The best aircraft engines for fighters in terms of thrust

It is impossible to determine which aviation the engine is better and which one is worse, because these are complex engineering products characterized by many different characteristics and created for different types of aircraft designed to perform different tasks. Therefore, they can only be compared by individual parameters. If you choose the three leaders among engines for fighters, taking into account their thrust, then it will include products from Russian and American manufacturers.

Thrust is one of the key parameters of a combat aircraft engine

In aviation, thrust is the force that pushes an airplane in the air. It is opposed by frontal resistance. If the car is flying straight and horizontally at a constant speed, then the thrust will be approximately equal to the drag.

Most often, thrust is measured in kilonewtons (kN) or kilogram-forces (kgf). There are roughly 10 newtons per kilogram-force. And to be precise, then 1 kgf = 9,80665 N.

Using this indicator, we select the three best engines in terms of thrust. To simplify the task, we will compare their maximum thrust in afterburner mode.

Engines for the Su-27 family of fighters

Russian fighters Su-27, Su-30 and Su-35 belong to the same family. The Su-30 became the basis for the design of the later Su-35 and Su-27.

The Su-27 combat aircraft uses an AL-31F bypass turbojet engine with an afterburner. Each fighter is equipped with two such engines. They are also used to equip Su-30 fighters. Such an engine in afterburner mode is capable of developing a maximum thrust of 122,6 kN.

The newer Su-35 fighter uses a different engine - AL-41F1S, which has a controlled thrust vector. This product, like the previous one, has a length of 4,9 meters and a diameter of 1,2 meters. Despite the fact that the new unit has the same dimensions, it is capable of developing much more thrust than its predecessor. It is already 142,2 kN.

American champion F-22

F-22 fighters manufactured in the United States are powered by Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 engines. To date, more than 500 units have been produced. This product is a twin-shaft engine equipped with counter-rotating high and low pressure rotors.

In terms of thrust, which is almost 155 kN, the F119-PW-100 has every right to be the leader among engines for fighter aircraft. True, with some reservations.

As stated earlier, thrust is far from the only characteristic. Therefore, due to the greater mass, the maximum speed developed by the F-22 is lower than the speed of the Su-35, although the American develops more thrust than the Russian.

In addition, as it turned out, the F119-PW-100 engines develop their resource faster than expected. Therefore, the US Air Force is already beginning to experience a shortage of these products.

On the other hand, if the service life of the engines is coming to an end, this indicates their intensive operation. And the active use of products testifies to the fact that it has found its place in the American military aviation and is quite satisfactory in its characteristics to its users.

Unified Russian aircraft engine

In July of this year, Evgeny Semivelichenko, Managing Director of the Lyulka Experimental Design Bureau at the Ufa Motor-Building Software, told the agency RIA News on the beginning of the development of a new universal aircraft engine for the Su-27, Su-30 and Su-35 fighters. In this case, the product can be installed on any of the three types of aircraft without modifying the airframe.

It is planned to improve the technical characteristics of the engine compared to its predecessors, and it will use the components already involved in the previous models.

The unification of engines for different types of fighters is a positive factor in terms of the economics of their production. At the same time, it will become cheaper and easier to service this equipment in parts.

And when the first prototype of the new engine is created, it will be interesting to know its technical characteristics, including the developed thrust.

Comments

[D16]

But what about the F-35 with its engine? There is a thrust of EMNIP 19,5t.

[Harry.km]

Quote: D16

But what about the F-35 with its engine?

Yeah, I also read the article and the feeling that the essence of the article is another promise to overtake and overtake ...
F-135-PW-100/400 19500kgs afterburner.

[D16]

Although if the product is finished 30 with its 18000 kgf, then the specific thrust will make amers.

[Harry.km]

It may well be. But the article itself is one-sided. I began to compare the thrust, so write that the engines are more powerful on the F-35. And if, as an argument that the amerskoye is worse, the conversation about the resource began, then it is necessary to add that the f-22 has a flat nozzle, but the pitch only in one plane changes in contrast to our all-aspect ones. For an instant-25, the thrust was much less, but it flew faster than the current f-22 and su-35. In general, not a single thrust ...)

[Grazdanin]

Quote: Harry.km

on the f-22 flat nozzle, but the pitch only in one plane changes in contrast to our all-aspect.

