Military Review

Su-30SM2. Does Russia need Super-Sukhoi?

139

Transition difficulties



In September, Izvestia reported that the first flight of the Su-30SM2 could take place as early as 2020. In fact, this machine should become a kind of two-seat version of the Su-35S, which is now the most "advanced" fighter in the Russian Aerospace Forces.

The need for an updated car is long overdue. In recent years, the Russian Aerospace Forces have replenished with many new combat aircraft based on the Soviet Su-27 fighter, which inherited all the advantages and disadvantages from it. The main a problem now it has become that all these machines, being built on the same base, differ as much as possible in modern realities. Fighters Su-35S, Su-30SM, Su-30MK2, as well as numerous Su-27SM / SM3 have completely different sets of onboard electronics, in particular, different onboard radar stations. Their engines, based on the AL-31F, which is installed on the Su-27, are, in fact, different products created at different times and within the framework of different requirements.

Of all these machines, only two are important for the future of the Russian Aerospace Forces: the Su-30SM and the Su-35S (the rest can be considered morally obsolete). The first is equipped with two AL-31FP engines and an N0011M "Bars" radar station. The second is the more advanced AL-41F1S and the N035 Irbis radar.


This situation is nonsense by Western standards. For example, different versions of the F-35, despite the fact that they were created for three different branches of the US armed forces, are unified by about 80 percent. The media periodically flashes information about plans for a deep modernization of these machines, but so far they have the same radar stations and one type of engine - Pratt & Whitney F135, which is a development of the F119 engine. The F-35B's propulsion system for the Marine Corps is somewhat different, due to the requirements of a short takeoff and vertical landing.

In Europe, the situation is similar. Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale have more than one upgrade stage behind them. At the same time, the machines are maximally unified: the planned installation of a radar with an active phased antenna array of the European Common Radar System Mark 2 on the British Eurofighter Typhoon and the installation of Captor-E on the German and Spanish Typhoon is a perfectly reasonable step in the face of obsolescence of electronics. It took some time to mature, but now the modernization of the Eurofighter is really needed.

A new heart for a fighter


Needless to say, the unification of the fighter aircraft fleet (and there are many other types of combat aircraft in the Aerospace Forces, in particular, front-line bombers and attack aircraft) is one of the key requirements for the effective use of combat aircraft. aviation... This was relevant during the Second World War, during the Cold War, and has not lost its relevance in our time.

How exactly will the modernization take place and what exactly will the updated aircraft get? Work on the integration of the updated power plant on the Su-30SM2 is being carried out by the Sukhoi company, the Irkut corporation and the UEC-UMPO engine building association. The first and most important difference between the CM2 and its progenitor is the power plant. The aforementioned AL-41F1S engine from the Su-35S will be installed on the plane. Compared to the engine of the Su-30SM AL-31FP fighter jet, the thrust of the product is 16 percent higher and amounts to 14 kgf. The service life of an aircraft engine is twice as high as compared to the base product: it is four thousand hours. It is important to say that the weight and dimensions have remained the same.


Besides reasonable unification and increased thrust, the new engine will give the aircraft a higher combat radius. It must be said that this has never been a problem for representatives of the Su-27 family, but this feature will not be superfluous either.

“A more powerful engine from a Su-35 will give a larger thrust reserve. And this means an increased amount of ammunition and equipment that the aircraft can have on board, ”Honored Test Pilot Colonel Igor Malikov told Izvestia. - Variable thrust vector gives the aircraft the ability to conduct maneuverable air combat. This is an advantageous situation for a fighter jet, but it will require appropriate electronic equipment and weapon control systems. When the fighter quickly changes its position, the instruments must confidently track the movement of targets, and the pilot must be able to use air-to-air missiles at them.

Installing a new engine is only part of the effort to modernize the Su-30SM. In addition, they want to update optical systems, radar and surveillance systems. In the future, they intend to completely replace the radar, and in addition, they want to bring all the existing Su-30SM to the Su-2SM30 standard.

Looking to the West


Despite the criticism of the fifth generation fighters, we can confidently state that the new generation has taken place. The best illustration of this thesis is the more than 550 already built F-35s. At the same time, the fourth generation will remain the basis of fighter aviation in many countries of the world, if not all, for a long time to come. Boeing, for example, recently won a contract to supply the Air Force with the first eight F-15EX fighters.

In the case of the Su-30SM2, Russia is going the same way. Without abandoning the fifth generation, it systematically increases the capabilities of generation 4+ (+) fighters. At the same time, the modernization of the Su-30SM to a new level can become one of the foundations of the country's security: if you add up the fighters of this type, built for the Air Force and the Navy, you get more than 100 combat vehicles. That is, more than the Su-35S has been produced for all the years.

In this regard, it is appropriate to recall the previously announced plans to equip the Su-30SM with a new air-to-surface missile. Some experts have described it as "hypersonic". Its creation is carried out within the framework of the development work "Adaptation-Su". According to experts, we can talk about the Kh-32, which should be part of the arsenal of the Tu-22M3M bomber. It has a range of about 1000 kilometers and is capable of speeds up to 5,4 thousand kilometers per hour.


If this information is correct, then in the future the fleet and aerospace forces will be able to get at their disposal an extremely powerful aviation complex, which theoretically can be effectively used even against the largest enemy surface ships. It is pertinent to recall that the Indian Su-30MKI already possess similar qualities, which had previously received the BrahMos missile, a supersonic anti-ship missile developed jointly by the NPO Mashinostroyenia MIC and the Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) of the Indian Ministry of Defense.

It is clear that upgrading the Su-30SM to the Su-30SM2 is an important and correct decision. It will significantly increase the combat potential of the aircraft and will contribute to the unification of the aircraft fleet of the Russian Aerospace Forces.
Author:
139 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. KCA
    KCA 15 September 2020 05: 46
    +8
    Vague suspicions arise if OAO VPK NPO Mashinostroyenia, together with the Indians, have made a supersonic anti-ship missile system for the SU-30, probably we have also disclosed this topic and have something to hang, or, in extreme cases, the same BrakhMos. joint development, though
    1. Bar1
      Bar1 15 September 2020 18: 18
      +9
      there is nothing to even talk about, it is necessary to take and install new engines. And AFAR would not hurt su27 / 30/34
    2. zenion
      zenion 16 September 2020 18: 18
      0
      The author thinks that the fortified works better.
  2. Hog
    Hog 15 September 2020 05: 51
    +7
    Upgrading is always good, and good upgrading is even better.
    1. figwam
      figwam 15 September 2020 08: 46
      +1
      Fighters Su-35S, Su-30SM, Su-30MK2, as well as numerous Su-27SM / SM3 have completely different sets of onboard electronics

      Only the Su-30MK2, and the Su-30M2.
      1. figwam
        figwam 15 September 2020 11: 12
        +1
        Not the Su-30MK2, but the Su-30M2
  3. Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx 15 September 2020 06: 13
    -1
    Absolutely obviousthat the modernization of the Su-30SM to the Su-30SM2 is an important and correct decision. It will significantly increase the combat potential of the aircraft and will contribute to the unification of the aircraft fleet of the Russian Aerospace Forces.

    Yes, who would doubt that any decision made at the top is the right one. Just think, 550 F-35s have been produced in the world ... It is more important to know in what battles and with which enemy these "invisible" vehicles were used? Is there a real advantage to this type of aircraft if radars are able to detect them "before"?
    As for modernization, unification, demonstration ... Let it remain on the conscience of specialists, designers and developers. Only one small question is perplexing: "Why hasn't there been a great modernization of the fleet of civil aviation aircraft in Russia?" As far as I know, they are not subject to unconditional characteristics in terms of stealth, speed and availability of weapons. Why did the modernization of the AN-2 come to naught?
    If Russia can get by with modernized equipment: planes, tanks, ships, missiles, small arms, then why all this annual demonstration? Or there, at the top, people who have “served in the army for 25 years” have already drawn conclusions and answered the question:
    Su-30SM2. Does Russia need Super-Sukhoi?

