Military Review

There will be no union of MiG and Sukhoi design bureaus

74
There will be no union of MiG and Sukhoi design bureaus

Although the MiG and Sukhoi companies entered the combat division aviation, the design bureaus of Sukhoi and Mikoyan and Gurevich are not planned to be combined. About this in an interview with RIA News said the CEO of Sukhoi Ilya Tarasenko.


According to him, the entry of companies into one combat aviation division will help develop the potential of both design bureaus, but there will be no unification. Each design bureau will preserve its school, identity and uniqueness, developing new projects for light and heavy aviation systems.

We do not plan to combine the KB. The engineering schools of MiG and Sukhoi remain and continue to develop within each design bureau. (...) joint development, technology transfer and other processes are planned as part of the strategy being formed

- said Tarasenko.

At the same time, he noted, the centralization of the management of the combat aviation division continues, within the framework of which, from June 2020, the functions of the sole executive body of MiG Corporation were transferred to the Sukhoi company.

The new structure will combine the design and production potentials of the two enterprises and will be responsible for the development, production and maintenance of the entire line of current and promising UAC combat aircraft

- added Tarasenko.
74 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Labrador
    Labrador 16 July 2020 13: 00
    10
    remain and continue to develop within each design bureau

    And rightly so!
    1. NEOZ
      NEOZ 16 July 2020 13: 20
      23 th
      Quote: Labrador
      And rightly so!

      scattering of forces and means ... let's see the result ...
      1. APASUS
        APASUS 16 July 2020 15: 31
        +5
        Quote: NEOZ
        scattering of forces and means ... let's see the result ...

        Not all airplanes have to do one enterprise. Moreover, machines for different purposes.
        1. NEOZ
          NEOZ 17 July 2020 13: 01
          0
          Quote: APASUS
          Not all aircraft must be made by one enterprise.

          justify
          Quote: APASUS
          Especially cars for different purposes

          so different that MiG29 / 35 doesn’t need our MO, right?
          1. APASUS
            APASUS 18 July 2020 11: 30
            0
            Quote: NEOZ
            Quote: APASUS
            Not all aircraft must be made by one enterprise.

            justify
            Quote: APASUS
            Especially cars for different purposes

            so different that MiG29 / 35 doesn’t need our MO, right?

            What to justify, competition, technology development, approach to problem solving?
            Our Defense Ministry needs a MiG29 / 35. But it was the approach of Director Sukhoi Poghosyan that led to the fact that we have 90% of heavy fighters in the Defense Ministry.
            1. NEOZ
              NEOZ 20 July 2020 11: 18
              0
              Quote: APASUS
              What to justify, competition, technology development, approach to problem solving?

              justify this !!!
              Quote: APASUS
              MiG29 / 35 our MO needs

              What for?
              1. APASUS
                APASUS 20 July 2020 13: 03
                0
                Quote: NEOZ

                justify this !!!

                Read the story of the creation of the OLS for the Su-27, this example is very revealing
                Quote: NEOZ
                What for?

                Escort of columns, cover of small objects - is this not enough?
                1. NEOZ
                  NEOZ 22 July 2020 12: 38
                  0
                  Quote: APASUS
                  Escort of columns, cover of small objects - is this not enough?

                  what is the need for fighters in our Defense Ministry? what% should the MiG35 be?
                  if the development and production of this number of blinks costs 3 times more than to buy with this money (SU30 / 34/35) .... the question is: why is this necessary ???
                  1. APASUS
                    APASUS 22 July 2020 14: 30
                    0
                    Quote: NEOZ
                    what is the need for fighters in our Defense Ministry? what% should the MiG35 be?
                    if the development and production of this number of blinks costs 3 times more than to buy with this money (SU30 / 34/35) .... the question is: why is this necessary ???

                    The Ministry of Defense needs approximately 50/50 in light and heavy fighters. Su is much more expensive to use and is designed for the girth of the territory, Mig is just under the force of escorting and protecting a small object
      2. 1976AG
        1976AG 16 July 2020 16: 20
        0
        Quote: NEOZ
        Quote: Labrador
        And rightly so!

        scattering of forces and means ... let's see the result ...

        Why watch? MiG-15, MiG-25, Su-27, Su-35, MiG-31 .. Is this not enough?
      3. orionvitt
        orionvitt 16 July 2020 16: 23
        +5
        Quote: NEOZ
        dispersion of forces and means ....