Well, such an advantage, as in the joke about the elusive Joe. Whoever wanted to do, he did.

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: Grazdanin

Whoever wanted to do, he did.

There really is not much sense, which was confirmed by the Americans themselves, having abandoned the flat nozzle.

[Grazdanin]

Quote: Cyril G ...

abandoning the flat nozzle.

They refused not everywhere, everywhere it makes no sense to sculpt it for sure. This nozzle has enough disadvantages, the advantages are not always obvious.

[D16]

Whoever wanted to do, he did.

Exactly. No one is going to fight with us, but they will do it against the Papuans. Moreover, from the level of development of the Germans, given to the amers to us as to the moon.

[Kasym]

In the article ... in addition to air resistance, there is gravity.
The Chinese began to copy exactly the Soviet engines because of the mass-dimensional characteristics and thrust that they gave out - this proportion was in favor of the Soviet engines. Take that RD-33 from the MiG-29 - an outstanding engine, in my opinion. The resource is up to 4000 hours, the weight is 1 ton, and the thrust is 5,4 ton. (9,4 - CHVR (max. Afterburner)). Take the F-135 with a weight of 1,7 tons. with thrust 13t. (19t-CHVR). In proportion, 33 wins. And why do the Americans put restrictions on the speed (thrust) of the F-35?
Actually, the thrust of the engine depends on the temperature, or rather the materials that can withstand the maximum parameters, which depend on pressure and temperature.

[D16]

The Chinese began to copy exactly the Soviet engines because of the mass-dimensional characteristics and thrust that they gave out.

They are copying into the insolent CFM-56 (WS-20) and F100 (WS-10), made on his YG. They make RD-93 under license. It seems like they tried to do D-30KP2 (WS-18) but nothing is heard about the results.

[lelyk72]

5,4/1<13/1.7, a 9.4/1<19/1.7.
Che then I do not appear that "33 is better" ......
Please explain.

[VO3A]

Can't tell which aircraft engine is better

It looks like the author has no technical education! The engine is characterized by specific thrust, specific consumption and resource ... The best engine on a military serial combat aircraft is on the F35 Pratt & Whitney F135! Very good engines on Rafal and promise even better on the new modification ... We must not forget about the cost ... Those that are not on the serial ones, we do not take into account ...

[dauria]

In general, not a single traction.

I would like to mention simple school physics in the article. And it would become clear why it would not be possible to put an engine with a huge thrust from a transport aircraft on a fighter. Thrust is the mass of gas per second multiplied by the speed of the jet at the exit. You can increase the mass, you can increase the speed. In this case, it is more convenient to increase the mass for reasons of energy (fuel) consumption. Everyone remembers that energy is Um VE square?
But the trouble is - as soon as the plane went (flew), the plane's speed must be subtracted from the jet speed at the nozzle exit. And at the same speed, the thrust will turn to zero. (Well, not quite - it will equal the resistance) And that's it, you can't jump further.
Therefore, it is stupid to put a jet engine on a maize - just an empty translation of kerosene. And on the screw you can't jump for the sound. And with a large double-circuit fan you will save kerosene, but you will not accelerate quickly.

[Grazdanin]

Quote: D16

product 30 with its 18000kgs, then the specific thrust will make amers.

They won't. The XA100 from General Electric and the XA101 from Pratt & Whitney have more than 200 kgf.

[Lontus]

Quote: Grazdanin

Quote: D16

product 30 with its 18000kgs, then the specific thrust will make amers.

They won't. The XA100 from General Electric and the XA101 from Pratt & Whitney have more than 200 kgf.

200, but not kgf, but N or less than 000 kN.

[Grazdanin]

Yes, thanks, I wrote it wrong.

[bayard]

Specific thrust is the ratio of thrust to unit weight. With equal thrust (and for "Product-30, the thrust at the maximum temperature regime on the turbine blades is just 19,5 tons, but in a sparing mode, for a longer resource - 18 tons), the weight of" Product-30 "is slightly less than the AL-31F (which is 1300 kg.) ... we will assume that 1250 kg.
And what about the F-135?
More than one and a half times higher!
But the product is being tested ...
Here are the prototypes you gave ... so far only prototypes. And as they appear serially, then we will weigh and compare.

[D16]

They won’t do it.

