Military Review

The US tried to explain why Russia does not need a single-engine fighter

101
The US tried to explain why Russia does not need a single-engine fighter

Russia is working on a new light single-engine fighter, writes The Drive. However, it is not clear why the Russian Aerospace Forces needs a new fighter and whether there are potential buyers for such an aircraft abroad.


The American edition in its article refers to a recent report by Rostec, which stated that the concern is working on the concept of "a promising fighter that is planned to be produced in both manned and unmanned versions", while the new aircraft will be classified as "light and the middle class. "

Work is underway to create a combat aviation systems of the future in its light and middle classes. As conceived, it can be a universal platform in manned and unmanned versions. The company is working on the concept and operational requirements for such a platform. So far we are doing this on our own initiative, without federal budget funds.

- the publication leads the message of "Rostec"

According to The Drive, the concept of a single-engine fighter for Russia is quite new, most likely, it is about the concept of a "light multifunctional front-line aircraft" in a single-engine version, work on which has been going on with varying success since the days of the Soviet Union. At the same time, the Russian Aerospace Forces are armed with Sukhoi twin-engine fighters, and even MiG uses a twin-engine scheme in its latest MiG-29/35 models.

However, there is the question of who will eventually buy the new lightweight single-engine Russian fighter, if one is created. The Russian Ministry of Defense has no interest in a single-engine fighter, so the development of such a fighter is not clear. The Russian Aerospace Forces do not need a new fighter, and the appearance of the Okhotnik strike drone, which can work in conjunction with the Russian fifth generation Su-57 fighter, generally removes the question of the need for a light fighter.

Potential buyers of the Russian fighter, such as India or China, are developing their own aircraft, including single-engine fighters such as the JF-17 or Tejas. Perhaps such a fighter would be needed by countries that do not have their own aircraft manufacturing, but the volumes of aircraft they buy will not pay back the funds spent on it.

Thus, the creation of a single-engine light fighter in Russia is a distant prospect due to lack of demand, the newspaper claims.
101 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Finches
    Finches 12 December 2020 09: 57
    +24
    What, I ask, is your pig business ??
    1. Orange bigg
      Orange bigg 12 December 2020 10: 19
      +11
      They are trying to dissuade us; they obviously do not need a competitor.
      The US tried to explain why Russia does not need a single-engine fighter

      Although we have the opportunity to quickly create a medium single-engine fighter with one engine, Product 30, and a light single-engine fighter with one RD-93MA engine, created for the new version of the Pakistani JF-17 Block 3. It would be foolish not to take advantage of this. ...
      1. Observer2014
        Observer2014 12 December 2020 10: 45
        -4
        Quote: OrangeBigg
        They are trying to dissuade us; they obviously do not need a competitor.
        The US tried to explain why Russia does not need a single-engine fighter

        Although we have the opportunity to quickly create a medium single-engine fighter with one engine, Product 30, and a light single-engine fighter with one RD-93MA engine, created for the new version of the Pakistani JF-17 Block 3. It would be foolish not to take advantage of this. ...

        Of course, they try to dissuade us. We generally produce anything. And how much we want. Or how much we can? repeat Our answer "Boston Dynamics" bully
        1. Orange bigg
          Orange bigg 12 December 2020 10: 49
          +8
          But in essence there is something to say? Except for jokes.
          1. Observer2014
            Observer2014 12 December 2020 10: 50
            -15%
            Quote: OrangeBigg
            But in essence there is something to say? Except for jokes.

            And you? Well, besides your
            we have the ability to quickly create
            lol
            Show the quality level (a stick with flasks filled with tinted liquid) produced in Russia? Well, so that you could buy in any hardware store. And then let's talk about your bold statement. hi In the meantime. Every specialist. Any self-respecting specialist has this nanocosmic device. Not of Russian production. wink
            1. Orange bigg
              Orange bigg 12 December 2020 11: 00
              +15
              And you?

              Okay. We have gas in our apartment. And you? And we have a gas pipeline. Here.
              Essentially. As I said above, there are engines. The technologies of a new generation fighter were developed during the creation of the Su-57. That is, if you have to create a light machine, then the technological basis is already in fact ready. There would be a desire.
              1. Observer2014
                Observer2014 12 December 2020 11: 12
                -1
                Quote: OrangeBigg
                And you?