        This is not a scattering of funds, this is healthy competition. Suffice it to recall the competitive struggle of the Soviet design bureaus, as a result of which new models of aviation technology were issued literally "to the mountain". And of excellent quality, some of our foreign "partners" are still flying, too. True, times were different, and they did not skimp on funds, and people were not the same.
        1. Wowka
          Wowka 16 July 2020 23: 34
          -1
          Quote: orionvitt
          True, the times were different, and they did not skimp on the means, and the people were not the same.

          And this is the whole philosophy! The rest is romance
        2. NEOZ
          NEOZ 17 July 2020 13: 13
          0
          Quote: orionvitt
          This is not a spray, it is a healthy competition.

          and if two KB do not show the result?
          and if the united design bureau would show the result, then what would it be called?
          Quote: orionvitt
          Suffice it to recall the competition of the Soviet design bureaus

          The USSR could afford it (the Russian Federation in human resources is 50% of the USSR)
          Quote: orionvitt
          Truth and times were different

          that's it!!!!
          Quote: orionvitt
          and did not skimp on funds

          that's it!!!
          Quote: orionvitt
          and the people were not the same.

          just in the USSR there were 2 times more !!!!
          1. orionvitt
            orionvitt 17 July 2020 14: 44
            0
            Quote: NEOZ
            and if two KB do not show
            and if the unified design bureau would show

            If, if only, this is not a conversation, this is a fortuneteller
            The Russian Federation for human resources is 50% of the USSR)
            So what? You might think that the Uzbeks with the Kazakhs and other Turkmens were engaged in the design and creation of aircraft? In Ukraine, they created something, but now there is massive psychosis, so all that was basically remained in Russia. But the former potential is lost, I agree.
            1. NEOZ
              NEOZ 20 July 2020 11: 48
              0
              Quote: orionvitt
              If, if only, this is not a conversation, this is a fortuneteller

              so you guess !!! you cannot justify your position !!!
              Quote: orionvitt
              You might think that the Uzbeks with the Kazakhs and other Turkmens were engaged in the design and creation of aircraft?

              sure!!! Uzbeks and Kazakhs occupied their production niche for the exploitation of human resources for the design of aircraft !!!
      4. Boris ⁣ Shaver
        Boris ⁣ Shaver 16 July 2020 23: 26
        +1
        Quote: NEOZ
        scattering of forces and means ... let's see the result ...

        The first thing that the coach of the boys who first came to the gym teaches is that winning with one blow is impossible. Having put all your strength and all your hopes into a single blow - you will miss and you will be defeated in the end. Always keep in mind the fallback options. Betting on a single horse is the opposite of excessive power dissipation.
        1. Wowka
          Wowka 16 July 2020 23: 38
          -2
          Quote: Boris ⁣Razor
          Betting on a single horse is the opposite of excessive power dissipation.

          And if there is no money for other horses? And they are not planned for full-fledged projects for all "horses". So Se la vie .. It remains not to "play" at all, otherwise "half measures" come out - sometimes under-stealth, then under-drone .. and so on in everything. No? Well, that's how I see it.
          1. Boris ⁣ Shaver
            Boris ⁣ Shaver 17 July 2020 17: 50
            +1
            Quote: Wowka
            And if there is no money for other horses?

            Especially if there is no money. A monopolist is always more expensive. If you want to save money, maintain competition among suppliers. This is the alphabet.
            But there is money, sort of. Bankers were given 3 trillion with a light hand from the fund, and they are glad to try and still ask.
            1. NEOZ
              NEOZ 20 July 2020 11: 50
              0
              Quote: Boris ⁣Razor
              But there is money, sort of.

              money meant resources (material / technical / human / know-how).
          2. NEOZ
            NEOZ 20 July 2020 11: 22
            0
            Quote: Wowka
            "half measures" come out - either under-stealth, or under-drone .. and so on in everything. No? Well, that's how I see it.

            I’m talking about this!
        2. NEOZ
          NEOZ 17 July 2020 13: 20
          0
          Quote: Boris ⁣Razor
          The first thing that the coach of the boys who first came to the gym teaches is that winning with one blow is impossible.

          how many professions do you have?
          Quote: Boris ⁣Razor
          Having put all your strength and all your hopes into a single blow - you will miss and you will be defeated in the end.

          those. a person who studied for a doctor, and an engineer, and professionally involved in sports will not lose the competition with people who have devoted themselves to only one profession?
          Quote: Boris ⁣Razor
          Always keep in mind the fallback options.