Specific thrust is determined not only by the maximum thrust, but also by the weight of the power plant. So it's not a fact at all. And they will be sawing for another 10-15 years.

[Kasym]

Citizen, here, too, something depends on weight. How can the force of gravity be eliminated - you are related to physical-mat. disciplines or what ?!

[Grazdanin]

The weight of the new XA100 / 101 engines will be approximately equal to the F135, but at least 10% more powerful, it will definitely have more than 19500 kgf. What was written earlier is a typo.

[D16]

The new XA100 / 101 engines will weigh approximately equal to F135

Directly there are proofs, but somehow I can't believe it.

[Grazdanin]

The task is to make a new engine for the F35. It should be approximately equal to the mass-dimensional characteristics of the current one.

[D16]

So this does not mean that it will be crammed into the old F-35. Surely they will arrange some kind of airframe modernization for this business. Think for yourself. The 135th motor itself is the ultimate design. How long the F-35 was limited to overload due to the motor. In any case, the third circuit should increase its dimensions and weight. I don’t believe in alternative physics. I don't understand the meaning of this modernization at all. What will the new motor give? The penguin cannot fly faster. Payload weight is limited by the volume of internal weapon bays. There are simpler methods to improve maneuverability than a new motor. They basically finished the OBT. The F-16 VISTA won't let you lie. Refueling is in the air. Do you think they are going to save kerosene or improve overclocking characteristics?

[Grazdanin]

Quote: D16

So this does not mean that it will be stuffed into the old F-35.

The task is as follows.
The General Electric XA100 is a three-flow adaptive cyclic demonstrator engine developed by General Electric (GE) for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and the US Air Force's sixth generation fighter program.

Quote: D16

Do you think they are going to save kerosene

Yes, they are going to save fuel.
AETP's goal is to demonstrate 25% improved fuel efficiency, 10% additional thrust and significantly better thermal management.
According to GE, the engine could offer up to 35% longer range and 25% lower fuel consumption compared to current turbojets.

I recommend to google on the English-speaking segment of the Internet: Adaptive Engine Technology Demonstrator (AETD), Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP), General Electric XA100

[D16]

According to GE, the engine could offer up to 35% longer range and 25% lower fuel consumption compared to current turbojets.

When I see the article "before" in front of the number 35, and the wording "in comparison with the current turbojet engines", then I immediately remember the anecdote about my grandfather, whom the doctor recommends:
- The neighbor speaks three times a night, so you say ... You never know these "current" turbojet engines

[Herman 4223]

With such a thrust, a supersonic aircraft weighing 200 tons can be made.

[Orange bigg]

Quote: Harry.km

Quote: D16

But what about the F-35 with its engine?

Yeah, I also read the article and the feeling that the essence of the article is another promise to overtake and overtake ...
F-135-PW-100/400 19500kgs afterburner.

More modest.
19 100 kgf on afterburner for F-135-PW-100/400 and
18 200 kgf on afterburner for F135-PW-600.

Specifications (F135-PW-100)
Data from F135engine.com

General characteristics
Type: afterburner turbojet engine
Length: 220 inches (559 cm)
Diameter: 46 "(117 cm) max., 43" (109 cm) fan inlet
Dry weight: 5400 lb (2449 kg)
Components
Compressor: 3-stage fan, 6-stage high pressure compressor
Combustion chambers: annular combustion chamber
Turbine: 1-stage high pressure turbine, 2-stage low pressure turbine.
Performance
Maximum thrust:
Military thrust 28000 lbf (128 kN),
43000 lbf (191 kN) with afterburner
Total pressure ratio: 28: 1 total pressure ratio
Thrust-to-weight ratio: 5,185: 1 (dry), 7,963: 1 (wet / afterburning)
Specifications (F135-PW-600)
Data from F135engine.com

General characteristics
Type: Turbojet afterburner with external lift fan driven by shaft
Length: 369 inches (937,3 cm)
Diameter: 46 "(116,8 cm) maximum, 43" (109,2 cm) fan inlet, 53 inches (134,6 cm) lift fan inlet
Dry weight:
Components
Compressor: 3-stage fan, 6-stage high pressure compressor, 2-stage, reverse rotation, shaft driven lift fan
Combustion chambers: annular combustion chamber
Turbine: single stage high pressure turbine, two stage low pressure turbine
Performance
Maximum thrust:
Military thrust 27000 lbf (120 kN),
41000 lb (182 kN) afterburner
40650 lbf (181 kN) hover
Total pressure ratio: total pressure ratio 28: 1 (normal), total pressure ratio 29: 1 (mechanical lift),

[EnGenius]

Then remember the "veteran" D-30F6 from the MiG-31 with a maximum thrust of 15,5 tf.