                Okay. We have gas in our apartment. And you? And we have a gas pipeline. Here.
                Essentially. As I said above, there are engines. The technologies of a new generation fighter were developed during the creation of the Su-57. That is, if you have to create a light machine, then the technological basis is already in fact ready. There would be a desire.

                Yeah, there is everything. Nobody argues. We have no mind, as the cat Matroskin said. Yes, and more than enough mind. To be honest. We need a clear and understandable system in the country. What are we going for, what are we striving for. Do you know how to watch the same scratching about patriotism. And at the same time they live and hang out in the West. Somehow not comme il faut. And not seriously not roughly speaking, all this our reality looks like. And by the way, IL 112 will help you to understand how and why it turns out.
                1. Orange bigg
                  Orange bigg 12 December 2020 11: 45
                  +4
                  And by the way, IL 112 will help you to understand how and why it turns out.

                  Initially, there was no clear strategy for the creation of the Il-112V. They put it on cooperation with Ukraine, so it is necessary, it is not necessary. That is why they delayed it. But now there are no options, so the Il-112V will be completed.
                  Here is an example of a clear strategy, in fact, a technologically new Il-76MD-90A aircraft with new engines and an increased weight of the transported cargo to 60 tons.
                  The Il-76MD-90A aircraft with the serial number 0205 (registration number RF-78660) was rolled out to the Aviastar-SP flight test station on November 11, 2020. Having made its first flight on December 6, this aircraft became the seventh board built by Aviastar-SP JSC in Ulyanovsk under a contract with the Russian Ministry of Defense dated October 2012 for the production of 39 Il-76MD-90A units for the amount of 139,42 billion rubles, and the third taken into the air in 2020.

                  https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4206583.html

                  We need a clear and understandable system in the country.

                  This is yes. So the sanctions have made it clear. There is no other way except import substitution.

                  And then you know how to watch the same scratching about patriotism. And at the same time they live and hang out in the West. As it is not comme il faut.

                  So the time is like this. Now it is almost everywhere, in all countries, except perhaps the DPRK and Iran. The system.
                  1. Observer2014
                    Observer2014 12 December 2020 11: 59
                    +1
                    So the time is like this. Now it is almost everywhere, in all countries, except perhaps the DPRK and Iran. The system.
                    What is the time? Breeding suckers?
                    So what is our system in Russia?
                    1. Orange bigg
                      Orange bigg 12 December 2020 12: 05
                      -3
                      Capitalist. Market.
                      1. Vladimir Mashkov
                        Vladimir Mashkov 12 December 2020 15: 13
                        +4
                        Americans (as always) best "know" who and what needs! lol
                        I just think that they are cunning, fearing a strong competitor. yes
                        And since the Russians took up this business, it means that there is a need, opportunities and prospects for arming both the Russian army and the allies with a competitive airplane. smile
                      2. Alex777
                        Alex777 12 December 2020 18: 39
                        +1
                        I just think that they are cunning, fearing a strong competitor.

                        There is a niche in which a single-engine front-line aircraft will be in great demand. SUVVP.
                        Borisov said that development began in 2018.
                        IMHO will be very interesting to everyone and no one is a competitor to us there. wink
                  2. Sling cutter
                    Sling cutter 12 December 2020 12: 17
                    +6
                    Quote: Observer2014
                    What is the time? Breeding suckers?
                    So what is our system in Russia?

                    Theft, embezzlement and sawing.
                    1. Observer2014
                      Observer2014 12 December 2020 12: 34
                      +1
                      OrangeBigg (Alexander)
                      Capitalist. Market.
                      Stroporez (Private Airborne)
                      Theft, embezzlement and sawing.
                      You are absolutely right. That there is one and the same. Our state has two ways. The first is easy. Change the system. The second. Harder. To make the so-called capitalism with a human face. The third easiest and least costly to implement, which we see every day. Society sway from here to here. To humiliate people with a pension abomination. Tryndet about great patriotism, mocking this patriotism with his party in the West .............................. I don't have enough points in my computer. But not a single word can be found to justify the current state of affairs. hi
                    2. Senka naughty
                      Senka naughty 12 December 2020 16: 20
                      -5
                      Go ahead and wind up the "observer" rating.
                    3. Sling cutter
                      Sling cutter 12 December 2020 20: 42
                      +7
                      Quote: Senka Mad
                      Go ahead and wind up the "observer" rating.