    Then it is appropriate to ask whether Russia needs aviation at all. Is it not easier, as Chubais and Gaidar once advised, to sell oil abroad and buy what is needed for the currency?
    True, these figures did not agree that they would not sell us the goods and technologies we needed for either currency or gold.
    1. user1212
      user1212 15 September 2020 06: 59
      16
      Quote: ROSS 42
      Is there an effective advantage of this type of aircraft

      This is a question no one has been able to answer for 30 years. Well, except for fanatics of one version or another
      Quote: ROSS 42
      Why hasn't there been a great modernization of the fleet of civil aircraft in Russia?

      It makes sense to bring to mind and upgrade the aircraft if you initially have a glider that is successful in terms of weight and aerodynamics, which is quite consistent with the level of similar modern aircraft. Then "the game is worth the candle" - by upgrading (or replacing) avionics and engines, the machine can remain competitive for a long time.
      The Tupolev Design Bureau "just modernized the Tu-154B", an aircraft with a fully mechanical control, with a flow rate of 5,5 ... 6 tons / hour and a crew of 5 people. And they have… already 10 (ten!) Years since the first A-300 equipped with an EDSU took off, which had half the fuel consumption and a crew of 2 people. In the same 1982, the B-757 took off to replace the B-727. If our Tu-204, albeit in a "raw" and "unfinished" form, but would have taken off not in 1989, but at least in 1978 ... 1979, and by the mid-80s switched to a 2-member composition crew ... And the Tu-154 is certainly a good plane, but for its 60s, when our fuel was cheaper than soda
      A similar example - if in 1978 the T-10 had not taken off, and the Sukhoi Design Bureau would have worked only on the modernization of the "good old" Su-15 and Su-17, then in our 2000s, the basis of our air force fleet would be Sushki and MiGari of the 3rd generation, although "licked" to the limit, but hopelessly lagged behind by a whole generation from their "counterparts" F-15/16/18. The Su-27/30/33/35 family would not have existed, and the fate of the Sukhoi Design Bureau could also have been different ... However, unlike the civilian sector, the military aviation was spurred on all the time. As soon as in the West, the creation of a new generation of equipment began, our Customer set the task of developing a similar product with us: the Su-27 is our answer to the F-15, the MiG-29 is the answer to the F-16, etc. Our fighters, although they were created with a delay, were no worse than their foreign counterparts
      Unfortunately, our civilian Armed Forces were not faced with the task of competing with Western vehicles. The customer, the only one in the country, Aeroflot, took everything that Patriarch Tupolev built. There was still no alternative. And everything went fine until our AKs had a choice ...
      copyright © OBS wassat
    2. Doctor
      Doctor 15 September 2020 06: 59
      +1
      Why hasn't there been a great modernization of the fleet of civil aircraft in Russia? " As far as I know, they are not subject to unconditional characteristics in terms of stealth, speed and availability of weapons. Why did the modernization of the AN-2 come to naught?

      Well, that's a good question. It looks like we can't build AN-2 already. Not to mention the Tu-154.
      1. Igor Aviator
        Igor Aviator 15 September 2020 16: 15
        +3
        Quote: Arzt
        It looks like we can't build AN-2 already. Not to mention the Tu-154.

        Well yes! No matter how we undertake, then SU-30SM (2) comes out, then SU-34 or SU-57. What to do?... request what
      2. Local from the Volga
        Local from the Volga 15 September 2020 17: 15
        0
        To begin with, build a shed on your site yourself!
    3. EvilLion
      EvilLion 15 September 2020 09: 24
      +5
      Probably because nobody needs this An-2, it's easier to build roads.

      And so the level of reasoning of a person who has not even played a computer strategy with a dozen parameters, where it is quite typical to build not the units that you want, but those for which there is already a production base, but talking about the need or uselessness of something on a national scale, where parameters are tens of thousands. In particular, such an option may be logical, do not do anything with the Su-30SM at all, or just build an updated series, and without upgrading the existing machines, gradually withdraw them from the first line and export them to homeless people, or allies.
    4. The comment was deleted.
  4. Doccor18
    Doccor18 15 September 2020 07: 08
    +5
    It is clear that upgrading the Su-30SM to the Su-30SM2 is an important and correct decision.

    I absolutely agree.
    Su-35S and Su-30SM2 have no alternative for our VKS. They are now and in the foreseeable future - this is the backbone of aviation. Unfortunately, the PAK FA is still (promising) for the time being, and when it goes into production, it will not work out in hundreds of them. Therefore, the single-seat Su-35S and the two-seater Su-30SM2 are the best we have for today and not far away.
  5. svp67
    svp67 15 September 2020 07: 18
    -5
    On the good side, the Su-30 should oust not only the Su-27, but also the Su-34 from our VKS, then it would be good at all.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 15 September 2020 08: 58
      0
      There is a good reference model for modernization - F-15EX. No need to reinvent the wheel. And there are already comparable technologies in the Russian Federation.
      1. Igor Aviator
        Igor Aviator 15 September 2020 16: 11
        -8
        Quote: Zaurbek
        There is a good reference model for modernization - F-15EX. No need to reinvent the wheel

        Do you offer KnAPO or IRKUT to purchase the F-15EX? wassat Share what do you smoke?
        And in general, for some reason I thought that amers should take an example from the SU-27, and not vice versa! At least, training air battles show this ...
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 15 September 2020 16: 39
          +4
          Not. I propose to look at what the Americans have done in F15EX and go down this path ... with our specifics.
    2. d4rkmesa
      d4rkmesa 15 September 2020 08: 59
      0
      On the contrary, we need a new modern Su-34, which would accurately cope with the assigned tasks, including a breakthrough in WWI. With modern radar that could track naval targets, for example. The Su-30 is something that is used to plug holes at the moment, but not in the future. The Chinese are now painting (or not only painting) something very close to this.
      1. Eug
        Eug 15 September 2020 09: 12
        +4
        It is very similar to the Su-33KUB, only without PGO. And for the future, a two-seater Su-57-2 is needed, replacing both the Su-30 and the Su-34.
        1. Boris Chernikov
          Boris Chernikov 15 September 2020 20: 00
          -1
          why replace a good bomber with a mediocre bomber? Su-34 is Su-34
      2. The eye of the crying
        The eye of the crying 15 September 2020 11: 12
        -4
        Quote: d4rkmesa
        breakthrough in WWI