          I won’t become a doctor so I’ll become a boxer?
          Quote: Boris ⁣Razor
          Betting on a single horse - extreme opposite to excessive power dissipation

          just the only horse ....
          1. Boris ⁣ Shaver
            Boris ⁣ Shaver 17 July 2020 17: 56
            +1
            Quote: NEOZ
            how many professions do you have?

            Two. One military account, one civilian.

            Quote: NEOZ
            those. a person who studied for a doctor, and an engineer, and professionally involved in sports will not lose the competition with people who have devoted themselves to only one profession?

            And who says that aircraft engineers need to learn additional professions? In your analogy with doctors, it’s wiser to imagine that in your region you left only one hospital at all.

            Quote: NEOZ
            I won’t become a doctor so I’ll become a boxer?

            In our time, several applicants immediately submitted documents to several universities. I won’t go there - at least I will study there.

            Quote: NEOZ
            the only horse

            Not yet. But soon from two - one will be gathered, to a campaign. Then they will wonder why it turned out inanimate.
            1. NEOZ
              NEOZ 22 July 2020 12: 50
              0
              Quote: Boris ⁣Razor
              And who says that aircraft engineers need to master additional professions?

              development and production of aircraft is a collective work of many designers and engineers - the more complex the aircraft (the next generation), the more (almost geometric progression) science-intensive labor is needed !!!!
              accordingly, to develop a new aircraft it is simply necessary to combine scientific resources !!!!! especially since after the collapse of the USSR these resources are extremely limited !!!!!
    2. iouris
      iouris 16 July 2020 22: 11
      0
      Remaining is one thing, developing is another. What is your evidence?
      1. NEOZ
        NEOZ 17 July 2020 13: 21
        0
        Quote: iouris
        Remaining is one thing, developing is another. What is your evidence?

        agree
  2. Eldorado
    Eldorado 16 July 2020 13: 01
    +6
    Right! No need to dump KB in one heap!
    1. iouris
      iouris 16 July 2020 22: 12
      +1
      It is impossible to "lump it in a pile" while planes under the MiG and Su trademarks are flying somewhere in the world.
  3. Eug
    Eug 16 July 2020 13: 09
    +6
    We need a competition between the developments on the same technical design for the two design bureaus. And may the best project win. But the phrase about the unification of "design potentials" is embarrassing - isn't it in order to reduce the number of designers?
    1. Starover_Z
      Starover_Z 16 July 2020 13: 23
      +1
      Quote: Eug
      But the phrase about the unification of "design potentials" is embarrassing - isn't it in order to reduce the number of designers?

      If there is such a "high opinion", then where did his "legs grow" interesting and who submitted such a "valuable" idea ?!
      1. PavelM
        PavelM 17 July 2020 06: 08
        0
        Quote: Starover_Z
        If there is such a "high opinion", then where did his "legs grow" interesting and who submitted such a "valuable" idea ?!

        There is only one "reformer" capable of such "ideas" - this is the one with the high trust of the President and, therefore, unsinkable, A.E. Serdyukov.
        What are the other opinions?
      2. NEOZ
        NEOZ 17 July 2020 13: 21
        0
        Quote: Starover_Z
        If there is such a "high opinion", then where did his "legs grow" interesting and who submitted such a "valuable" idea ?!