[D16]

And then there was the R-79-300 from the Yak-141. The same 15,5 tf.

[lucul]

But what about the F-35 with its engine? There is a thrust of EMNIP 19,5t.

Well, an airplane with such an engine (thrust) must be one of the fastest in the world, why then the F-35 are inferior to many fighters in maximum speed? )))))

[3danimal]

It's not that simple, it is important to take into account the specific thrust-to-weight ratio, that is, the ratio of thrust to mass.

[D16]

an aircraft with such an engine (thrust) must be one of the fastest in the world

Firstly, he is there alone, and secondly, the penguin has become a victim of stealth. Weapons and fuel should be placed around the engine and air passages. Hence the large midsection and high drag.

[lucul]

Firstly, he is there alone, and secondly, the penguin has become a victim of stealth. Weapons and fuel should be placed around the engine and air passages. Hence the large midsection and high drag.

Even the MiG-21 managed to accommodate all this without problems, with a much weaker one engine too. And the speed of the MiG-21 is better than the F-35 ...

[Herman 4223]

The engine thrust at different altitudes will be different, the higher the aircraft, the less thrust the engine will give. For different models, the thrust drops with height in different ways, so the Mig-31 with a relatively low thrust develops such a speed at a height that other machines with similar or greater thrust cannot handle.

[Zaurbek]

There is no direct analogue in the Russian Federation ... and it is necessary to compare the turbojet engine on the MiG-29/35 with the turbojet engine on the F-18 / Rafal / Typhoon and the turbojet engine on the Su35 with those on the new F-15.

[hwostatij]

And is it nothing that the F-35 is single-engine, and ours are 2?

[Zaurbek]

So the F-22 - two-engine! .... We just do not have a turbojet engine in such a class as the F-35. There is nothing to compare.

[Reserve buildbat]

"On the other hand, if the resource of the engines is coming to an end, this indicates their intensive use. And the active use of the products indicates that it has found its place in the American military aviation and is quite satisfactory in its characteristics to its users."
Based on this statement by the author, we can conclude that the M-105 (VK-105) engine was quite satisfactory for the "users", since it was built in thousands of copies. Although it is well known that there was a constant search and design of new engines to replace the too low-power and heavy M-105. There was simply nothing better. And with the fu-22, the same situation is quite likely.

[Grazdanin]

Rather, they want to replace the motors with XA100 from General Electric or XA101 from Pratt & Whitney. The US Air Force has long wanted to modernize the F22, Congress is pressing money.

[Mountain shooter]

It is desirable for the plant that the mastered product does not change. Then the production costs are minimal, the technologies are well-established, the production is rhythmic. Operators want something new, simpler, more economical, more resource-intensive, less time consuming to maintain. Well, engine developers want new topics on which to grow professionally and administratively, and in general ... KB should constantly develop something, and "not on the table", but to be serialized ... And all this horror costs how much .. The art of management consists in the fact that all these contradictions are compromised ... It will turn out - there will be a synergistic effect, it will not work ...

[grandfather_Kostya]

Non-afterburning engine thrust is an equally important parameter. It determines the flight range, practical altitude and carrying capacity, but not a word about it. The ability to overcome the supersonic barrier without afterburner, a sign of the 5th generation, is also worth mentioning.

[mi ah]

If you judge only by thrust - how do you like the D-18 with its 23430 kN? It's also a motor for a military plane! Ahh, an article about fighter engines? all the same extremely one-sided!

[Orange bigg]

For the An-124 transport aircraft, its task is to transport goods of any purpose, including military ones, as a maximum it can be attributed to military transport aviation.

[Operator]

What was that?

Aircraft engines in the same power categories have been compared in terms of specific thrust and specific fuel consumption for the second century already.

[Soho]

Do not bother the people to discuss the spherokonin. After all, they think that if a more powerful engine is screwed onto the glider, the plane will fly faster. In reality, this does not happen often.

