lack of material and technical assistance provided by the Soviet Union [42] [81].
                  Poland - the first MiG-21F-13 received the Polish Air Force in 1961. In total, by 1963, 25 fighter jets that had served until 1973 were acquired. They were followed by the MiG-21 in the following modifications, in 1964-1965 the MiG-21PF (84 fighters, were retired from 1989), in 1965-1966 - the training MiG-21U (11 aircraft were retired from 1990 year), in 1966-1968 - MiG-21PFM (132 fighters, were withdrawn from service in 1989), in 1968-1972 - reconnaissance MiG-21R (36 aircraft, were withdrawn from service in 1997), in 1969-1970 - training and training MiG-21US (12 aircraft, withdrawn from service in 2003) and MiG-21M (36 fighters, decommissioned in 2002), in 1971-1981 - MiG-21UM (54 aircraft, decommissioned in 2003) , in 1972-1975 - the MiG-21MF (120 fighters, decommissioned in 2003), and since 1979 the MiG-21bis began to arrive at the Polish Air Force (72 fighters, were withdrawn from service in 1999). In total, Poland received 582 MiG-21s in six combat modifications, three trainers and one reconnaissance, which have been in service for 40 years [82].
                  Somalia - MiG-21, Ethiopo-Somali war 1977-1978.
                  Tanzania
                  Finland - in 2000, the last MiG-21 were withdrawn from service.
                  Czechoslovakia - produced under license by Aero Vodochody, built 194 aircraft.
                  .

                  Probably, not all of them would have been replaced in due time by a single-engine instant-29.
                  But most of this list would be replaced.
                  Here you have the market ....
                  He never dreamed of real MiG-29
                  hi
                  1. Cyril G ...
                    Cyril G ... 3 July 2020 06: 42
                    0
                    Here, a number of our colleagues actively objected to how in the Arctic over the sea and with one engine.
                    I object to the merits.
                    Firstly, it was not a marine fighter, but a front-line / fighter bomber. The difference must surely be clear.
                    Secondly, the attack aircraft of the fleet even up to zero flew on the Su-17, I don’t remember only when the Black Sea Fleet reconstructed from Su-17 to Su-24 there.
                    Thirdly, we look at the statistics of combat losses in Afghanistan, the MiG-23/27 lost less both quantitatively and based on the sortie twin engine attack aircraft Su-25
          3. Grits
            Grits 3 July 2020 07: 28
            +1
            Quote: Avior
            But in practice, the Mig-29 and Su-27 were too close

            That’s why it doesn’t work now for migrants to shove their Mig-35 either for export or for their MO. The car is good, but expensive and almost heavy Su-30/35. And there would be a cheap and easy single-engine - now they would take away with hands.
      2. NEOZ
        NEOZ 2 July 2020 16: 54
        -2
        Quote: Avior
        The error, in my opinion, went from the Mig-29

        Did you make this conclusion based on the needs of Vietnam?
        1. Avior
          Avior 2 July 2020 16: 59
          +3
          no
          with a single-engine light fighter, the Soviet air force would be much more balanced at a lower cost
          1. NEOZ
            NEOZ 2 July 2020 17: 14
            -3
            Quote: Avior
            single-engine light fighter the Soviet air force would be much more balanced at a lower cost

            The Russian Federation is 40% of the USSR .... the design of a new aircraft (with unclear prospects) will cost the budget about 500 SU fighters and 15 years .... or maybe more ... is it worth it?
            1. Avior
              Avior 3 July 2020 08: 34
              +1
              I wrote that it was a Soviet-era mistake
    2. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 2 July 2020 12: 09
      -1
      Quote: Gritsa
      But we are great, we are not exchanging trifles. We gigantomania is more important.

      And then gigantomania? The second engine increases the survival of the machine in battle.
      If it was a robot - another thing. And where there is a person sitting, a specialist who needs to be raised for at least five years, survival should be on the same line with efficiency.
      1. Grits
        Grits 3 July 2020 07: 33
        +1
        Quote: Bad_gr
        The second engine increases the survival of the machine in battle.