        Do you have any relation to projects?
    2. K-612-O
      K-612-O 16 July 2020 14: 05
      +1
      Sukhoi can’t make light fighters, like MiG bombers. Schools are completely different, so nothing will happen with a single TTZ. MiG will work with PAK DP for a long time.
      1. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 16 July 2020 15: 00
        +2
        The projects were more adequate than the MiG-29. I'm talking about Su-37 (first), S-54/55/56 was also extremely interesting
        1. Boris Chernikov
          Boris Chernikov 16 July 2020 17: 09
          +1
          they weren’t interesting .. but there were attempts to mold at least something. They don’t have to climb each other .. Have their beds, let them mess around: MiGs are engaged in light fighters and interceptors, and Dry ones are played in heavy fighters and bombers. To each his own, otherwise we will have rout and bacchanalia
          1. 1976AG
            1976AG 16 July 2020 17: 23
            +1
            And what are their beds? MiG-25 and MiG-31 are light fighters? This Sukhoi did only heavy, and MiG did all sorts.
            1. Boris Chernikov
              Boris Chernikov 17 July 2020 17: 40
              0
              and what interceptors did Sukhoi do?
      2. Herman 4223
        Herman 4223 16 July 2020 20: 16
        0
        Schools are different and therefore the result is not predictable. It may be more expensive to develop, but the army in the end has plenty to choose from and get the best car. Who knows which competitor the T-50 would have been blinded in an instant if they were also given funds.
        Maybe the drying was even banned in the end and another plane would have been prepared for serial production. Well, a number of technical discoveries as a bonus.
        1. Boris Chernikov
          Boris Chernikov 17 July 2020 17: 42
          +1
          Well, in general, there were rumors that the MiG is now quietly sawing its 5th generation fighter, which should be simpler, but much cheaper than Drying, because there are many countries that want the 5th generation, but they are strained with money ... Therefore, I think they will take the MiG-35 and make it "stealth"
          1. Herman 4223
            Herman 4223 17 July 2020 21: 15
            0
            They themselves can cut for a long time, there is no clear state program for a light fighter. It makes no sense to make stealth out of the MiG-35, if you make the internal compartments of the plane swell in size and the car loses its flight characteristics and becomes more difficult, the compartments themselves, even if they are made in a light fighter, will be small, because there is no room, the car must be small and light , if the compartments are not made, then it will add stealth but little. The next question is with the engine, in the Su-57 the new engine has a variable bypass ratio, which makes it very efficient. A similar one is now being developed for the American F-35, it is called an adaptive engine and will have to greatly increase the flight characteristics of the machine.
            For a moment, there is nothing in this regard and is not created.
      3. iouris
        iouris 16 July 2020 22: 13
        +2
        Quote: K-612-O
        Schools are completely different

        Schools are different, but the software for the design process is the same (state-owned).
      4. NEOZ
        NEOZ 17 July 2020 13: 23
        +1
        Quote: K-612-O
        Dry can not do light fighters

        Why?
        there were projects C54 / C55 / C56
        MiG did MiG31 - and this is a very heavy machine.
        1. K-612-O
          K-612-O 17 July 2020 13: 34
          0
          MiG 25 was also not easy. But after the experience with the Sukhoi interceptors, frankly not very successful, they gave this niche to the MiG and did it right. Not Su-11, not Su-15 did not differ outstanding characteristics.
          And the Su-7 and Su-17 were and in some places remain workhorses, but these are front-line bombers, like the Rasp.
    3. Boris ⁣ Shaver
      Boris ⁣ Shaver 16 July 2020 23: 33
      0
      Quote: Eug
      But the phrase about the unification of "design potentials" confuses

      I agree. Today we have such a thing in use - they say one thing from the screens, but do something completely different with this sauce, hiding behind words about optimization, pooling potentials, and so on.
  4. uav80
    uav80 16 July 2020 13: 09
    +3
    C Kamov and Miles, too, probably should do so, otherwise there are rumors that they will unite ...
  5. dauria
    dauria 16 July 2020 13: 23
    +3
    The new structure will combine the design and production potentials of the two enterprises and will be responsible for the development, production and maintenance

    I didn't understand a damn thing. What is the new structure? "battalion of combat aviation" - what kind of beast? Who owns the Sukhoi and MiG Design Bureau?
    What does it mean to be responsible for development and production and service staff? The MO was responsible for the service staff all his life. From the moment of departure from the factory airfield by the Air Force ferry crew. Production is a bunch of allies; the final plant that draws up the form is blown away for everyone. But not at all.
    And if it is simpler - there will be something flying at the Sokol plant in Nizhny Novgorod, except for crows, or the gentlemen will fight over the "little factories for the little children". I would tell them that it will no longer be possible to simply milk the Soviet factories. Now you need to invest your loot to get the fat.
    1. doubovitski
      doubovitski 16 July 2020 13: 45
      0
      Quote: dauria
      The new structure will combine the design and production potentials of the two enterprises and will be responsible for the development, production and maintenance

      I didn't understand a damn thing. What is the new structure? "battalion of combat aviation" - what kind of beast? Who owns the Sukhoi and MiG Design Bureau?
      What does it mean to be responsible for development and production and service staff? The MO was responsible for the service staff all his life. From the moment of departure from the factory airfield by the Air Force ferry crew. Production is a bunch of allies; the final plant that draws up the form is blown away for everyone. But not at all.
      And if it is simpler - there will be something flying at the Sokol plant in Nizhny Novgorod, except for crows, or the gentlemen will fight over the "little factories for the little children". I would tell them that it will no longer be possible to simply milk the Soviet factories. Now you need to invest your loot to get the fat.

