Military Review

Hybrid "Su" and "MiG": what will be the Russian sixth generation fighter

72

Together is power?



July XNUMX, RIA "News"Reported that" MiG "and" Sukhoi "joint forces will develop sixth generation... “Our competitors are American and European aircraft manufacturers. And in order to maintain a confident leadership in the industry, we need to consolidate the best competencies that exist today in the MiG and Sukhoi companies and create new sixth generation aircraft. The unification of potentials within the framework of common tasks and common goals is a tremendous opportunity to make a serious breakthrough. Foreign companies no longer have such opportunities, ”said Ilya Tarasenko, CEO of MiG and Sukhoi.

On the one hand, the news should be pleasing, on the other, it once again makes you think. Undoubtedly, MiG and Sukhoi have enormous potential and tremendous potential when it comes to the creation of combat aircraft. On the other hand, the numerous successes of the USSR in the field of fighter development (it should be said, however, that not all Soviet combat aircraft were successful) are due not so much to the cooperation of different design bureaus as to fierce competition between them. In the conditions of what is now called "state capitalism", this is the only thing that could give a real incentive. However, the current trend is not new: the Russian aircraft industry has long taken a course towards consolidation, and no one will change it.

As well as abandoning the development of the sixth generation. The country's prestige as a major aircraft manufacturer and one of the leading exporters is involved here. weapons in the world. The plans of the Europeans also played a role. I must say, they are much more specific than those of China and the United States. Recall that at last year's Le Bourget, France and Germany first showed the layout of the sixth generation fighter with the straightforward name NGF (Next Generation Fighter). And the British presented a model of the "six" at the Farnborough Air Show, which took place in 2018. The aircraft received the designation Tempest: apparently, in honor of the British fighter of the same name of the Second World War - one of the most powerful for its time. Both Germany and France, and the British want to get new cars in serial production no earlier than the mid-2030s, or even later. If you look at the dynamics of the development of fifth-generation fighters (F-22 and F-35), you can see that this is a completely sound assessment. For another example, it is worth saying that there is still no serial Russian Su-57. And the Chinese J-20, which was put into service in 2017, has a lot of questions: both in terms of the concept and, for example, in terms of a specific power plant.


Generation "sixes"


Now let's move on to the question of what the new aircraft will be like. It is quite obvious that we will not know the detailed characteristics of the Russian fighter yet, if at all, at all. It is worth recalling that almost all the characteristics of the Su-57 available today are speculations of varying degrees of "fantasy". It is also quite clear that the S-70 “Okhotnik” UAV, like the promising interceptor PAK DP, will probably never become the sixth generation (in the West, for some reason, both one and the other persistently continue to call it that). In fact, these are highly specialized vehicles, and the S-70, most likely, is a subsonic demonstrator of reconnaissance and strike UAVs, which will never become a fighter.


What will distinguish the sixth generation (Russian and not only) from the previously created fighters?

Optional piloting. Both the Tempest, Next Generation Fighter, and American sixth generation fighters are designed as optionally manned vehicles. This mainly means that the possibility of unmanned use was initially laid in them, which, for example, was not on the machines of the fifth and fourth generations. It is important. The best unmanned vehicle is the one that was originally designed as a drone. Experiments on the development of combat UAVs based on existing fighters have remained experiments.

In confirmation of these words, one can recall the recent statement of the adviser to the first deputy general director of the concern "Radioelectronic Technologies" Vladimir Mikheev in an interview with TASS. “We present the 6th generation combat aircraft in the form of a combined aircraft, that is, in two versions: manned and unmanned,” he said in an interview with TASS in July. Of course, the development of an optionally manned vehicle will require new knowledge, which Russia can gain as part of the work on the "Okhotnik". However, we repeat, it will not become the prototype of the new Russian fighter.

Unmanned wingman. One sixth generation fighter is likely to be able to control several or more UAVs. Recall that now Australia and the United States are actively experimenting with unmanned aerial vehicles for existing combat aircraft. On July 2025, the Australian division of the American Boeing Corporation tested a group of three unmanned aerial vehicles in a fully autonomous mode. And even earlier it became known that Skyborg drones, starting in 16, will replace part of the F-XNUMX Fighting Falcon fighters in the US Air Force.