[bayard]

Quote: Operator

What was that?

Another evidence of the squalor of modern journalism.
Intellectual.
And banal laziness.
Well, they ordered you an article about aircraft engines, so treat your essay like a student - work on the sources ... well, you don't need to go to the library for a week - everything is digitized in Google.
Yes, even look through Wikipedia, you will already avoid shame ...
Moderators, well, this is already completely unbearable, well, at least put up old articles 7-10 years ago on your own site for re-discussion if there are no normal authors ... Well, how many "threesomes from a rural school" can you print?

[Eug]

I would also bring the air flow. And the thrust to diameter ratio. And resource. Perhaps, in the first approximation, everything.

[Operator]

The resource - yes, but the air consumption and the ratio of thrust to diameter are caught through the specific fuel consumption.

[Eug]

Please clarify. If I don’t know about the air flow, but I seem to see a chain, how can I “catch” the diameter through the specific flow rate? Unless knowing a number of other parameters (rpm, etc.) .. I'm not an engine manager.

[Operator]

Air consumption and engine diameter are compared not in absolute terms, but in relative values ​​per unit of thrust, since they directly depend on the degree of improvement of the engine, i.e. specific fuel consumption per unit of thrust.

Naturally, all indicators should be given for the same speed limits.

[wow]

Engines, engines, aircraft engines ... How much did I suffer with you in the service in the IAS of the USSR Air Force!

[voyaka uh]

Why not mention the Pratt & Whitney F135, which is about 9% more powerful than the F-22 engine?
And its next version, which is now in continuous testing, will give an increase of about 10% more.

[Grazdanin]

Quote: voyaka uh

Why Pratt & Whitney F135 is not mentioned

The maximum thrust figure of 191 kN will ramp up the local thrust.

[Orange bigg]

The main thing is that this number of placoloks pleases and they finally stop crying with or without.

[bayard]

Why can this figure upset, if on the same site it has already been discussed, analyzed and compared hundreds of times?
The F-35 has a good engine.
But heavy.
And overall.
Therefore, if we compare it with what is being prepared under the "Products-30" program, namely, their SPECIFIC thrust (per kilogram of weight), the picture is completely different. The "product" is made in weight and dimensions of the AL-31 - a little bit lighter, a little shorter and a little more in diameter.
And the thrust is the same as that of the F-135 (19500 kgf at the maximum temperature on the turbine blades, and 18000 kgf - with a more gentle mode).
And if you consider that the weight of the latest version of the F-135 is not less than 2200 kg. , and the "Product-30" - 1250 - 1300 kg. ?
So it turns out that in terms of specific thrust it will be ahead of that version. their opponent, which is now being intensively prepared and tested.
Soviet-Russian engines always had one problem - resource.
But there is not a word about this parameter in the article (as well as about many other things).

[Grazdanin]

The prototype must be compared with the prototype. Pratt & Whitney F119 also plans to upgrade in a similar way to the XA100 / 101 as well as the engines for the F15 / 16.

[bayard]

We have no other fifth generation engine. The AL-41F is a transitional engine that appeared 5-6 years earlier than the F-22 engine, they are similar in characteristics, but the American one is still better.
And "Product-30", it will already be an engine of at least generation 5+.
And it is precisely in terms of specific thrust that the prototypes available in the USA and England cannot be compared to them yet.
How not to compare the new engines for the F-15X with our good old AL-31F. In terms of thrust, he just caught up, but in terms of WEIGHT - no.
But excellent performance in terms of resource ... which is not surprising, because it has a higher heat capacity due to its weight. ... a joke.
So, in terms of specific thrust, the engines of the 4th generation are either at the level - RD-33 compared to the "Shafran" from "Raphael" or F-404 \ 414 from the F-18, or better - AL-31F, AL-41F ...
But in the 5th generation it is necessary to wait for the "product-30", then we will see, but according to the information available now, ours will be much better in terms of specific thrust.