        The breakthrough in WWI has long gone out of fashion.
        1. d4rkmesa
          d4rkmesa 15 September 2020 11: 13
          +1
          Why, the Israelis are actively practicing.
          1. The eye of the crying
            The eye of the crying 15 September 2020 11: 15
            0
            Data source?
            1. d4rkmesa
              d4rkmesa 15 September 2020 11: 15
              0
              Look for yourself, I'm too lazy.
              1. The eye of the crying
                The eye of the crying 15 September 2020 11: 17
                -2
                It's hard to find something that doesn't exist.
        2. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 15 September 2020 16: 41
          0
          Yes, it did not come out .... the aviation does not have such goals. Basically, the search for targets, and then the destruction ... and so you need to know where the strategic goal is, such as a bridge or a CHP or the calculation of the air defense system ...
          1. The eye of the crying
            The eye of the crying 15 September 2020 16: 48
            -3
            Naturally, a breakthrough in WWI is not the goal. This is a technique for overcoming air defense. An outdated trick as far as I know.
            1. Zaurbek
              Zaurbek 15 September 2020 16: 51
              +1
              Normal reception ..... no such wars.
            2. Zaurbek
              Zaurbek 15 September 2020 18: 09
              +2
              Just because there were CDs .... it is not outdated.
              1. The eye of the crying
                The eye of the crying 15 September 2020 18: 18
                0
                I don't know about the CD, but the breakthrough in WWI went out of fashion because of the radar ID.
                1. Zaurbek
                  Zaurbek 15 September 2020 18: 47
                  +1
                  What ID is this?
                  1. The eye of the crying
                    The eye of the crying 15 September 2020 18: 48
                    -3
                    Pulse Doppler.
                    1. Zaurbek
                      Zaurbek 15 September 2020 18: 58
                      0
                      What's the difference? You will find the plane rather late. And he will destroy the target. Moreover, with the use of missiles with correction. CD in open areas is found 20-30 km away. Well, the plane for 40 ...
                      1. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 15 September 2020 19: 00
                        0
                        Non-ID radars may not stupidly detect it against the background of interference from the underlying surface. And if you spend even one plane on a target, planes will quickly run out.
                      2. Zaurbek
                        Zaurbek 15 September 2020 19: 10
                        +1
                        It depends on what purpose ... when the Su24 was designed, what they thought the same thing ... flying at altitudes is even worse. Spotted and shot.
                      3. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 15 September 2020 19: 16
                        -4
                        Su-24 (and F-111) were designed before the FFT. smile Low altitude does not help now. High heights and stealth are in fashion.
                      4. Zaurbek
                        Zaurbek 15 September 2020 20: 24
                        0
                        Most likely stealth and low height ...
                      5. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 15 September 2020 20: 53
                        0
                        For percussion machines, maybe a small one (although I still doubt it). But the F-22 has great working heights.
                      6. Zaurbek
                        Zaurbek 15 September 2020 23: 18
                        0
                        This is not a strike aircraft ...
                      7. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 15 September 2020 23: 20
                        0
                        Su-30 - not a strike aircraft? Okay. I, in general, did not call it percussion. But he can perform shock functions.
                      8. Zaurbek
                        Zaurbek 16 September 2020 09: 27
                        +1
                        F22 was originally not a strike aircraft ... and now it uses only a certain caliber bombs. by previously known coordinates. The Su30MKI with an outboard container is a full-fledged strike aircraft.
  • bayard
    bayard 16 September 2020 04: 19
    +1
    Quote: d4rkmesa
    On the contrary, we need a new modern Su-34

    For the future MRA, the updated Su-34 (not the Su-34M, which is now being prepared for the continuation of the series) would be simply optimal, and for this there are all the necessary components.
    And it is necessary to count on the future. If you set the task now, then in five years (and even faster) you can get a very good aircraft for the MPA. Take the engines of the second stage from the Su-57 (and the air intakes too), they should already go into series in a few years and their use not only on the Su-57, the industry will only be welcomed, because good serial production, these are prospects for production, and will become cheaper due to good serial production.
    The glider will need to be slightly increased (the engines will allow it) - to lengthen and increase the wing area, this will increase the range (up to 2000 - 2500 km.), In the payload and increase the swing. landing weight, which in turn will allow landing with unused ammunition (if the order for combat use is canceled already in flight). For the landing weight restrictions are the scourge of the MRA (for the same Tu-22M3).
    In this form, the updated Su-34 can become the carrier of the aircraft version of the Zircon and other anti-ship missiles and the backbone of the revived (hopefully) MRA.
    To cover the basic needs of the Navy, it is necessary to form five regiments of MPA on promising Su-34 - two in the Pacific Fleet, one in the Northern Fleet, one in the Black Sea Fleet and one in reserve for reinforcement in the desired direction and for expeditionary needs (Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, but you never know where).
    To stop the threat from enemy fleets is much faster, more accessible and more reliable, precisely by the forces of naval missile aviation. And by building only surface and submarine ships, the problem cannot be solved - to be inferior in numbers ... and not only in numbers, we will always be.
    In terms of money, timing and industry capabilities, only the creation / reconstruction of the MPA can solve the country's security issues in the sea.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 16 September 2020 09: 30
      +1
      We need a normal sighting container for the Su30 and AFAR ...... And we will get a full-fledged heavy fighter (with long-range missiles) and a full-fledged bomber. And the same pilots.
      1. bayard
        bayard 16 September 2020 19: 21
        +3
        Quote: Zaurbek
        We need a normal sighting container for the Su30 and AFAR.

        The containers seem to have appeared, and AFAR is desirable not only for the Su-30, bringing to mind the "Belka" and launching its serial production can help in the modernization of heavy fighters in the future.
        Quote: Zaurbek
        and a full bomber

        This is unlikely, but a good multifunctional fighter has already been received, and the modification of the Su-30SM2 will only consolidate the status of this aircraft as the main MFI of Naval Aviation.
        But for the MPA, a slightly different aircraft is needed - with a larger payload, a longer range and the ability to patrol in the waiting area for a long time with refueling. We need a replacement for the Tu-22M3 - a new carrier of promising long-range hypersonic anti-ship missiles, with a range of 2000 - 2500 km.
        The new Izdeliye-30 engines will make it possible to achieve these goals in a new modification of the Su-34. Even with an enlarged glider, the speed of such an aircraft will increase to 2100 km / h (minimum), max. payload by 30 - 50%, and range with a standard combat load - up to 2000 - 2500 km.
        Such an aircraft will be able to lift 2 "Zircon" anti-ship missiles (about 4500 kg. Weight) + explosive missiles for self-defense in the nominal load, and 3 "Zircon" anti-ship missiles + missiles for self-defense under maximum load.
        As a result, one such Su-34M2 (conditional classification) will be equal to one Tu-22M3, and even slightly surpass, thanks to the presence of missiles for self-defense and air combat.
        It will not be difficult to organize the construction of such aircraft for the MRA, because the Su-34 is being produced in series and the development of its new modification will not cause difficulties, and the price tag will be acceptable.
        in addition, the Su-34 glider is such that it will not be difficult to accommodate the Belka radar missile system in it, even in a full, not a cut-down version. There shouldn't be any difficulties with the integration of this BRLK.
        Quote: Zaurbek
        And the same pilots.

        But this is not possible in principle. Back in the late 80s - early 90s, it was concluded that it is technically quite possible to create a multipurpose aircraft, but to prepare a universal pilot who has sufficient skills both for air combat, intercepting and gaining air superiority, and for applying missile bomb strikes on various (including complex and mobile targets), breakthrough of air defense on WWI, deep raids behind enemy lines and assault strikes ... IN PRINCIPLE, NOT POSSIBLE. Therefore, the aircraft may be the same, but the pilots for them need to be trained separately - some for strike functions, others for air battles.
        And we now have exactly the same practice. In the naval fighter aviation regiments being formed, one squadron trains for strikes against enemy ships and coastal targets, and the other for air interceptions, escorting its strikers and gaining air superiority in its theater of operations.
        And it is right .
  • Kuroneko
    Kuroneko 15 September 2020 12: 43
    +4
    Quote: svp67
    On good terms, the Su-30 should oust not only the Su-27, but also the Su-34 from our VKS

    Should a fighter - even a multipurpose one - oust a front-line bomber?
    I would have such grass.
    1. svp67
      svp67 15 September 2020 14: 27
      -2
      Quote: Kuroneko
      Fighter - albeit multipurpose

      Clear your brains, then you won't even need herbs, the Su-30 is no longer a clean fighter, but a strike aircraft, which is quite capable of replacing the Su-34. Chinese

      and Americans

      quite well show how this can be done.
      And so in our Air Force there are already too many different types
      1. Igor Aviator
        Igor Aviator 15 September 2020 16: 04
        0
        Quote: svp67
        The Su-30 is no longer a pure fighter, but a strike aircraft, quite capable of replacing the Su-34

        I will disappoint you:
        1) Su-34 - front-line bomber, designed to strike at ground targets in conditions of strong opposition. It is armored for the most cockpit and critical components. which SIGNIFICANTLY increases its survivability when countering air defense.
        2) SU-30SM is a fighter capable of carrying out strikes against ground targets.
        Do you feel the difference? The difference, at least, between a spoon and a fork? Or between a "family" wrench (these were included with the bicycles), and a set of chrome-vanadium (open-end) wrenches?
        1. shahor
          shahor 15 September 2020 18: 24
          +4
          Quote: Igor Aviator
          ) Su-34 is a front-line bomber designed to strike at ground targets in conditions of strong opposition. It is armored for the most cockpit and critical components. which SIGNIFICANTLY increases its survivability when countering air defense.