There are clear benefits to this approach. The UAV can perform the role of a reconnaissance aircraft, a "live target", or it can hit the enemy itself, while being in the fighter pilot's line of sight. That is, the actions of the UAV will be based on the "empirical" pilot experience obtained "here and now." This is fundamentally different from the situation in which unmanned vehicles would be under the control of a ground operator. At the same time, a completely autonomous mode (in particular, the use of neural networks) raises completely different questions. Including moral and ethical character.

Weapons based on "new physical principles". The United States is actively working on the issue of equipping fighters with new laser systems. Moreover, we are talking about systems of several types: to "blind" the enemy, to destroy missiles threatening the aircraft and directly to destroy the combat vehicles of the alleged enemy. Presumably, Russia will try to implement something similar on a promising aircraft. According to Vladimir Mikheev, "the laser protection of the sixth generation fighter will physically burn the homing heads of enemy missiles attacking the aircraft, and its armament will include electromagnetic cannons and guided electronic munitions." According to him, one unmanned vehicle will be armed with microwave weapons, including guided electronic munitions, and the other with electronic suppression and destruction. Another will carry "conventional" weapons. The KRET representative also noted that at the moment in Russia they have created an experimental model of a radio photonic radar, the serial version of which can be equipped with a sixth generation fighter.

Estimated Dates


It is worth saying that the sixth generation is not a question for the next ten years. As of today, the appearance of the new aircraft has not yet been determined. According to the previously presented data, the car can be built according to the “duck” aerodynamic scheme, using separate solutions previously tested on the MiG 1.44.


It is not clear what engines the new aircraft will receive: in 2018, Mikhail Gordin, the head of the P.I. Baranov Central Institute of Aviation Motors, said that the development of the engine has “poor financing”. However, some work is still underway, and this is a definite plus.

One thing is clear: in a broad sense, the Russian sixth generation fighter will be a development of the ideas laid down in the fifth. It will be even less visible, with better flight characteristics, and will also receive a more powerful set of weapons. The idea of ​​a "light fighter", most likely, has finally disappeared into oblivion. A promising car will be (if) heavy, twin-engine and extremely expensive. The serial version, it must be assumed, may appear no earlier than 2040.
Author:
72 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Tugarin
    Tugarin 20 July 2020 18: 06 New
    16
    It is better of course to use the advanced developments of both KB
    1. Bar1
      Bar1 20 July 2020 18: 19 New
      -11
      Hybrid "Su" and "MiG": what will be the Russian sixth generation fighter


      well what? The same as everything with this power-machine for parades, and then 50 years later.
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 20 July 2020 19: 00 New
        -6
        Quote: Bar1
        Hybrid "Su" and "MiG": what will be the Russian sixth generation fighter

        MiG and Su ... MiS -1 ... this will be the 6th generation fighter! wink
        1. ALLxANDr
          ALLxANDr 20 July 2020 22: 37 New
          +1
          Media - means of mass destruction (from Su - letter C, from MiG - letters MI).
      2. VO3A
        VO3A 20 July 2020 23: 48 New
        +5
        An empty article about anything .... At least the author must outline his concept of a 6th generation aircraft ... Go there without knowing where, bring something, I don't know what .... In general, the requirements for new aircraft are formulated by the military, setting new technical tasks that are needed for successful combat operations, and which the 5th generation aircraft no longer satisfies ... We do not even have a concept of using the 5th generation aircraft, as such, and the Europeans do not have the aircraft itself .. .. The pursuit of cheap publicity stunts of Europeans will not lead to anything good ... This is an advertising and empty move on their part, why join this absurd booth ... To begin with, I want to emphasize that the 5th generation aircraft is becoming like this only in a certain information environment ... This is in spite of all the signs that he should have. A plane cannot be a 5th generation aircraft without this medium ....
        1. YOUR
          YOUR 21 July 2020 05: 14 New
          +4
          I agree to all 100. If you figure it out, we still have no 5th generation aircraft. There are a dozen experimental ones, which have already exceeded the experimental ones for the second decade. There are statements about the start of production, well, just about to start. The last thing was at the beginning of 2019, that serial production begins in May 2019. Serial, ten aircraft a year. And this was not the same. and even such reductions at KnAAZ
          1. NIKN
            NIKN 21 July 2020 12: 31 New
            +1
            Quote: YOUR
            I agree to all 100.