[askort154]

Unfortunately, Russia has never been among the leaders in engine building, either piston (automobile-aviation) or turbo-jet aircraft. We have always been in the role of "catch-up", just like China is now. The engine is a bunch of technological achievements of the state .. Starting with the quality of the metal, the technology of its processing - and so on increasing. The main stumbling block of aircraft engines is
became, the temperature limitation of the turbine blades. The engine power also depends on the temperatures of the turbine exhaust gases. The higher the temperature of the exhaust gases, the greater the thrust. Our first jet MiG-15, flew on an English engine. We cloned everything, but the resource was 2 times less.
Even now, for a decade now, we have not been able to create the required engine - for the Su-57 and MS-21. Therefore, the powerfully developing China has bypassed us, and other countries, in electronics and other technologies, but still lags far behind in engine building. (In a nutshell on this topic).

[Orange bigg]

Can't create? Product 30 on flight tests, and the first serial PD-14s were installed on the MS-21.

[askort154]

OrangeBigg ....Can't create? Product 30 on flight tests, and the first serial PD-14s were installed on the MS-21.

Thank ! I know. These are the first steps of a child. When hundreds of aircraft will fly only on our engines, and with high performance - a long resource, low specific fuel consumption, affordable service anywhere in the world,
then it will be possible to say - Yes, we did everything!

[Orange bigg]

I replied to you that we, from your words, supposedly cannot create engines for the Su-57 and MS-21. You immediately refute this statement of yours, saying thank you, I know everything (about Product 30
and PD-14) and for some reason start talking about “we made everyone” and “hundreds of planes anywhere in the world.” A strange conversation turns out.

[askort154]

I answered you that we, from your words, allegedly cannot create engines for the Su-57 and MS-21. You immediately refute this statement of yours, saying thank you, I know everything (about Product 30 and PD-14) and for some reason start talking about "we made everyone" and "hundreds of planes anywhere in the world." A strange conversation turns out.

Apparently I poorly stated my thoughts.
I'll start from the "stove". "Superjet" - on whose engines it was created, and after the sanctions it entered the "exhausted series" ?!
"MS-21" - on whose engines did it begin to be created, and was it factory tested? The last of 6 flew, American)
Su-57 - why did not it go into series production in full - there is no engine providing a non-afterburner cruising mode at supersonic speed. (One of the priorities of the 5th generation fighter) Be-200 - why does not it go into a large series - there is no engine of its own.
To summarize, in the USSR (Russia) there have never been problems with airplane gliders, there has always been a problem with engines - a short resource, high fuel consumption, high decibels.
In Soviet times, this was not a "problem" - especially the price of fuel.
Now Russia has moved to capitalism, you have to pay for everything.
And the worst thing is that they destroyed the entire production base of the country.
Yes, now we are close to the "exhaust" - PD-14 and PD-35 and the "second stage" engine for the Su-57. But this has been going on for more than 10 years. What's the hindrance?
1 - the collapse of the country - the collapse of production structures,
2 - instead of restoring them, they decided to build aircraft and ships on foreign engines.
Everything was happy - full partnership! And suddenly, instead of kissing passionately sanctions!
And finally it came - not for the purpose of the collapse of the USSR, so that Russia would take its place. We are in many respects "scratched out" of the situation at the expense of the baggage that still survived from the USSR. And although they put a spoke in our wheels, they can no longer break Russia. The main thing is that we have not lost the military-industrial complex. Therefore, my "lamentations" about the lag in engine building were based mainly on this. But I see that this problem, the last 5 years have begun to be dealt with closely, I am sure that in the next 5 years there will be a problem with engines, for aviation and the fleet
will be resolved.

[3danimal]

Well, couldn’t it have been supposed? Pursue an active foreign policy with increments of territories by military / paramilitary means, threats to use nuclear weapons (albeit in passing).
When preparing to launch the 2014 scripts, what were you thinking about?

[Sergey_G_M]

The 2014 scenario was not launched by the RF. We just adjusted it a little.

[3danimal]

Ok, preparing for the "correction", the result of which was the increment of territories, did not assume such consequences? Is it naivety or incompetence?

[Sergey_G_M]

The fact is that if we had not carried out the correction it would have been worse, not to understand this is naivety and incompetence.

[3danimal]

You do not understand..

Everything was happy - full partnership! And suddenly, instead of kissing passionately sanctions!

That is what it is about.

did not expect such consequences?

[Cyril G ...]

You have beguiled the cause with the effect.
In terms of the Crimea, clearly did not stand - see helicopter carriers at least. However, at some point, the United States again went on the offensive by organizing a coup in Ukraine. Moscow was forced to respond by liberating Crimea and providing assistance to an armed uprising in Donbas ...