        Compare the survival of the single-engine Mig-23 and twin-engine Su-25 in Afghanistan. With similar tasks and comparable sorties, it will be about the same. So this is a weak argument.
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 3 July 2020 11: 02
          0
          I was in Afghanistan from 1983 to 1985. Su-25s flew all the time, and I didn’t even see the MiG-23 at airfields, although in the first year I traveled most of Afghanistan (with measurements of lightning protection of art warehouses). So there’s nothing to compare.
    3. NEOZ
      NEOZ 2 July 2020 16: 56
      +1
      Quote: Gritsa
      This is another argument in favor of those who argue that Russia needs to have

      argument is Vietnam’s need? .... and if Limpopo would buy a spaceship, would that also be an argument?
      1. Grits
        Grits 3 July 2020 07: 34
        +1
        Quote: NEOZ
        argument is Vietnam's need?

        The argument is the need for all of Africa and a large part of Asia for such aircraft. Does the Mig-21 example tell you anything?
  10. Nitarius
    Nitarius 2 July 2020 04: 49
    10 th
    Well, there is the Yak-130! I fully think that it will cope with such tasks .. yes, two engines .. but it is smart enough!
  11. Magic archer
    Magic archer 2 July 2020 05: 00
    +3
    Quote: Magic Archer
    I did not understand the last paragraph of the article. What does Eurofighter and Rafal have to do with it, if they are both twin-engine !? Somehow it doesn’t fit into the general outline, since Vietnam needs a light, single-engine fighter ....

    Pee si. The author is well done. Corrected the end of the article! I removed the ridiculous paragraph with the mentioned Rafale and Eurofighter wink
    1. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins 2 July 2020 06: 28
      +6
      And the author has a foreign surname - Anonymous .... laughing
  12. Thrifty
    Thrifty 2 July 2020 05: 05
    -3
    And Yak130 in the role of a light combat aircraft will not suit them? In general, indeed, we needed to make a light single-engine fighter, primarily for export!
    1. NEOZ
      NEOZ 2 July 2020 17: 02
      -4
      Quote: Thrifty
      primarily for export!

      First of all, study the fighter aviation market .... and then ... then, write what you need and what you don’t need ...
  13. Ros 56
    Ros 56 2 July 2020 05: 56
    -2
    And why they are not satisfied with a twin-engine aircraft? With fuel strained?
    1. cost 75
      cost 75 2 July 2020 06: 22
      +5
      Quote: Ros 56
      And why they are not satisfied with a twin-engine aircraft? With fuel strained?

      Cheaper to operate, easier to maintain.
      1. NEOZ
        NEOZ 2 July 2020 17: 03
        -2
        Quote: kos 75
        Cheaper to operate, easier to maintain.