            Now let's move on to the question of what the new aircraft will be like.
            This is a question from the author
            It is quite obvious that we will not know the detailed characteristics of the Russian fighter yet, if at all, at all.
            this is the answer from the author himself. And then the point to write? request
        2. Outsider
          Outsider 23 July 2020 22: 44 New
          0
          an aircraft of the 5th generation becomes so only in a certain information environment ... This is in spite of all the signs that it should have. An aircraft cannot be a 5th generation aircraft without this environment ....

          - The main environment for the 5th generation aircraft is the 4th generation aircraft, which it must beat with a devastating score. He does not need any other environment. lol
        3. Sevastiec
          Sevastiec 25 July 2020 06: 29 New
          0
          I think that there will be big problems with defining the concept of the new generation. Do you even need a "fighter"? Are there a lot of air battles now? All "fighters", in our time, perform shock functions. It's easier with the interceptor: you need it, there are no questions.

          And before defining the concept of a new fighter, you must first define the concept of a new ENGINE.
    2. Krasnoyarsk
      Krasnoyarsk 20 July 2020 18: 34 New
      +3
      Quote: Tugarin
      It is better of course to use the advanced developments of both KB

      Of course better. But there is a danger of eliminating one of the design bureaus.
      Whether merging two KB into one would be the right solution is unknown.
    3. Alf
      Alf 20 July 2020 18: 58 New
      10
      Quote: Tugarin
      It is better of course to use the advanced developments of both KB

      Like this ?
      Imagine a mission for the new helicopter of the United Mil-Kamov Corporation. Miles classical scheme, Kamov-coaxial. Already at the very beginning, misunderstandings and mutual accusations will begin. Further more...
      1. vVvAD
        vVvAD 21 July 2020 00: 16 New
        -1
        You, my friend, are not at all about that. We are not talking about mutually exclusive solutions. For example, there are 2 basic schemes for screw skewers.
        For example, Su has one system better, and MiG has another - we combine the best. Or each, for example, has its own interface - we create a single standard one that combines the advantages of both, will be further compatible with the machines of both design bureaus, and will reduce the cost of their production and maintenance due to partial unification.
        Competition is good. But it is even better when it is conducted at the level of concepts and on general technological standards and does not include the struggle for the "correctness" of the last nut.
        1. Alf
          Alf 21 July 2020 19: 05 New
          0
          Quote: vVvAD
          You, my friend, are not at all about that.

          It is you who write what you do not understand.
          Quote: vVvAD
          For example, there are 2 basic schemes for screw skewers.
          For example, Su has one system better, and MiG has another - we combine the best.

          Try to combine the advantages of a diesel engine and an injection engine. Each design bureau builds its own product, proceeding from its ideology, and it may simply not be realistic to build a completely different system into its own.
          1. vVvAD
            vVvAD 22 July 2020 16: 00 New
            +1
            Have you read this at all ???
            Quote: vVvAD
            We are not talking about mutually exclusive solutions.