[3danimal]

organizing a coup in Ukraine.

How does the (conditionally) coup of 2004 differ from 2014? In the 00s, they continued to interact normally. You will be surprised, but even now the relations are not broken off.
And the governor-general does not rule there. What if Soloviev, Kiselev and Skobeeva are misleading us?

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: 3danimal

What if Soloviev, Kiselev and Skobeeva are misleading us?

I learned about Solovyov after the many cries of all kinds of Ukrainians. In my opinion, Solovyov is watched exclusively by all kinds of natsiks, city madmen, and citizens who are sick with liberalism of the brain. What category do you belong to?

Than (conditionally) coup

Everyone. wipe your glasses ...

[3danimal]

Than everyone? We were told that the Nazis captured everything there. How many are there in the Rada ??
IMHO, it was with us that they started fanning hysteria (it's easy) in 2014. A number of politicians spoke about Crimea much earlier (even Luzhkov).
Again, IMHO, it was possible to maintain the norms of attitude by acting ... more intellectually. Let me remind you that Yanukovych got out a few years after the 2004 Maidan.

[Grazdanin]

Quote: askort154

Russia has never been among the leaders in engine building

In the sense? We were and are one of the leaders. Not the best as uryakly shout, but at least in the top three. How many countries in the world are making modern jet engines? Fingers on one hand are enough.

Quote: askort154

China has bypassed us, and other countries, in electronics

Whom did he go around? As they were maximally secondary, they remain. Their + price, it is important for the masses of the market. Electronics of the USA, South Korea, Japan, France, Germany and so on is a cut above.

[3danimal]

There is a simple comparison: Which countries have the most powerful supercomputers?

[Sergey_G_M]

A supercomputer is a lego made of ready-made components. Who designs the processors?

[3danimal]

Intel, AMD, Apple, Qualcomm, on a significant scale. We have a small production.
70% of the market for chip bases is Taiwan and the USA.

[NEXUS]

Quote: 3danimal

Intel, AMD, Apple, Qualcomm, on a significant scale.

And Intel processors, forgive whose genes they have, do not tell me? Do you mean that such names as Pentkovsky or Babayan, for example, do not say anything? Have the mattresses stolen the technologies that were implemented in the USSR on the first, second and most importantly the third Elbrus?

[3danimal]

surnames like Pentkovsky or Babayan, for example, do not say anything? Have the mattresses stolen the technologies that were implemented in the USSR on the first, second and most importantly the third Elbrus?

If so, then it all belonged to the 90s.
Modern Intel and AMD have gone far ahead. Not to mention Qualcomm and Apple (ARM processors)

[NEXUS]

Quote: 3danimal

If so, then it all belonged to the 90s.
Modern Intel and AMD have gone far ahead. Not to mention Qualcomm and Apple (ARM processors)

You are mistaken in a couple of moments. The first is Babayan and several of our engineers who once worked at MCST in the 2000s, and then, chasing a long dollar, ran to Intel, they still work there. The second moment ... is that with regards to the processors themselves ...
I'll throw you a video here ... everything is very clearly explained and shown there.

And I agree with the author, if necessary, the same Elbrus will become faster and more productive than the newest Intel processors and AMD, and very quickly. Only our Ministry of Defense does not set such tasks yet.

[3danimal]

if necessary, the same Elbrus will become faster and more productive and the newest Intel processors and AMD

Wishes ... These two companies have huge research and production facilities. Operating time. And huge series, which allows you to make an affordable price.
As a consequence: Elbrus will be, will lag somewhat (in terms of performance and process technology), it will be expensive, and for limited use (military, special encryption)

[Cyril G ...]

Today's aircraft engine is the most impossible high-tech in comparison with the rest.

[The eye of the crying]

Quote: Grazdanin

in the top three at least

And how many countries make their engines ... 4 like?

[askort154]

Grazdanin ....In terms of? We were and are one of the leaders. Not the best as uryakly shout, but at least in the top three. How many countries in the world are making modern jet engines? Fingers on one hand are enough.

Here leadership is not like in sports - 1st, 2nd, 3rd place.
Here is leadership in the basis of product creation. You will simply plunge into the history of engine building, whether piston or turbojet. Then you will understand the edge. Who is the founder, who is the copier, who is the finalizer. I am a patriot no less than you, but here it is not about patriotism, but about truth. During his life, he exploited a lot of engines, and piston, and turbo-screw, and turbo-jet. I know what I'm talking about, not by hearsay.