      Who owns the KB? But guessing yourself is not fate? Who puts them together in some structures, that owns. Second, in civil engineering, the parent enterprise is the factory. And, with it, KB. Kb can be isolated, but it has no decision to start production of its product. In aircraft engineering, on the contrary, there the plant belongs to the design bureau. And for everything from design, production, and maintenance, the design bureau is responsible.
      1. dauria
        dauria 16 July 2020 14: 21
        +1
        In aviation engineering, on the contrary, there the plant belongs to the Design Bureau

        Irkutsk, Voronezh and Tashkent riveted An-12. All these plants belonged to the Kiev design bureau? And among the bourgeoisie, a lot of factories under license produce different models of different offices.
        In your scenario (the plant belongs to the design bureau), a small design bureau that created a successful model will have to buy a plant to push its plane.
    2. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 16 July 2020 16: 34
      0
      Quote: dauria
      I didn't understand a damn thing. What is the new structure? "battalion of combat aviation" - what kind of beast? Who owns the Sukhoi and MiG Design Bureau?

      Lagging behind life, my friend! What is there not to understand? Modern "young family"! They work ... Everyone has their own work, their own bank account ... Together they plan family expenses: who pays the communal flat, and who buys the sausage for dinner ... Someone gives another his car "for a ride, and the other pays for gasoline and repairs...
  6. wayden
    wayden 16 July 2020 13: 30
    +2
    Only those design bureaus that are no longer capable of their own completed projects make sense. The competition of ideas must be maintained.
    1. doubovitski
      doubovitski 16 July 2020 13: 38
      0
      Quote: wayden
      Only those design bureaus that are no longer capable of their own completed projects make sense. The competition of ideas must be maintained.

      Such KBs need not be merged, but overclocked. "Avoska held on to Neboska, and both fell." The freeloader who wants to sit on the sidelines, receiving his modest fee, will never come to the fore. To be the first is to take risks.
  7. doubovitski
    doubovitski 16 July 2020 13: 36
    0
    The competition that was and was supported in the USSR was bearing fruit. And only a crazy enemy, preoccupied with the destruction of democratic Russia, could carry out the unification. Numerous design bureaus always succeeded in development only when they competed fiercely, sometimes cruelly.
    1. K-612-O
      K-612-O 16 July 2020 14: 08
      0
      This is for these design bureaus, as well as for helicopter pilots.
      And Il, Antonov and Tupolev yes, they competed strongly
      1. D16
        D16 16 July 2020 14: 42
        +1
        Il, Antonov and Tupolev yes, strongly competed

        In fact, there has been no competition since the 60s. Everyone scored their niches and didn’t let competitors go there. What Antonov, what Tupolev, what Ilyushin. Only Sukhoi periodically tried, but each time oxygen was blocked. But Myasishchev Design Bureau generally became a victim of rocket science.
    2. D16
      D16 16 July 2020 14: 29
      -1
      The competition that was and was supported in the USSR was bearing fruit.

      The competition may formally exist, but it does not cancel the administrative resource of individual design bureaus and yielded very peculiar fruits in the form of a completely unhealthy zoo in the ground forces and the navy. In addition, he allowed to absorb other design bureaus together with production facilities and appropriate other people's promising developments.
      1. Boris Chernikov
        Boris Chernikov 16 July 2020 17: 10
        0
        By the way, yes, I would unite the developers of land equipment, but it’s ridiculous that on one tank there is a machine gun remote control, and on the other there is no, because competitors do not give the right to install ...
        1. D16
          D16 16 July 2020 20: 01
          0
          This is not the case. The remote control machine gun can be installed on any of the current MBTs. The only question is the price of modernization and whether the Ministry of Defense is ready to pay for it. After all, they are all undergoing modernization at UVZ.
          1. Boris Chernikov
            Boris Chernikov 17 July 2020 17: 44
            0
            the joke is that some successful decisions are ignored due to the fact that different design bureaus are friends and enemies
            1. D16
              D16 17 July 2020 22: 50
              0
              Maybe ignored, I don’t know. But Doo machine gun is put everywhere and there are no restrictions. It's all about the ticket price laughing I'm not talking about machine guns, but about three! main tanks of the late USSR Two fighters, one of which did not match those. assignment. Nevertheless, it was adopted. I mean, that no one and never in the armed forces of this country could lead the breeders to standardization and uniformity. Understand,. that everyone lacked the right engines, it was impossible to pull out a steel nuclear submarine from Gorky and had to build goldfish ahead of the rest of the planet, But why such delights for a policy of nuclear deterrence laughing
              1. Boris Chernikov
                Boris Chernikov 17 July 2020 23: 35
                0
                but what is wrong with several types? there, the Americans have since "we have one car" .. in fact, the whole design idea has died
                1. D16
                  D16 18 July 2020 08: 04
                  0
                  and what is wrong with several types?