            Quote: Alf
            based on your ideology and embedding a completely different system into your own may simply not be realistic

            Now, if you meant the ideology of building a specific concept, then I wrote about this. And if about the "ideology" of a particular design bureau, then this is just an obstacle on the way to creating a better sample.
            Where there are mutually exclusive schemes, you need to choose the one that is most suitable for the given task, and not the one that this design bureau does better and that's good! And so that each design bureau does not have weaknesses, but only strengths, and an exchange of experience is needed, which neither the Mikoyan and Gurevich design bureaus with the Sukhoi design bureau, nor the Kamov design bureau with Mil design bureau considered necessary or were unable to establish.
            That is why they were united with each other. And also from the fact that it is expensive to have a bunch of independent standards and build service and associated logistics for them, despite the fact that you want to keep all the unique schools of aircraft and helicopter construction. Perhaps the implementation is not the best, but the design bureau was forced to take this step by its inability to negotiate, and even in this form it is already bearing fruit.
          2. vVvAD
            vVvAD 22 July 2020 16: 18 New
            0
            Or another example: Su has a certain system, while Mig does not. As a result, to participate in the same competition, Su has an advantage in terms of execution time and costs over Mig, which still needs to create this system, which will just lead to an increase in costs and terms, because under the existing system, competitive design bureaus did not share such developments with each other. ...
            Tell me: how profitable is it for the state to receive overruns as a result, financing both projects at the 1st stage, in order to understand which one is better, and also to make a choice without choice, because As a result, the 2nd option does not fit in the price and terms?
          3. vVvAD
            vVvAD 24 July 2020 14: 51 New
            0
            And here, by the way, is the official confirmation of my words:
            According to Boginsky, the main goal of uniting two design bureaus at NCV is development of uniform requirements for personnel and rebalancing of capacities, the second goal is improving the quality of design documentation for delivery to a serial plant the first time.

            https://topwar.ru/173428-gendirektor-vertoletov-rossii-objasnil-smysl-obedinenija-kb-milja-i-kamova.html
    4. snake
      snake 20 July 2020 20: 47 New
      +1
      Quote: Tugarin
      It is better of course to use the advanced developments of both KB

      Of course better. But, alas ... You understand yourself - "optimization" is sweeping across the country.
      In general, the 6th generation is no longer relevant. A lot of articles have already been written about him. Give me the 7th! To dream, so to dream!
      1. kit88
        kit88 21 July 2020 01: 26 New
        +9
        Well yes. Imagine 7th generation .... what
        It's like a three-dimensional person imagining a four-dimensional hypercube.
        4D projection of a XNUMX-dimensional hypercube


        And this will only be the 6th generation. Let's move on to the next 7th.
        Let's add another fifth dimension, screw 32 more cubes into the picture ...
        and try to imagine it ...
        ... perhaps draw at least a projection of what only a four-dimensional creature can do.

        What to say about what, in principle, we have no idea.
        1. snake
          snake 21 July 2020 13: 29 New
          0
          Quote: kit88
          It's like a three-dimensional person imagining a four-dimensional hypercube.

          A three-dimensional person can never imagine a four-dimensional cube. But someday people will create the 7th generation of fighters. The question is: what criteria will be needed to meet the 7th generation? After all, all these "generations" are a rather conventional division of aircraft according to their characteristics.
          Therefore your comparison is incorrect.
    5. Vol4ara
      Vol4ara 21 July 2020 15: 02 New
      +4
      Developing a glider with modern computers is not a problem. The problem is to make the engine so that it matches the 6th generation (who can name the distinctive features of the 6th generation?), And so that at the speeds that this engine provides, the skin does not fall off the airframe and does not bubble. The problem is to make a good radar (I don’t need to write about rofar, and other fantasies that are not "in the metal").
      As a result, we need breakthroughs, breakthroughs of engineers, materials scientists, electronics engineers, programmers, you need advanced production, for all this, first of all, you need a good education so that the future genius could realize his dreams, and did not work as a salesman and did not think how pay off the hippo, help retired old people and feed their families. Everything clings to one another. Therefore, the joining of efforts sous and moment, certainly will not bring the 6th generation on a silver platter. We have su 57, but there is no engine, there are questions with the operation of the radar. And where is this 5th generation?
      We also have armata, but no money.
    6. max702
      max702 21 July 2020 16: 58 New
      +1
      From the whole article, only this interested The KRET representative also noted that at the moment in Russia they have created an experimental model of a radio photonic radar I wonder how close it is to reality .. The rest is some vague fantasy ..
    7. ZEMCH
      ZEMCH 2 October 2020 01: 40 New
      0
      Quote: Tugarin
      It is better of course to use the advanced developments of both KB