[Grazdanin]

In general, I agree, the question here is what is meant by the word "leadership".

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: Grazdanin

Not the best as uryakly shout, but at least in the top three. How many countries in the world are making modern jet engines? Fingers on one hand are enough.

Quite right. First USA. then we are conventionally Europeans ... Europeans are ahead of us in terms of resource, we are in terms of aggregate capacity.

[gvozdan]

"But what about the F-35 with its engine?"
F-135-PW-100/400 19500kgs afterburner. weight 2450 kg. 7,95 kgf / kg
AL-41F1S - 14000 kgf, weight 1608 kg. 8,7 kgf / kg
But there is also the NK-32 from the Tu-160 with a tag of 25000 kgf
As for the engines of the second stage for the Su-57, many were in vain upset when the announced (misunderstood by the majority) 30% of the increase in thrust turned out to be 15-17%. Because the fuel consumption has decreased (efficiency has increased), which is even better for a fighter in which a third of the mass is fuel. A decrease in the mass of fuel with an equal flight range gives an increase in thrust-to-weight ratio the same as from an increase in thrust, but at the same time, with a lower TV, the aircraft can fly farther than if only the thrust had grown.

[engineer74]

The article is about nothing!
If we compare engines for fighters, then there is one more or less objective criterion: specific thrust, i.e. the ratio of thrust to engine mass. You can also add specific fuel consumption here: fuel consumption per unit of thrust for a certain time.
According to the author, the best engine for a fighter jet is the Trent 9000 and its analogues. And don't care if it's bigger and heavier than a fighter

[Eug]

And the geometric dimensions? An engine with a higher thrust, but its diameter increases midship and leaves no room for thermal insulation, and the length, taking into account the required length of the air supply channels, turns the fighter into a monster .. So only a set of engineering, technical and production and operational parameters!

[orionvitt]

Thrust is one of the key parameters of a combat aircraft engine

The author is clearly somewhat far from the topic. On any test bench for aircraft engines, thrust is indicated as the main parameter. All other parameters, if not secondary, are already indicated by their names. Type "air pressure behind the compressor" (P-2), or "gas temperature behind the turbine" (t-4).

[iouris]

Why did he decide to write specifically about aircraft engines?

[certero]

Quote: askort154

Unfortunately, Russia has never been among the leaders in engine building, either piston (automobile-aviation) or turbo-jet aircraft.

If Bro piston and automobile agree, then with aviation not. Russia, or rather the Soviet Union before it, was a real leader in the production of such engines.
A simple example, When for the first time in 89 our moment 29 appeared on Faberge, then everyone present simply opened their mouths when our fighter went straight up straight from the takeoff

[Aleks2000]

Not enough. It’s poor. 3 planes, 3 motors and water?

Is this the whole article? In principle, you can look at WIKI with the same result.

[Zaurbek]

the beginning of the development of a new universal aircraft engine for the Su-27, Su-30 and Su-35 fighters. Moreover, the product can be installed on any of three types of aircraft without modifying the airframe..

It's good that we came to this! I hope that other systems will unify as well. How will the UHT issue be solved for those aircraft where it is not and how the Su34 will be developed. They forgot about him.?

[silver_roman]

An article for the sake of writing something. Let's talk about an even more meaningless topic "which plane is the most beautiful." If AT LEAST the author considered the issue of specific thrust, it would be at least slightly useful.

[Chilean Abalon]

Apparently the example of Dave Majumar is contagious. That Polonsky Top-3 is. And Kuzmitsky decided to keep up.

[NF68]

Another drawing of the owl on the globe. ...

[iouris]

It's good that an owl is being pulled over the globe. It is known: whatever the child is amused ...

[Svetoslav]

Quote: dauria

But the trouble is - as soon as the plane went (flew), the plane's speed must be subtracted from the jet speed at the nozzle exit. And at the same speed, the thrust will turn to zero. (Well, not quite - it will equal the resistance) And that's it, you can't jump further.

I haven't laughed like that for a long time)))) You should return to school, friend))) To study the law of conservation of momentum.

[Lew]

most often, the engine thrust is determined by kg ...