                  Primarily the cost of maintenance and lack of unification.
                  .in fact, all design thought has died

                  She began to die with them after becoming a nation of lawyers. The unification of tanks has nothing to do with it.
                  1. Boris Chernikov
                    Boris Chernikov 28 July 2020 13: 23
                    0
                    it's funny to read about the "cost of service" .. the cost of service makes sense in the presence of single samples or units with several types of equipment in service, and when we have 500-1000 units of each type and they are territorially and structurally separated, then there are problems with the "cost" - no. And yes .. T-72b3m and T-80bvm are much more unified among themselves than similar t-72 and t-80 at the time
  8. silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 16 July 2020 13: 41
    0
    A mature decision was unexpectedly made ... not quite typical for effective management
  9. avia12005
    avia12005 16 July 2020 13: 56
    +2
    We read carefully: "The centralization of control over the combat aviation division continues, within the framework of which, since June 2020, the functions of the sole executive body of the MiG Corporation have been transferred to the Sukhoi company.... So, after all, they were united in one division? And the main one is "Dry".
    1. jaroff
      jaroff 17 July 2020 07: 50
      0
      Tarasenko changes the whole management team in Sukhoi. Drags from Mikoyan.
      1. avia12005
        avia12005 17 July 2020 08: 57
        0
        Considering that the chairman of the board of directors of UAC is Serdyukov, I have great doubts about the success of this plan. Switch all cash flows to one place, that's for sure. But about airplanes this is a big question.
  10. Svarog
    Svarog 16 July 2020 13: 56
    +4
    Definitely the right decision.
  11. Doccor18
    Doccor18 16 July 2020 14: 53
    -2
    There will be no union of MiG and Sukhoi design bureaus

    So that's great.
    Firstly, sound competition is needed everywhere.
    Secondly, the MIG in the 80-90s was at such a height that Sukhoi could "bury" him. Only the disintegration of the Great Country and "perestroika" ruined the plans and destroyed many serious MIG projects.
    But I'm still for the competition. Let there be SU and MIG, and YAK, and IL, and TU, and BE.
  12. Pavel57
    Pavel57 16 July 2020 15: 58
    0
    At one time, Poghosyan almost strangled the MIL, so the question is purely at the level of the "ministry".
  13. Eug
    Eug 16 July 2020 16: 15
    0
    We need maximum unification of machines of different design bureaus - in terms of equipment, cabin, engines, etc. But there is no need to unite design bureaus - we need intense (but healthy, not lobbying) competition. And it's the same with helicopter design bureaus.
  14. RUSLAN
    RUSLAN 16 July 2020 16: 43
    +3
    I understand that instead of uniting, in which the apparatus of officials could be halved, they created another structure, thereby increasing the parasites?
  15. Elephant
    Elephant 16 July 2020 18: 15
    0
    Good news. Let there be healthy competition for design bureaus as the engine of progress.
  16. Alf
    Alf 16 July 2020 19: 02
    +1
    Although the MiG and Sukhoi companies entered the combat aviation division, the Sukhoi and Mikoyan and Gurevich design bureaus are not planned to be merged.

    And why then fence the garden? To attach the kids?
  17. bars1
    bars1 16 July 2020 19: 05
    0
    Quote: avia12005
    So, after all, they were united in one division? And the main one is Sukhoi.

    That's it!
  18. bars1
    bars1 16 July 2020 19: 08
    0
    Quote: silberwolf88
    A mature decision was unexpectedly made ... not quite typical for effective management

    As expected, the MiG will be led by Sukhoi.