      When there is competition between design bureaus, then there is a variant of the emergence of breakthrough solutions within the framework of the finished product. When there is one design bureau, then the subjective factor will hack to death such decisions if they are not built into the "picture of the world" of project management. Ce la vie)))
  2. Thrifty
    Thrifty 20 July 2020 18: 10 New
    +1
    I am afraid that Su will simply crush the MiG with authority and experience, impose his own version of the aircraft, and as a result, if we get a 6th generation fighter, it will be too heavy, in fact such a version of an average hypersonic bomber, with the function of a fighter, and not a pure fighter.
    1. mvg
      mvg 21 July 2020 00: 50 New
      +1
      Just try to read, without Comments ... It will be awesome. I guarantee 107%
  3. U-58
    U-58 20 July 2020 18: 11 New
    +1
    Well, the stump is clear, will the glorious firm of Mikoyan and Gurevich be allowed to do something?
    As the "nasyalniki" from the SU pushed, so it will be. Until there are no horns or legs from the MiG. And so it will be until the last children of Pavel Osipovich are expelled from the leadership of the UAC
    1. ALLxANDr
      ALLxANDr 20 July 2020 23: 02 New
      +2
      Like Mil constantly presses Kamov hi
      In general, it is strange, of course, that there are more heavy aircraft than light ones. In case of war, the loss of each heavy aircraft will hit the wallet more painfully. Somewhere I heard the 70/30 formula, where 70% of light aircraft and 30% of heavy aircraft, such as the most optimal ratio. Although the statement is certainly controversial, but in the case of a big brawl, in any case, the economy will make adjustments. And is it important.
      1. vVvAD
        vVvAD 21 July 2020 00: 53 New
        +3
        On the question of the ratio of light and heavy fighters: will it be a secret for you that in addition to the lower cost, heavy aircraft will have:
        1) longer range
        2) greater combat load
        3) greater maneuverability or other advantages over light ones, directly arising from the weight advantages over light fighters due to the impossibility to scale some things in principle (for example, a pilot, ejection seat, oxygen equipment, air gun), and some without deterioration (say, radar) ...
        Those. the economy of war can be as follows: to cover the direction, fewer heavy fighters are needed (including at aggregate cost) due to the multiple of the larger radius. In battle, a heavy fighter is capable of destroying more light fighters, having detected them earlier, and, first striking the RVV BD, which the lungs simply will not have, at medium distances in the conditions of REP and shooting traps, it will have a larger BP, and at close range it will have better maneuverability.
        The educational program is here, I recommend it to everyone: https://topwar.ru/38556-legkiy-istrebitel.html
        1. Alf
          Alf 21 July 2020 19: 08 New
          0
          Quote: vVvAD
          Those. the economy of war can be as follows: to cover the direction, fewer heavy fighters are needed (including at aggregate cost) due to the multiple of the larger radius. In battle, a heavy fighter is capable of destroying more light fighters, having detected them earlier, and, first striking the RVV BD, which the lungs simply will not have, at medium distances in the conditions of REP and shooting traps, it will have a larger BP, and at close range it will have better maneuverability.

          The Germans also thought so, releasing the Tiger and the Panther on the field ... Only they forgot or did not want to remember that one Tiger can burn a dozen T-34s, but it cannot be in three places at the same time.
          1. vVvAD
            vVvAD 22 July 2020 16: 06 New
            -1
            This example here neither to the village nor to the city - an example of what can happen if you put a land general at the head of aviation. Aviation is not for you ground forces - there is no such need even in conventional conflicts, because we are not talking about the simultaneous participation of thousands of participants from both sides. In addition, aviation is much more mobile and can be transferred from one strategic direction to another in a matter of hours - try this with heavy ground divisions.
            So you write complete nonsense.
            1. ALLxANDr
              ALLxANDr 24 July 2020 10: 38 New
              0
              To drive heavy aircraft from the European part to the Far East and vice versa is also nonsense, isn't it? hi Again, practicality and cheapness wins in war. Make 1 heavy or 2 light? Dilema, isn't it?