          I always thought that everything you said refers to the Su-25. The Su-34 must nevertheless solve the task of destroying targets in the operational rear of the enemy, given its combat radius. But since the late 80s, when it was created, a lot has changed. Please note that the article is about unification. The Su-34 stands alone here. For him, perhaps, it is possible to develop a new avionics - but as it was, it will remain a narrowly specialized aircraft. In my opinion, the time of such machines is running out. Take the same F-15EX. It has a new radar (AESA, of course), the world's most powerful combat computer, new engines. It's all easy to put on any F-15. We look further. Its OMS in terms of attacking ground targets surpasses the capabilities of the Su-34. The payload of 13 tons exceeds that of the Su-34. In terms of the composition of the air-to-ground weapons (variety, range of destruction) - I won't even say - tears are dripping. The speed is 2500 versus 1800. Well, what task of those for which the Su-34 is intended, will the F-15EX fail? And, at the same time, a full-fledged fighter. Well, of course, the United States is not a wealthy country, it counts every penny. They decided not to create a new specialized aircraft, but to adapt the existing one for solving strike missions. It seems to me that the future lies with this approach. And if on the basis of the Su-30 -35 in the Russian Federation they create, for example, the same shock
          the plane, as much as possible unified with them, this will be a very correct step. I think so.
          1. Boris Chernikov
            Boris Chernikov 15 September 2020 20: 10
            -3
            those. Do you need to write off the Su-34 following your logic? and start actively inventing some kind of fighter that will be close to the F-15EX? So maybe it is worth waiting for the Su-34M and not suffer bullshit?) And yes, 15 tons of load is hung on the 10,3th maximum, as I know, and not 13 tons
            1. The eye of the crying
              The eye of the crying 15 September 2020 21: 03
              0
              Quote: Boris Chernikov
              to start actively inventing a certain fighter that will be close to the F-15EX?


              As stated in the title, the Su-30SM2.

              Quote: Boris Chernikov
              on the 15th, 10,3 tons of load is hung up, as I know, and not 13 tons


              On the F-15EX - 30000 pounds, 12.2 tons.
              1. Boris Chernikov
                Boris Chernikov 15 September 2020 21: 17
                -1
                Su-34 can take 12 tons for a range of 1 km .. + has improved booking and ergonomics. So it makes sense in "oh let's create another board to replace the su-000 on the basis of the su-34cm30. It is at least weird. remove the armored vehicle from the Su-2 and get + 34 tons to the mass of armament .. The question is different .. is it necessary to do this?
                1. The eye of the crying
                  The eye of the crying 15 September 2020 21: 40
                  +1
                  Quote: Boris Chernikov
                  Su-34 can take 12 tons at a range of 1 km


                  Su-30SM - max. load 8t, combat radius (with unspecified load) - 1500 km.

                  Quote: Boris Chernikov
                  sense in "oh, let's create another board to replace the su-34 on the basis of the su-30cm2 is at least strange ..


                  The Su-30SM2 is not a new board, but a modernized Su-30SM.

                  Quote: Boris Chernikov
                  .Banally, you can remove the armored vehicle


                  The question is why an armored car is needed and what it really protects from.
                  1. Boris Chernikov
                    Boris Chernikov 15 September 2020 22: 26
                    -2
                    well, for 1 km, he flies there with a very weak load ... about the armored vehicle, it is assumed that the su-500 will also play the role of the su-34 + work in the air defense zone obliges to ensure the protection of the crew. and without armor. At this stage, we are going about "making a Russian F-25ex" - this is unnecessary. Of course, it is necessary to work out the possibility of fighters working on the ground by developing a complex of containers ... although for me this should be done to be able to use fighters as carriers of hypersonic missile systems and lionfish, but this is a separate conversation ... In fact, the Su-15M will be a device that can make a very strong bobo of enemy equipment on the ground, especially if a complex of weapons is fully implemented: as a cab-34, as a planning Thunder, and ideally a Hermes complex ... but this is my fantasy)
                    1. The eye of the crying
                      The eye of the crying 15 September 2020 23: 04
                      0
                      Quote: Boris Chernikov
                      su-34 will also serve as su-25


                      Su-34 as an attack aircraft? So-so idea - it's much more expensive. However, an armored vehicle will not protect either from a missile or from an MZA.
                    2. Boris Chernikov
                      Boris Chernikov 15 September 2020 23: 06
                      -1
                      well, the Su-25 somehow defended) the current conditions reduce the number of "close contacts", but do not exclude them, in any case it was written in the conditions, so it's not for us to decide).
                    3. The eye of the crying
                      The eye of the crying 15 September 2020 23: 16
                      0
                      Quote: Boris Chernikov
                      well, the Su-25 somehow defended


                      Vicki talks about the loss of 32-34 aircraft in Afghanistan. Despite the fact that there were few MANPADS in Afghanistan. And I would not attribute the survivability of the Su-25 to the armored vehicle - the Su-25 had armored and duplicated important components. The armored car will save the pilots (maybe), but not the plane.
                    4. Boris Chernikov
                      Boris Chernikov 15 September 2020 23: 24
                      -1
                      350 missiles were used up, as it were ... and yes, the loss in 10 years in 34 aircraft is just very little ...
                    5. The eye of the crying
                      The eye of the crying 15 September 2020 23: 27
                      0
                      Quote: Boris Chernikov
                      350 missiles were spent as if


                      Who counted and what kind of missiles they were? If anything, several types of air defense systems have been used in Afghanistan, Stinger - only in recent years.

                      Quote: Boris Chernikov
                      Yes, the loss in 10 years in 34 aircraft is just very little ..


                      If you look at the losses by years, then 28 in 3 years.
                    6. Boris Chernikov
                      Boris Chernikov 15 September 2020 23: 30
                      0
                      if you look at the losses, then 15 su-25s were shot down from the anti-aircraft missile system, and yes .. "On average, for each shot down Su-25 there were 80-90 combat damage, sometimes after completing a combat mission, aircraft returned with 150 holes (compared to other aircraft Su-25 withstood 4-6 times more hits) ". So it’s quite a tenacious aircraft, you don’t need la-la, but the Su-34 is a more successful aircraft in this regard.
                    7. The eye of the crying
                      The eye of the crying 15 September 2020 23: 33
                      -1
                      Quote: Boris Chernikov
                      on average, for each shot down Su-25, there were 80-90 combat damage,


                      "Combat damage" is a very loose term.