        then they need to offer YAK3 !!!!!!!
  14. Avior
    Avior 2 July 2020 06: 48
    +3
    It is not entirely clear why the Vietnamese have a problem buying American F-16s, if the Americans themselves brought them to the exhibition.
    They have a great deal of military cooperation with the United States; dozens of States pass patrol boats and ships to Vietnam.
    So it's hard to understand why they should have problems in aviation.
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 2 July 2020 08: 29
      +2
      Well, bringing in doesn’t mean approving the sale. The corporation will certainly lobby. But still, not a fact. The deal must be approved by Democrats / Republicans, and there may be phantom pains, etc. Under Obama, they would have easily shoved it. Now this is a problem. Well, or they will require dancing to the tune (plus it’s not clear who, it’s better to wait for the elections so that there is clarity for the next five-year period).
    2. sivuch
      sivuch 2 July 2020 10: 07
      +1
      Then political problems may begin - Congress / Trump / who else doesn’t like Vietnamese politics in any field (lack of democracy, oppression of baboons - you never know) and difficulties with spare parts will immediately arise.
      1. Avior
        Avior 2 July 2020 17: 14
        0
        It doesn’t interfere with Vietnam with the Navy, why should it interfere with aviation?
        1. sivuch
          sivuch 2 July 2020 17: 33
          +1
          c Navy is not critical. So far, its basis is Varshavyanka and Cheetahs.
          1. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 2 July 2020 17: 55
            0
            And what about the Navy? I only remember that Vietnam was shoved as a gift by an ancient ship of the Bohr type Sherman
            1. Avior
              Avior 2 July 2020 23: 30
              0
              18 new patrol boats.
              and a large patrol ship (Hamilton type) looks pretty well obviously in good condition ....
              1. Cyril G ...
                Cyril G ... 2 July 2020 23: 31
                0
                How does he look good?
                1. Avior
                  Avior 2 July 2020 23: 33
                  0
                  very well maintained.
                  Vietnamese do not complain.
                  Sri Lanka, the Philippines, too, no complaints.
                  Large patrol of three and a half thousand tons
                  1. Cyril G ...
                    Cyril G ... 3 July 2020 00: 05
                    0
                    I was on board the same. Yes, well-groomed. It’s not clear how he will help Vietnam.
                    1. Avior
                      Avior 3 July 2020 03: 34
                      0
                      The same as any other nautical patrol
                      As I understand it, the Vietnamese will not have money for such patrol ships, they will rather make a frigate
  15. Herman 4223
    Herman 4223 2 July 2020 07: 24
    +2
    We need a light machine to keep the cost of maintenance at the level of instant 21. Only Italians can offer such a car now (a fighter based on the Yak-130 analogue) and Swedish flu. As for me to take them an instant 35 and not to bathe, of course more expensive but there will be more sense.
  16. Charik
    Charik 2 July 2020 08: 15
    -1
    so buy from your american killers
  17. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 2 July 2020 09: 41
    +2
    Hanoi’s traditional supplier of jet aircraft - no longer produces single-engine fighters.
    There is not enough money for a purchase with two engines, and those offered with one are a little expensive. But no one will individually produce single-engine and besides cheap for Vietnam. So you have to scratch your turnip, which is better - to buy small arms (?) And equipment in the United States or save on this splurge on a modern plane?
  18. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 2 July 2020 09: 45
    +1
    I give Vietnamese free advice. Together with Iran and North Korea, they themselves make upgrades of the F-5 or Mig-21 / F-7 variant and their weapons.
    1. NEOZ
      NEOZ 2 July 2020 17: 05
      -3
      Quote: Kostadinov
      Together with Iran and North Korea, they themselves make upgrades of the F-5 or Mig-21 / F-7 variant and their weapons.

      nobody produces anything ...
      and yes ... free advice costs nothing ....
  19. Victor67
    Victor67 2 July 2020 10: 37
    -2
    It is strange that the Vietnamese are so clingy with the purchase of a normal aircraft such as our 35th. They have quite a normal economy somewhere in the first 50 places in the world, developing by leaps and bounds, the industry rivets everything from textiles to cars and electronics. It could well afford the purchase and maintenance of several tens of Mig. It’s like they bought and use Su-30s, and they don’t starve.
  20. Vlad Malkin
    Vlad Malkin 2 July 2020 10: 52
    0
    Yes, sadness among the Vietnamese! They will think for a long time - they will remain without aviation!
  21. Eug
    Eug 2 July 2020 12: 15
    0
    They refused to make the Su-56, although the niche left after the decommissioning of the MiG-21 is still there with quite a cost-effective number, especially considering the single engine and equipment based on the Su-3x. I heard that the main initiator of the abandonment of single-engine aircraft was the then Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force - "long-range" .. I don’t know how true this is, but they refused ..
    1. NEOZ
      NEOZ 2 July 2020 17: 08
      -3
      Quote: Eug
      Su-56 refused to do

      because their performance characteristics were at the level of J10 .... i.e. much worse MIG29 .....
      Quote: Eug
      the then Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force - "long-range" .. I don’t know how true this is, but they refused ..

      because he was not!
  22. Old26
    Old26 2 July 2020 12: 31
    0
    Quote: Gritsa
    This is another argument in favor of those who argue that Russia needs to have (or at least start developing) a light, cheap single-engine fighter. And I would have come in handy and exported would have gone for a sweet soul.
    But we are great, we are not exchanging trifles. We gigantomania is more important.