              There is another criterion that you somehow bypassed. Rockets are getting smarter and smarter now, electronics are more advanced, the question is, what is the use of a heavy aircraft with 12 missiles, if 2 or 3 light fighters with 8 missiles come at the same time? Moreover, to shoot down you will need 1 missile, well, or two ?! You can debate this topic for a long time, but if two planes that came from different sides from afar shoot back with their missiles, then the result is not so obvious, right? wink
              1. BastaKarapuzik And
                BastaKarapuzik And 25 July 2020 15: 06 New
                0
                Heavy has a long range, by definition the best locator, carries more long-range missiles, the latter also in the bomb bay. The thing is that a large territory must be covered. It is no coincidence that interceptors of the MIG-31 type are large machines, smaller is no longer possible. Size is certainly not an end in itself, but if you cannot reduce the size, then ..
  4. Grazdanin
    Grazdanin 20 July 2020 18: 14 New
    -1
    It seems they decided to finally finish off the MiG.
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 20 July 2020 20: 13 New
      -3
      Does France have many KB fighter manufacturers?
      1. Grazdanin
        Grazdanin 20 July 2020 20: 36 New
        +3
        Dassault in civilian competition with Bombardier, Gulfstream Aerospace and 10kom companies. In the military commissar Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Eurofighter, etc. If Dassault does not meet the needs of the military, they can be replaced at any time. No one will give her money just like that. The French Air Force is full of foreign aircraft. Who in our army can replace Su if something happens? Only Chengdu.
        1. KCA
          KCA 21 July 2020 09: 13 New
          0
          Well, no one competes with Bombardier, now it's Mitsubishi
        2. Alf
          Alf 21 July 2020 19: 12 New
          0
          Quote: Grazdanin
          The French Air Force is full of foreign aircraft.

          Fighters are only their own-Mirage and Rafale. The only foreigners are E-3 and KS-135, the rest are all their own.
  5. Operator
    Operator 20 July 2020 18: 24 New
    +3
    Su-57 - FSE, meet the Su-67 laughing
  6. Region68
    Region68 20 July 2020 18: 29 New
    +3
    Well, thank God ... fives are already full in the troops, and you can take the sixth
    1. Viktor Sergeev
      Viktor Sergeev 21 July 2020 12: 32 New
      0
      How funny you are. The fifth generation does not deny the sixth. They and 4 more will exist together and long enough. Each plane fulfills its role and it is stupid and expensive to drive the 5th generation where the plane of the Su25 type could handle. War is not measuring organs in a bathhouse.
      1. Alf
        Alf 21 July 2020 19: 14 New
        0
        Quote: Victor Sergeev
        How funny you are.

        So enlighten us, unworthy ones, how can you start designing the 6th generation if the 5th doesn't really fly?
        1. Outsider
          Outsider 23 July 2020 22: 49 New
          0
          - And dream? fellow
        2. ZEMCH
          ZEMCH 30 September 2020 16: 16 New
          0
          Quote: Alf
          So enlighten us, unworthy ones, how can you start designing the 6th generation if the 5th doesn't really fly?

          This is how it always works))) One generation is brought to mind, sold to foreign markets, while we are working on the next
      2. Region68
        Region68 22 July 2020 04: 53 New
        -1
        In order to drive or not drive 5th generation aircraft to wherever the Su25 can handle, it is necessary that these 5th generation aircraft are in service ..
        How many Su57 do we have in the ranks?
        Zero?
  7. rocket757
    rocket757 20 July 2020 18: 37 New
    +1
    ... the numerous successes of the USSR in the field of fighter development (it is worthwhile, however, to say that not all Soviet combat aircraft were successful) are due not so much to the cooperation of different design bureaus as to fierce competition between them.