                      Quote: Boris Chernikov
                      e need la-la


                      Learn to read.
                    8. Boris Chernikov
                      Boris Chernikov 15 September 2020 23: 34
                      -1
                      about the term extensible .. this is more detailed, especially from personal practice please)
                    9. The eye of the crying
                      The eye of the crying 15 September 2020 23: 35
                      -1
                      Quote: Boris Chernikov
                      about the term extensible .. this is more detailed


                      Fragment, bullet and projectile hits are all combat damage.
                    10. Boris Chernikov
                      Boris Chernikov 15 September 2020 23: 37
                      -1
                      laughing yes, what are you talking about ... and I thought there was a stone there or a bird would crumble in flight) .You, too, learn to read and read in the text about the ratio of how much an ordinary plane could withstand and how much damage the attack aircraft did ...
                    11. The eye of the crying
                      The eye of the crying 15 September 2020 23: 37
                      -1
                      Quote: Boris Chernikov
                      yes, what are you talking about ... and I thought there was a stone there or a bird would crumple in flight)


                      Now you know the truth.
  • shahor
    shahor 15 September 2020 23: 07
    +1
    Quote: Boris Chernikov
    And yes, 15 tons of load is hung on the 10,3th, the maximum as I know, and not 13 tons

    Well, first of all, I have never spoken about the decommissioning of the Su-34 - no need to compose. The aircraft has a resource, it can and should be worked out. By payload. Did you even read what I wrote? About new, more powerful engines? This is called modernization. The F-15 has 10 tons, the 15EX has 13. Especially for you - read carefully - with the Amber weapon suspension to solve the tasks of air superiority, it can carry up to 32 air-to-air missiles, including up to 16 AMRAAMs. This is what thoughtful modernization is and what I really want to see in the RF Aerospace Forces.
    1. Boris Chernikov
      Boris Chernikov 15 September 2020 23: 21
      -1
      and? what actually prevents the development of a modernized version of the su-34 without a bathtub with new fasteners for missiles? Why fantasies about "let's make another car and it is on the basis of the su-30"? At the moment there is a clear program for replacing the su-24 on the Su-34 + upgrade to the Su-34M of the existing sides .. If the Army needs a flying arsenal, it is just easier to adapt the Su-34M to these needs than to make a car from the Su-30, which in the end will be very similar to the very same Su- 34m, not to mention the fact that in the Aerospace Forces there is a division into bomber and fighter aircraft ..
    2. Boris Chernikov
      Boris Chernikov 15 September 2020 23: 38
      -1
      and in a nutshell .. put a more powerful engine and a new UPV on the Su-34 and you will be shastye, you don’t need to rack your brains and create a new pepelats .. but taking into account that your idea is "to replace after the end of the resource" and that it is 25 years .. it will take a long time ...
  • Igor Aviator
    Igor Aviator 16 September 2020 17: 33
    -1
    Quote: shahor
    In terms of the composition of the air-to-ground weapons (variety, range of destruction) - I won't even say - tears are dripping. The speed is 2500 versus 1800. Well, what task of those for which the Su-34 is intended, will the F-15EX fail? And, at the same time, a full-fledged fighter.

    First, the SU-34, as I said, is a FRONT BOMBER. Its task is striking ground protected targets, including "frontline value", in the face of anti-air defense, and with its breakthrough. It is this task that your vaunted F-15- (fighter, endowed with shock functions), will not be able to perform, it is designed to successfully fight the Papuans, who have only slingshots and slingshots from their air defense! The fact that you can hang a lot on it is rather a minus, since it becomes a "bomber MINUS fighter"Yes! And by the way, why are you not considering the possibility of replacing the power plants with the AL-41F1S? Not announced ?! So it is not over yet! Let's see then where your F-15 will end up in comparison!"
    1. shahor
      shahor 16 September 2020 17: 56
      0
      Quote: Igor Aviator
      Yes! and by the way, why are you not considering the possibility of replacing the power plants with the AL-41F1S? Not announced ?!

      The developers of the Su-34 were no more stupid than you. There would be an opportunity - they put something more interesting than what is now. But more powerful engines, both 31st and now 41st, go to gain air superiority. Su-34 is completed on a leftover basis. As for the air defense breakthrough, it's not even funny. What a breakthrough? For what? Have you heard about stand-off weapons? The Su-34 cannot carry it (I hope so far). Therefore, cast iron is poured on the heads of the barmaleev in Syria. But at the very first attempt to sprinkle cast iron on the battlefield with a slightly more serious enemy, everything will end quickly and badly. Well, why equate the aircraft developed in the 80s of the last century, which has not even been modernized since then, with the technology of the 21st century?
  • svp67
    svp67 16 September 2020 08: 27
    0
    Quote: Igor Aviator
    I will disappoint you:

    I will disappoint you even more ... What you wrote still corresponded to the realities of the 90th of the 20th century, but not now.
    The need for a highly specialized aircraft like the Su-34, which even carries less bomb load than the F-15, is very small. And with the advent of shock UAVs and a large range of high-precision ammunition, it is generally reduced to almost zero.
    Yes, this plane can fight according to the "barmaley", but it is expensive, the "old man" Su-24 can handle it there, but in a big war, it is already ineffective.
    The Su-30 is already a full-fledged strike aircraft capable not only of conducting an air battle, but also of working on the "ground" with heavy missiles, such as "BRAMOS" ...
    It is too expensive to have several types of aircraft in the VKS, for which reason, sooner or later, it will have to be abandoned. And I think that it is better from the Su-34, at least in the form in which they are now
    1. Boris Chernikov
      Boris Chernikov 16 September 2020 09: 00
      -2
      that's when a kind of universal platform is created that will surpass both cars, then there will be a conversation, but for now it's all fantasies in the style of, and if only if only ... you will have to have separate fighter and bomber air regiments ... by the way, following the logic, it is easier to teach the Su-34 to become fighters than to increase the Su-30
      1. svp67
        svp67 18 September 2020 20: 08
        0
        Quote: Boris Chernikov
        that's when a kind of universal platform will be created that will surpass both machines,

        Yes, they have already been created in the West. This is "the easiest way"
        1. Boris Chernikov
          Boris Chernikov 18 September 2020 23: 05
          0
          Remember that the enemy of the good is better), and station wagons are always worse than narrow-profile cars .. And it is always touching "let's develop a new car for economy" .. instead of installing new adapted engines from the Su-34 on the Su-35) And yes. ..Su-34 carries the same number of bombs as the American 15th in number, even more, but about missiles .. maybe you should reconsider the fasteners for missiles and you will be happy?)
          1. svp67
            svp67 19 September 2020 11: 38
            0
            Quote: Boris Chernikov
            Remember that better is the enemy of the good), and station wagons are always worse than narrow-profile cars.

            I agree, and the Su-34 fighter-bomber is slightly better as a bomber than the Su-30 fighter-bomber and much worse as a fighter
            Quote: Boris Chernikov
            Su-34 carries the same number of bombs as the American 15th in number, even more

            The AN-12 or IL-76 can also carry bombs, and it seems to me that they will have much more of them.
            You live in the concepts of the 20th century, now they are fighting using the WTO.
            1. Boris Chernikov
              Boris Chernikov 21 September 2020 09: 13
              0
              but you have a fix idea and you rush with it like a decommissioned bag, and what? Instead of banal unifying two machines, and in this case, due to developments on the Su-35 and getting a good bomber for bombing and a good fighter, you need to create a mediocre apparatus. Moreover, the pilots will still have to be taught separately - bomber aircraft will work on the ground, and fighter aircraft will provide cover from the air) ..
              1. svp67
                svp67 21 September 2020 10: 22
                0
                Quote: Boris Chernikov
                to get a good bomber for bombing and a good fighter you need to create a mediocre apparatus ..

                With its current capabilities, the Su-30 can become an excellent MULTIFUNCTIONAL combat aircraft
                Quote: Boris Chernikov
                Moreover, the pilots will still have to be taught separately - bomber aviation will work on the ground, and fighter aviation will provide cover from the air) ..