    The only question is, do we need a single-engine fighter? And not for export, but specifically for the Russian Aerospace Forces? IMHO now everyone is trying to get away from the single-engine scheme, because twin-engine more reliable.
    The single-engine variants developed in the Sukhoi Design Bureau did not go, such as S-55, S-56, S-57.
    Start stirring up a single engine, just because Vietnam needed it? And how on TTX such a single-engine will look against the background of the same light twin-engine MIG-29
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 2 July 2020 12: 59
      +3
      And how on TTX such a single-engine will look against the background of the same light twin-engine MIG-29
      Much better .
    2. Avior
      Avior 2 July 2020 15: 30
      +5
      This is not to say that the Americans considered the operating experience of a single-engine f-16 to be negative. They continued with the same single-engine
      1. Eug
        Eug 3 July 2020 07: 50
        0
        Russia, in particular, Sukhoi Design Bureau, has experience operating a single and twin engine aircraft on the same engine — these are the Su-24 and Su-17. It would be interesting to know the numbers, including and the economy ...
        1. The comment was deleted.
    3. Sancho_SP
      Sancho_SP 2 July 2020 15: 43
      +2
      Yes, it’s not the number of engines, but the tasks performed, the purchase price and the price of flight hours.

      Light vehicles are being superseded by drones, and we have medium and heavy ones.
    4. NEOZ
      NEOZ 2 July 2020 17: 09
      -3
      Quote: Old26
      And how on TTX such a single-engine will look against the background of the same light twin-engine MIG-29

      like Chinese J10 ..... i.e. very weak!
      1. sivuch
        sivuch 2 July 2020 17: 34
        +2
        Well, you should at least read ed. 41. I did give a link
  23. Old26
    Old26 2 July 2020 13: 15
    +3
    Quote: sivuch
    And how on TTX such a single-engine will look against the background of the same light twin-engine MIG-29
    Much better .

    That he will surpass the twin-engine in all respects, starting from the total thrust, speed, flight range, combat load, etc.
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 2 July 2020 17: 20
      +2
      Not for everyone, of course. The durability of a twin-engine will be better. But in order to achieve it, one must additionally invest. For example, put two boxes of aircraft units, two generators, a firewall, preferably armored. so that the blades of one engine do not blow the second. At the same 9-12 high thrust-to-weight ratio was achieved due to the relatively small amount of fuel - I think. You yourself know what he was called.
      Two engines - this is an increased midship and the area washed, the extra weight is not only due to the engine itself, but also to the greater mass of the structure, two control systems and other body kit.
  24. Pavel57
    Pavel57 2 July 2020 15: 31
    0
    And whose Swedes have engines? And then they are not much cheaper than the MiG-35.
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 2 July 2020 18: 03
      0
      American imports, because Grippen and here in the span ....
  25. Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 2 July 2020 15: 37
    0
    They were given a single-engine aircraft. Used Su-27s are quite suitable for them in such format of modernization for which there is Enough money. And at the price of influenza, you can offer the Su-30MKI with low mileage.
    1. Victor67
      Victor67 2 July 2020 17: 05
      -1
      They already have Su, I believe that they would like to get something cheap at all, so fly along the coast and show in parades. They absolutely have no one to fight there, well, if only they clash with China over the disputed islands, but there at least the 57th buy, they will smash it in 2 hours, the strength breaks the straw ...
      1. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 2 July 2020 17: 59
        +1
        Quote: Victor67
        They have absolutely no one to fight there, well, if only China clashes over the disputed islands, but at least buy the 57th, 2 hours apart, the strength breaks the straw ...