    But this is really worth thinking about !!!
    No matter how it happens to cooperate "chimeras", internal contradictions, ts.
    There are plenty of examples in our history.
    It is clear that financing two offices is much more expensive than one, but in this case, POSITIVE RESULT IS NECESSARY!
  8. Grazdanin
    Grazdanin 20 July 2020 18: 43 New
    15
    In the USSR, 3-4 KB were beaten for each project, in the USA, 2 flying prototypes are made for each project, after a competition.
    We give everything to Su, they fail, but they get orders again. Now they are given a barely living MiG. In a few years, Su will have no alternatives at all, and they will be able to work as they please, to disrupt any deadlines, to request the amount they want.
    1. Firelake
      Firelake 20 July 2020 21: 53 New
      0
      So this has already been tested in medicine)
    2. storm
      storm 20 July 2020 22: 29 New
      +1
      And then "our eternal moon-faced" in a few years will revive KB MiG again, informing the people that again "Storetkin" was to blame for the merger of KB in the distant 20th ...
    3. pavelty
      pavelty 21 July 2020 14: 54 New
      0
      MiG-35 not ... have you heard?)
  9. storm
    storm 20 July 2020 18: 55 New
    +2
    If you cross the American Tirex, the Russian Sukhoi and the MiG, you get TIRAMISU (:
  10. Mikhail m
    Mikhail m 20 July 2020 19: 23 New
    +2
    Both Tempest, and Next Generation Fighter, and sixth-generation American fighters are designed as optionally manned vehicles.
    Those. excess volumes for pilots are initially designed, limiting overloads in maneuvers. But is it necessary? Artificial limitation of the capabilities of a promising machine.
    1. Herman 4223
      Herman 4223 20 July 2020 23: 11 New
      +1
      With long-range air combat, everything is not so simple yet. And you want a completely autonomous device. Better to let it be manned, and engineers will always find what to improve. The T-50 has been in development for 18 years already, many new things have already been discovered in the world during this time.
  11. Maks1995
    Maks1995 20 July 2020 20: 15 New
    +7
    And what to pour from empty to empty every 3 days? There is nothing, nothing is clear, only like parrots: the sixth generation, the sixth generation ...

    5th would be done first, then 5+, then 5 ++. Then, after 10 years, and they were talking noodles ...
  12. Pavel57
    Pavel57 20 July 2020 21: 56 New
    +1
    Passage about 1.44, to sweeten the Mikoyanovites.
  13. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 20 July 2020 22: 04 New
    +2
    To talk about the 6th generation, you need to test at least 4 +++ on both sides of the conflict in a regional war using more or less adequate air defense systems. What is happening now in Syria or Libya is the war of yesterday (judging by the list of means used) with isolated timid episodes.
    The world is now frozen in a long drawn-out sideshow, lasting the second ten years - all these "Stealth", Abrams and "Tomahawks" are the fruit of the experience of twenty years ago. Based on the experience of Yugoslavia-Iraq, a whole generation and modernization of military equipment was created, possibly very far removed during this time from the realities of a future major war in conditions of saturation with an array of modern means and technologies.
    So it's too early to even think about the 6th generation of fighters.
  14. Aleks2000
    Aleks2000 20 July 2020 22: 56 New
    +2
    There is nothing other than the generation name. Only the donor in the articles rings. With this approach, let alone the 6th, 5+ generations, one should not wait ...

    And it is time for "experts" to start rolling articles about star cruisers. In a distant, distant galaxy ...
  15. Vasilenko Vladimir
    Vasilenko Vladimir 20 July 2020 23: 21 New
    +3
    joint forces will develop the sixth generation
    and maybe for a start to saturate the troops with aircraft of the fifth generation? !!!!
    1. Igor Tikhomirov
      Igor Tikhomirov 21 July 2020 07: 37 New
      -3
      They made one unnecessary airplane. The task was for one, but they made a monstrous tumbling unfinished product. The allocated funds were used. It's time to start a new process.
    2. Alf
      Alf 21 July 2020 19: 16 New
      0
      Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
      joint forces will develop the sixth generation
      and maybe for a start to saturate the troops with aircraft of the fifth generation? !!!!