                But the logistics of repair and maintenance will be reduced significantly
              2. Boris Chernikov
                Boris Chernikov 21 September 2020 12: 49
                0
                "logistics of repair and maintenance" .. at times? will you tell me how you can reduce costs a couple of times .. and do not forget to provide a calculation with numbers) I will wait
              3. svp67
                svp67 21 September 2020 12: 52
                +1
                Quote: Boris Chernikov
                you will tell me how you can reduce costs a couple of times .. and do not forget to provide a calculation with numbers) I will wait

                And here you don't need to post anything special. It is enough to understand that the maintenance and repair of FOUR different types of aircraft is more expensive than the same maintenance and repair of TWO or even ONE type.
                The savings will be spent on personnel training, on reducing the number of spare parts that are required to have in warehouses, tooling ...
              4. Boris Chernikov
                Boris Chernikov 21 September 2020 12: 58
                -1
                those. there will be no prices and there is only your opinion? funny .. can you tell me what prevents you from putting an adapted 41st on a su-34? And yes, I'll give you a little excursion, logistics makes sense when you have SEVERAL types of aircraft in ONE division, By analogy, when in your squad half of them runs with AKM, half with AK-74, and the commander has M-16 ... Then there really is a headache with LOGISTICS. And when you have ONE TYPE OF MACHINE in your regiment, then for logistics from a high hill. And given the fact that we have more than 120 machines in service, which makes the Su-34 one of the most common modern aircraft in the Aerospace Forces, this is not his you need to write off, but think why other cars are not like him laughing So adapting the Su-34 under some brand name "Su-34M2" taking into account the Su-35/57 is a trivial matter of time .. And you will be your go-go when there are no problems with logistics)
              5. svp67
                svp67 21 September 2020 13: 07
                -1
                Quote: Boris Chernikov
                And yes, I'll give you a little excursion - logistics makes sense when you have SEVERAL types of aircraft in ONE division,

                I don’t know about the units, but we have units with different types of aircraft and in sufficient numbers.
                And on a larger scale, logistics is very important, so as not to send spare parts from "34" to the "30" regiment
              6. Boris Chernikov
                Boris Chernikov 21 September 2020 13: 09
                -3
                eg What parts?

                Quote: svp67
                it would not send spare parts from "34" to the regiment "30"

                Oh .. I didn't even know that you weren't even a couch ... I don't know .. a toilet? It's just a trashy level of incompetence .. I don't see any sense in a conversation stop
              7. svp67
                svp67 21 September 2020 13: 18
                +1
                Quote: Boris Chernikov
                eg What parts?

                Well, for example...
                4th commander of the Baltic Fleet in Chernyakhovsk, Su-24 squadron and Su-30 squadron
                279th OQIAP of the Northern Fleet with the Su-30SM squadron and the Su-33 squadron
                38 IAP (aero Belbek) Su-27 and Su-30
                43 Omshap (air. Saki) Su-24 and Su-30
                37 glanders (aerial guards) Su-25 and Su-24
                14 IAP (air. Kursk, Kursk region) MiG-29 and Su-30
                3 IAP (air. Krimsk, Krasnodar Territory). Su-27 and Su-30
                22nd Guards IAP (Central Corner (Artyom)) Su-27 and MiG-31
                And believe me they are not unique
              8. Boris Chernikov
                Boris Chernikov 21 September 2020 13: 44
                -2
                laughing wow .. and for some reason there is no su-34 and su-30 for example) Although while the Su-24s are being pushed out, there are cases of Su-24 and Su-34 together ... but writing about "what if the wrong engine will be sent" .. so-so of you "pilot" ...
              9. svp67
                svp67 21 September 2020 15: 09
                +1
                Quote: Boris Chernikov
                laughing wow
                Laughter for no reason, a sign of "foolishness", you know this saying?
                Quote: Boris Chernikov
                but write about "what if the wrong engine will be sent" .. so-so of you "pilot" ...
                Can you show me where I said this?
  • Igor Aviator
    Igor Aviator 16 September 2020 17: 49
    -3
    Quote: svp67
    It is too expensive to have several types of aircraft in the VKS, for which reason, sooner or later, it will have to be abandoned. And I think that it is better from the Su-34, at least in the form in which they are now

    Your reasoning is very similar to the postulates of "effective managers", however, I call them "defective managers". It's so good that you are FAR from the Aerospace Forces, and from the RF Armed Forces as a whole, judging by the argumentation! Tell me, can your F-15 deliver an EXACT bombing strike with cheap, still Soviet FREE-Falling (and therefore CHEAP!) FAB, how does the SU-34 do it? can he overcome echeloned air defense? Oh yes! Boeing advertised it ... Well then well ...
    1. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 16 September 2020 20: 23
      +2
      Quote: Igor Aviator
      Quote: svp67
      It is too expensive to have several types of aircraft in the VKS, for which reason, sooner or later, it will have to be abandoned. And I think that it is better from the Su-34, at least in the form in which they are now

      Your reasoning is very similar to the postulates of "effective managers", however, I call them "defective managers". It's so good that you are FAR from the Aerospace Forces, and from the RF Armed Forces as a whole, judging by the argumentation! Tell me, can your F-15 deliver an EXACT bombing strike with cheap, still Soviet FREE-Falling (and therefore CHEAP!) FAB, how does the SU-34 do it? can he overcome echeloned air defense? Oh yes! Boeing advertised it ... Well then well ...


      Yes maybe.
      Have you ever read about the F-15E?

      Probably never.
      Otherwise, they would know that his weapons range includes the vast majority of ammunition created for the US Air Force ...
      Including the standard weapons for the F-15E are still the usual free-fall bombs Mk-82 (230kg) and Mk-83 (450kg) and Mk-84 (930kg).

      And forgive some of them for 70 years ...
      1. Boris Chernikov
        Boris Chernikov 18 September 2020 23: 06
        0
        lol you can hang a bomb under anything, even under a civil aircraft, the problem is in the effectiveness of the strike)
    2. svp67
      svp67 18 September 2020 20: 09
      0
      Quote: Igor Aviator
      Oh yes! Boeing advertised it ...

      Best of all, this car is advertised by the Israeli Air Force.
  • sh3roman
    sh3roman 27 October 2020 09: 41
    0
    Better su34, leave, and write off the tu22 and its modifications, here is an incomprehensible plane and stands like a cast-iron bridge
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 16 September 2020 09: 31
    0
    Describe the F-15EX
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 15 September 2020 16: 43
    +1
    This is the herb of Americans, Jews, Europeans ... and Indians from Su30mki ...
  • strelokmira
    strelokmira 16 September 2020 03: 14
    -1
    On the good side, the Su-30 should oust not only the Su-27, but also the Su-34 from our VKS, then it would be good at all.

    And it would also be nice that the Russian Federation completely abandoned the SU-57, then the United States will definitely be delighted ... Otherwise, you can miss the SU-57 because of stealth, the SU-34, thanks to the armored capsule, can survive the hit (and then suddenly they will take and two radars, as originally in the project, were plugged in, so in general, they can see hello on the approach). But the SU-30 is perfect, came in from behind and struck without any problems. Even better, of course, the MIG-35 with its slot radar would be, but the Russian Federation does not want to produce it sad
    hi
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Eug
    Eug 15 September 2020 07: 47
    +4
    The idea of ​​the X-32 suspension seems rather dubious. I did not find the weight of the X-32 in open sources, but I assume somewhere around 4-4,5 tons. Suspension of such a mass at one node will most likely require alteration of the aircraft's power circuit. Yes, and there seem to be lighter anti-ship missiles.
    1. d4rkmesa
      d4rkmesa 15 September 2020 08: 52
      +3
      This will never happen. Even the 2,5-ton "Bramos" is too heavy for the Su-30MKI, so a new, "light" version is being developed.
      1. Zementbomber
        Zementbomber 15 September 2020 10: 16
        -1
        This will never happen. Even the 2,5-ton "Bramos" is too heavy for the Su-30MKI, so a new, "light" version is being developed.