        The Americans also thought so more than half a century ago, and then the Chinese also began to think why, after some ten years, for some reason. The result is known.
        1. Victor67
          Victor67 2 July 2020 18: 38
          0
          I’m talking about the disputed islands, it’s against China without Vietnam’s options, the Chinese have already settled there and will not even let them come close. And more in SEA no one has any conflicts with anyone.
      2. Sancho_SP
        Sancho_SP 3 July 2020 09: 05
        0
        Well, because then it’s cheaper to fly on drones, UBSs and other counterguerrilla toys.
    2. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 3 July 2020 11: 42
      0
      Where does the used MKI come from? Here are the first Indian 18 Su-30Ks (returned several years ago and replaced with fresh MKI) as far as I remember they were sold to Africa. Who is stopping the Vietnamese from asking us for pieces of 30 Su-30S / P from availability, but so far in good condition, free of charge but paying for CWR. MiG-29 from the sludge was transferred to Libya, Serbia and Syria. Perhaps in Iran.
      1. Sancho_SP
        Sancho_SP 3 July 2020 20: 48
        0
        Well so at the price of flu there ogogo what kind of kvr will be.
  26. garik77
    garik77 2 July 2020 17: 03
    +1
    If the glider is 21 alive, then, in principle, Vietnam can order a deep modernization with us .. This is much cheaper than buying flu, and the MiG team will probably be interested.
  27. meandr51
    meandr51 3 July 2020 20: 56
    0
    Let the Yak-130 buy.
  28. Sarkazm
    Sarkazm 3 July 2020 23: 23
    +1
    We need a single-engine light fighter first of all. The operation of such a fighter in peacetime is cheaper; such a fighter is in demand by all our allies and traditional arms buyers. And then I read all the champions of twin-engine cars and an analogy comes to mind - I came to the store, I say what I want exactly, and they start to show me another and three expensive.
    A single-engine aircraft has an undeniable advantage - a plug in the number of aircraft manufactured, it is a plug with aircraft engines, their production volume cannot be increased by a wave of a wand. If you take a single-engine fighter and MiG-35 per hour H, it is much easier to ensure combat operations with single-engine fighters and having an equal number of aircraft engines in both cases. With modern avionics and missiles, an inexpensive light fighter will be able to solve a lot of problems, including freeing from their solution the more expensive and heavy two-engine Su and MiG.

    We are talking about the AL-41, with such an engine an analogue of the same MiG-35 will turn out, this is not at all a light fighter. Our RD-93 flies on the Sino-Pakistani single-engine fighter JF-17 - why is it bad? And the fighter at the exit will be a real descendant of the MiG-21, but more advanced and with a longer range. Many people forget that this is essentially the implementation of the concept and solutions, and not without our help (Mikoyan Design Bureau) of the light fighter "33" whose project was curtailed shortly before the collapse of the USSR.


    There is a lot of talk about laying, well, the flyer has more chances than the grenade launcher against the tank. Everything is a weapon and flesh too, and the coefficient is considered including taking into account the very flesh that sits on an airplane or in an RPG-7 field. Well, you don’t need to think that our pilot is more valuable than French, Swedish, American, Chinese, Japanese, etc.
    Much has been said about the hit of a rocket - a feeling that everyone thinks about the actions of the Su-25 and the use of MANPADS against it. A modern air-to-air missile will destroy an aircraft if it hits with at least one, even with two engines.
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 4 July 2020 09: 41
      -1
      Quote: Sarkazm
      Our RD-93 flies on a Chinese-Pakistani single-engine fighter JF-17 - why is it bad?


      Adequate car in my opinion

      Quote: Sarkazm
      We are talking about AL-41, with such an engine an analogue of the same MiG-35 will turn out, this is not at all a light fighter.

      Such a machine is in iron and flies with an Al-31 engine, called J-10

      It would be necessary to draw at least some conclusions
  29. Metlik
    Metlik 5 July 2020 21: 29
    +1
    As far as I understand, the point is not in 2 engines, but in the price of the plane. Perhaps Vietnam should consider the Yak-130, as a replacement for light fighters.
  30. Just a Traveler
    Just a Traveler 6 July 2020 10: 25
    0
    These fools and the fools are Vietnamese ...
    They would solve all their disputes with China and live calmly and satisfyingly.
  31. Amin_vivec
    Amin_vivec 6 July 2020 22: 14
    0
    Let the Yak-130 take in the combat version))))
  32. andrew42
    andrew42 8 July 2020 17: 12
    0
    Yeah, right now you have to run - to satisfy the current (!) Vietnamese Wishlist for 1-move. Laughter and more. Tomorrow, the oversleeps will oversleep, 2 engines will want. There is no money, - there is nothing to puff out cheeks, use 21st.