      Don't bother dreaming of stars ...
      1. Vasilenko Vladimir
        Vasilenko Vladimir 21 July 2020 20: 46 New
        +1
        Quote: Alf
        dream of stars ...

        on shoulder straps?
  16. Valery Potapov
    Valery Potapov 21 July 2020 08: 14 New
    0
    The ruling demshiz hopes that it will be wrong ... The new word in the aircraft industry is a medium fighter ...
  17. 501Legion
    501Legion 21 July 2020 08: 51 New
    0
    Neither the Naglo-Saxons nor the Europeans will create anything, without their American brother, they are too dependent
  18. SanSanych Gusev
    SanSanych Gusev 21 July 2020 10: 55 New
    +1
    Would make a flying saucer right away
  19. English tarantas
    English tarantas 21 July 2020 12: 09 New
    0
    First, the fifth generation would have been completed ...
  20. CBR600
    CBR600 21 July 2020 12: 16 New
    -1
    Take the best ... If it works out, which I doubt, it is rather a strategic move on the way to 7-ke. Then the companies will go their own ways, using the developments of Project 6. For 6 is the real ceiling of evolution. By the way, 57 can be considered as a prototype of the 6-ki, due to the potential. The situation here, of course, is depressing. Actually, as well as in many ways. But the approach is correct.
    __ Can I ask the author to sign the photos? And then somehow ... not even words like
  21. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 21 July 2020 15: 02 New
    0
    Quote: vVvAD
    Those. the economy of war can be as follows: to cover the direction, fewer heavy fighters are needed (including at aggregate cost) due to the multiple of the larger radius. In battle, a heavy fighter is capable of destroying more light fighters, having detected them earlier, and, first striking the RVV BD, which the lungs simply will not have, at medium distances in the conditions of REP and shooting traps, it will have a larger BP, and at close range it will have better maneuverability.
    The educational program is here, I recommend it to everyone: https://topwar.ru/38556-legkiy-istrebitel.html

    1. Then a few fighters with the dimensions of An-225 or larger are better.
    2. No one has canceled that to balance the superiority of numbers by 3 times you need 9 times the best fighters, for 4 times you need 16 times the best fighters, and so on.
    3. An aircraft of a smaller size is more difficult to detect in the air and on the ground, it will have better maneuver, and its basing is much more tenacious.
  22. EMMM
    EMMM 21 July 2020 19: 11 New
    0
    to maintain a confident leadership in the industry, we need to consolidate the best competencies that exist today in the MiG and Sukhoi companies and create new sixth generation aircraft.

    State-monopoly capitalism (imperialism) is called. Read the classics.
  23. uav80
    uav80 22 July 2020 09: 15 New
    0
    Why not try to build a lightweight single-engine fighter first ...
    Our aviation industry has completely forgotten how to make such a campaign, or the problem is in the motors .. ???
    1. times
      times 24 July 2020 20: 40 New
      -3
      The military doesn't want one motor.
  24. Tom Johnson
    Tom Johnson 20 August 2020 02: 25 New
    0
    "confident leadership" that is some good comedy writing
  25. Alexander Yaroshenko
    Alexander Yaroshenko 2 September 2020 23: 53 New
    +1
    bullshit, how it is possible to combine two different design schools, only in Serdyukov's way to optimize and cut property, expelling the type of extra specialists
  26. Charik
    Charik 24 September 2020 05: 35 New
    -1
    What he will be, the hero knows - a little "chair"
  27. seacap
    seacap 25 September 2020 13: 08 New
    0
    Now, under the guidance of the most "effective" and most "irreplaceable", the most "professional", the most "honest and decent" manager Taburetkin, who, however, comes across thieving assistants, mostly assistants, we will build the most, most duper layout for the exhibition, simultaneously eliminating legendary design bureaus to please competitors, as academies and military educational institutions, military science were successfully destroyed before. One "journalist", the same "effective" manager, took all trades out of boredom, replaced Korolyov, soon we will fly to Venus, all and sundry, in a dream.