        Not a "new light version", but just a version without a starting solid rocket motor, which "Bramos-A" doesn’t need of course.
        And so it is - the Su-30 lifts the FAB-1500-2600TS under the fuselage. She weighs the last of these numbers.
        1. d4rkmesa
          d4rkmesa 15 September 2020 11: 12
          +4
          It is a new light version weighing about 1,5 tons that is being developed. Moreover, at the exhibitions, it first flashed as a light version of Brahmos-A, then as a universal Brahmos-M or NG. Judging by the latest news, ours are also interested in this topic to some extent, most likely there will be a version of "Onyx" for TA 533mm.
        2. Lelik76
          Lelik76 15 September 2020 15: 21
          +1
          The Su-30SM was made after the introduction of changes in the design for the "Brahmos", and has a design that is even more reliable, compared to Indian machines, which have modified the load-bearing structure for this product, and on our "from birth" everything is done.
    2. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 15 September 2020 08: 53
      +4
      Here you can simply compare the weight to a sonic aircraft and an oversound aircraft with the same range. And compare this with the carrying capacity of the Su30. And look at such ammunition in NATO countries. It will be 100% mini X-101.


      Medium-range cruise missile

      The X-50 / X-SD is being developed by the Raduga Design Bureau of the Tactical Missile Armament Concern. The development of the rocket began in the mid-1990s. In terms of its capabilities, the missile will be close to the AGM-158 JASSM missiles and is designed to carry out medium-range strikes by strategic aircraft.

      Experimental design work to ensure the use of a new missile ("product 715") from the Tu-22M3M / "45.03M" carrier aircraft is being carried out by Tupolev PJSC and the Raduga Design Bureau under a contract signed on December 24, 2014.

      Static and ground tests of the rocket were carried out in 2016. The completion of flight tests of the rocket is expected in 2018-2020.

      According to Western data, the serial production of the missile is planned to be deployed within the framework of the State Armament Program 2018-2027.
    3. Boris Chernikov
      Boris Chernikov 15 September 2020 20: 10
      -2
      Rather, either Onyx will be hung, or GZUR, which is more likely ..
    4. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 16 September 2020 20: 25
      +1
      Quote: Eug
      The idea of ​​the X-32 suspension seems rather dubious. I did not find the weight of the X-32 in open sources, but I assume somewhere around 4-4,5 tons. Suspension of such a mass at one node will most likely require alteration of the aircraft's power circuit. Yes, and there seem to be lighter anti-ship missiles.


      Of course ... hang a 10-11 meter rocket on the Su-30 and what would he try to take off with?

      News, such news ...
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 15 September 2020 08: 47
    +5
    The X-32 is the floor of the Su30. Some kind of hat.
    Su30 stronghold of Russian aviation. And it needs to be modernized using components from the Su57. AFAR, communication, etc.
    And the main armament of such vehicles is the CD with a range of up to 1000 km. In the West, everything has already been invented and armed with them and the F-16 and F-35 and F-15EX.
    1. Eug
      Eug 15 September 2020 09: 10
      +4
      Found the weight of the X-32 - 5800 kg. Obviously not for the Su-3x.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 15 September 2020 09: 13
        0
        tactical and technical characteristics
        AGM-158A JASSM
        Wingspan 2,4 m
        Body section (H × W) 0,45 × 0,55 m
        Weight 1020 kg
        Flight speed 775-1000 km / h (0,65-0,85 M)
        1. Eug
          Eug 15 September 2020 13: 53
          0
          As for me, the most suitable anti-ship missile system for a FIGHTER - i.e. aircraft, according to the plan, capable of standing up for itself, destroying its own kind - the X-31. If modern technologies allow you to increase the launch range and reduce its visibility, it's great.
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 15 September 2020 15: 47
            0
            Modern rockets in stealth versions allow the carrier to move away from the radar. a subsonic missile always has a greater range.
  • Shadow041
    Shadow041 15 September 2020 10: 31
    +4
    The better your weapon, the fewer those who want to fight with you and the less your losses in the conflict that has begun, this must be understood. At one time, during the First Chechen War, such parts of the Russian Federation suffered unjustifiably high losses, because some smart guy who should have been shot as an enemy of the Russian Federation and its people decided that there was a lot of armor in the tank and without active armor and sent tanks to the battle for which they did not have time to install dynamic protection units. It is necessary to save not on the army and not on the people of the Russian Federation, but on the Chubais and orgies of the majors in New York.
  • alexmach
    alexmach 15 September 2020 10: 47
    -1
    Compared to the engine of the Su-30SM AL-31FP fighter jet, the thrust of the product is 16 percent higher and amounts to 14 kgf. The service life of an aircraft engine is twice as high as compared to the base product: it is four thousand hours. It is important to say that the weight and dimensions have remained the same.

    There were some questions about the dimensions. Especially in the context of discussing the modernization of the existing SU-30
    1. Lelik76
      Lelik76 15 September 2020 15: 16
      0
      Everything is normal there with dimensions, they stuffed the existing Su-30SM machine, the design changes were minimal.
  • iouris
    iouris 15 September 2020 10: 55
    -1
    Let "Russia" decide what it needs. What did the author want to tell us?
  • Gust
    Gust 15 September 2020 10: 55
    +2
    Yes X-32 is stuffing. In fact, there will be an analogue of JASSM, and Brahmos-A is also needed, and in several versions. A lighter and faster air-to-air missile based on it will scare off AWACS well.
  • rica1952
    rica1952 15 September 2020 11: 09
    -2
    Our fighters need AFAR and good armament of the Meteor missile, then we can talk about something and changing the engine is not so paramount.
  • Hermit21
    Hermit21 15 September 2020 11: 25
    -2
    It is very doubtful that we are talking about the X-32. "Bramos" ("Onyx") on the Su-30 very tightly, and this fool, all the more, will not fit. Increasing the radius can also be debatable. In the Su-35S, it remained the same as in the Su-27, despite the increase in the volume of fuel tanks.
  • Grazdanin
    Grazdanin 15 September 2020 11: 28
    -9
    Fighters Su-35S, Su-30SM, Su-30MK2, as well as numerous Su-27SM / SM3 have completely different sets of onboard electronics, in particular, different onboard radar stations.

    After that the Indians have a zoo of weapons. Oh well.
    1. The eye of the crying
      The eye of the crying 15 September 2020 13: 59
      +4
      Su-30MKI, Su-30MKK and Su-37 are not in service with Russia.
    2. Igor Aviator
      Igor Aviator 15 September 2020 15: 37
      +5
      Quote: Grazdanin
      After that the Indians have a zoo of weapons. Oh well.

      Apparently, you saw the aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Forces, at the maximum, at the MAKS air show (in Zhukovs) or at the aerial exhibition in Monino. Otherwise, they would know that
      a)
      Quote: Eye of the Crying
      Su-30MKI, Su-30MKK and Su-37 are not in service with Russia.
      since these are EXPORT OPTIONS (with the index I - for India; with the index K - for China; and the SU-37 is an EXPERIMENTAL SAMPLE in general; (there is an opinion that the technologies of using PGO and UVT were tested on it)
      b) SU-27IB - only PROTOTYPE of SU-34, and was not in service with the Russian Aerospace Forces;
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 15 September 2020 15: 51
        -1
        Well, we have discussed this more than once ... the planes in the Aerospace Forces are needed yesterday and do not want to re-equip the factories ... And so, really, you need two Su35 and Su35 planes with two cabins ... or even better, with a cockpit like the MiG35S : or two pilots or pilot + additional tank. And the lantern is the same. Taking into account the fact that the Su 35S has a successor to the Su57, it is not possible to make the Su30SM by an aircraft 4 ++++ and to mass-stamp both instead of the Su34 and instead of the Su30
  • Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 15 September 2020 14: 50
    0
    I agree with upgrades on a tight budget. And by and large, on the basis of the Su-35, it is necessary to make a full line of aircraft based on the F-35 model (for the Aerospace Forces and the Navy) and an interceptor, and a fighter-bomber, and a deck boat to replace the Su-33 with the possibility of using a supersonic anti-ship missile.
    1. Igor Aviator
      Igor Aviator 15 September 2020 15: 44
      0
      Quote: Scharnhorst
      to a large extent, on the basis of the Su-35, it is necessary to make a full line of aircraft

      Don't get excited! hi Practice shows that in the conditions of MODERN combat, the pilot's capabilities for conducting a SUCCESSFUL full-fledged air combat, moreover, with striking ground targets, may not be enough, even if AI elements are introduced into the aircraft equipment. That is why a navigator-operator appeared, whose task is NOT connected with piloting.
      1. Essex62
        Essex62 16 September 2020 17: 04
        0
        The Merikatos realized this very quickly, getting bogged down in Vietnam. And the alleged archaic cannon, first in containers and then the built-in one, was returned. It is certainly interesting to condemn what and where to put and shove, but has no practical value. All will be demolished in the first weeks of the big batch.
  • Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 15 September 2020 16: 03
    0
    I agree and do not argue. It is just that the most time consuming and expensive elements (airframe, radar, engine) should be the same for all modifications. And such nuances as a co-pilot or an additional fuel tank, a brake parachute or a hook for a deck finisher, 11 or 7, but reinforced suspension points for weapons, an OLS or a fuel receiver should be at the discretion of the customer as in the vehicle configuration from standard to luxury ...
  • Split
    Split 15 September 2020 19: 28
    -2
    Quote: Author
    Despite the criticism of the fifth generation fighters, we can confidently state that the new generation consisted ofаswapping
    So did criticism or a generation?
  • bars1
    bars1 15 September 2020 20: 49
    +1
    Quote: Scharnhorst
    by and large, on the basis of the Su-35, it is necessary to make a full line of aircraft similar to the F-35 (for the Aerospace Forces and the Navy) and an interceptor, and a fighter-bomber, and a deck plane to replace the Su-33

    All. To produce the Su-35S (exactly like the modifications of the Su-34 and Su-30SM) up to a maximum of 2027, and then only the Su-57. In the modifications you specified
  • akarfoxhound
    akarfoxhound 15 September 2020 22: 02
    -1
    Quote: Eye of the Crying
    Quote: d4rkmesa
    breakthrough in WWI


    The breakthrough in WWI has long gone out of fashion.

    Judging by this hilarious pearl, you personally have nothing to do with front-line aviation. wink
    1. The eye of the crying
      The eye of the crying 15 September 2020 23: 31
      0
      Absolutely right. When did you retire?
      1. akarfoxhound
        akarfoxhound 16 September 2020 08: 49
        0
        A little over a year. Long? I still closely communicate with kashniki and fellow soldiers from my "passed" units (including not by phone), so what? Does it change anything?
        Do you propose to discuss the Methods of combat use and other real documents from the secret on the site in order to prove something to you? wink
        1. The eye of the crying
          The eye of the crying 16 September 2020 12: 42
          0
          Quote: akarfoxhound
          A little over a year. Long?


          No, on the contrary.

          Quote: akarfoxhound
          Do you propose to discuss the Methods of combat use and other real documents from the secret on the site in order to prove something to you? wink


          Will you discuss? smile
          1. akarfoxhound
            akarfoxhound 17 September 2020 09: 33
            0
            Will you discuss? smile[/ Quote]
            All unapplicable! And I will wait for the boys from the bureau of good offices to visit! With tea and buns! smile
  • ole1
    ole1 15 September 2020 23: 34
    +1
    Upgrading the Su 30 to the level of the Su 30 CM2 is not just necessary, but necessary!
    After all, not only the afterburner thrust rises from 12.5 to 14.5, but also the non-afterburner from 7.670 to 8.8. The resource is also clear.

    About Irbis, too, has already been said, it would be great if he appeared. But this is not all avionics. It would be nice to hear something about the modernization of the OLS, because our friends on grips and rafals were very active in developing this area in the 2010s.

    Yes, and new displays probably will not hurt
  • Postum
    Postum 15 September 2020 23: 38
    0
    Fighters Su-35S, Su-30SM, Su-30MK2, as well as numerous Su-27SM / SM3 have completely different sets of onboard electronics, in particular, different onboard radar stations. Their engines, based on the AL-31F, which is installed on the Su-27, are, in fact, different products created at different times and within the framework of different requirements.
    And this is not to mention the MiG-29/35 Su-24/34, but local commentators, with the stubbornness of the mad, like to bring the Indians, that they say a circus with horses was organized in their Air Force
  • Ratmir_Ryazan
    Ratmir_Ryazan 16 September 2020 01: 24
    0
    It is clear that upgrading the Su-30SM to the Su-30SM2 is an important and correct decision. It will significantly increase the combat potential of the aircraft and will contribute to the unification of the aircraft fleet of the Russian Aerospace Forces.


    I fully support, this decision will have a positive effect on all sides.
  • Devil13
    Devil13 16 September 2020 15: 15
    -1
    There are no questions, unification is good.
    The question is, why the hell do you need a su-34, and when the su-30cm2 will be taught to fly from an aircraft carrier and will replace the already thoroughly worn-out and outdated 33.
    And yes, where is AFAR, your mother? Well, the instant-35 did not go, well, at least screw a new afar instead of PFARs.
  • vovashturman
    vovashturman 16 September 2020 19: 55
    0
    Have you seen x-22 (x-32)? and the Su-30? You compare the dimensions, an article will soon be released the Su-30 will be rearmed with the Bulava, well, comedians ...
  • Imperial Technocrat
    Imperial Technocrat 16 September 2020 22: 33
    0
    Of all these machines, only two are important for the future of the Russian Aerospace Forces: the Su-30SM and the Su-35S (the rest can be considered morally obsolete).

    I would not call the top fresh modifications of the Su-27 obsolete. Here are the first old versions of the 1980s that the loxes have - these yes
    1. Hexenmeister
      Hexenmeister 17 September 2020 09: 08
      0
      I would not call the top fresh modifications of the Su-27 obsolete
      And what is their novelty? In a slightly modernized radar station, by and large corresponding to the level of the 90s or early 00s ??? Oh, yes, there are beautiful displays!
  • Imperial Technocrat
    Imperial Technocrat 16 September 2020 22: 40
    +1
    Despite the criticism of the fifth generation fighters, we can confidently state that the new generation has taken place. The best illustration of this thesis - more than 550 already built F-35

    First, the F-1 is not a fighter, but a light fighter-bomber. Secondly, this is not the 35th generation, and not even 2 ++, but 5+
  • Diverter
    Diverter 19 September 2020 13: 33
    0
    my opinion. it is necessary to have a 2-seater Su 30SM2, maximally unified with the Su 35S, as the main complex for the Navy and as a command vehicle in each IAP. Need:

    Navy - 6 regiments, 1 instructor squadron in the pulp and paper industry, 1 separate squadron (base locations, respectively: Pevek, Kaliningrad, Murmansk, Crimea, Kamchatka, Sakhalin, Yeisk, Syria) with a total of ~ 200 linear aircraft.
    Videoconferencing system with 2 boards in each IAP with a total number of linear boards ~ 100
    existing Su 27 UB \ UBK write off / sell / store as the Su 30SM2 is saturated.
  • 123456789
    123456789 19 September 2020 20: 02
    0
    Some time ago, the Chinese edition of the Global Times published a message in which it declared the unconditional advantage of Chinese J-20 aircraft over Su-30 fighters. It is reported that during training events, the pilot of a combat vehicle from the PRC with a score of 17: 0 won over combat units produced in Russia.


    It is necessary to carry out similar "training activities" laughing Su-30 \ 35 against Su-57, and if the account is confirmed laughing then it will become obvious
    Su-30SM2. Does Russia need Super-Sukhoi?
    soldier
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 20 September 2020 11: 34
    -1
    IMHO, why produce modifications if the best is Su-35S? - Produce only them. Which of the factories cannot (but must) make them - let them be modernized.
  • yehat2
    yehat2 25 September 2020 14: 18
    0
    Russia needs not super dry, but industrial modernization
    primarily electronics, materials science and rocketry - an experimental base, etc.
    And Russia needs an effective venture sectoral aggregator - not Chubais's lack of success, but a normal effective office.