                      And what did the Observer not please you with?
                  3. Alex777
                    Alex777 12 December 2020 18: 40
                    0
                    It's time to blame. I'm telling you exactly. wink
              2. Herman 4223
                Herman 4223 12 December 2020 23: 49
                0
                Colonial American.
          2. El Chuvachino
            El Chuvachino 12 December 2020 12: 13
            +5
            Quote: Observer2014
            We have no mind

            Speak for yourself please
            1. Alex777
              Alex777 12 December 2020 18: 41
              -1
              So he talks about himself. wink
  • Sergey_G_M
    Sergey_G_M 12 December 2020 10: 58
    +3
    The American author did not understand, the plane is not being produced, but only being developed, and these are two big differences. New engines, electronics appear, and to conduct research that will show the characteristics of the new technology, this is a completely reasonable idea that Rostec is implementing, and whether it will be needed or not and whether further work will be launched will depend on the results obtained.
    1. eklmn
      eklmn 12 December 2020 18: 52
      +5
      “The American author did not understand, the plane is not being produced, but only being developed, and these are two big differences. "
      The American author understood EVERYTHING, so he asked the American question - who will buy? If something is being manufactured (the money is spent), then this money must be returned (it must be sold), otherwise the USSR again. The Russian Ministry of Defense does not need this plane, and China-India does not need it either. Vietnam / North Korea? And in such a quantity to pay off?
  • Piramidon
    Piramidon 12 December 2020 11: 42
    +1
    Quote: OrangeBigg
    we have the ability to quickly create a medium fighter single engine with one engine

    Is there a single engine with several engines ?! request
    1. Orange bigg
      Orange bigg 12 December 2020 11: 49
      0
      It doesn't happen. I just duplicated the same idea. Not on purpose.
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 15 December 2020 09: 21
      0
      Well, maybe VTOL with lifting.
  • Alesi13
    Alesi13 12 December 2020 11: 53
    -2
    Who is trying to dissuade you? This is the press
  • Eug
    Eug 13 December 2020 17: 31
    0
    Light single-engine, as for me, should be done on a non-afterburner izd. 30 with a thrust of 11 tons. Unification, however, and the engine is much more modern. And on it to make a double LBS - "advanced" UBS and a drone. All with the ability to "work" from metal runways or compacted soil.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 15 December 2020 09: 20
    +1
    It will be more expensive and longer than just making a hundred or two MiG-35
  • Ros 56
    Ros 56 12 December 2020 11: 47
    -2
    I've been asking this question for a long time, but, but, but .... and I have to remember Zadornov.
  • Terenin
    Terenin 12 December 2020 12: 55
    +4
    In the USA they tried to explain ...
    And what happened to the USA? belay
    To explain something, to someone, after the destruction of the Indians, it is above their "morality".
  • Senka naughty
    Senka naughty 12 December 2020 16: 14
    +1
    I hope they dislocate their brains in conjecture ..
  • vfwfr
    vfwfr 12 December 2020 23: 26
    +1
    How what? The most direct ... The sales market is the only one on the planet earth .. And so there is one more competitor ...
  • Eug
    Eug 13 December 2020 09: 13
    +3
    A relatively massive replacement is needed for the "descending" F-16, and the MiG-21s still fly in some places. It is clear that many countries that use it (the 16th) simply will not buy a Russian plane, but, as for me, there will be a lot. Not everyone needs heavy, complex and, accordingly, expensive (especially in terms of the cost of a flight hour) plane of the Su-27 type; some countries are guided by a "soldier plane" like the MiG-21, but at a modern technical level. Neither the Chinese nor the Indians inspire confidence in technical terms, primarily in metallurgical technologies, which are still basic in aircraft construction, and, accordingly, in basic resources. And the design school of Russia will be more authoritative. I'm not talking about engines, everything is clear here - neither China nor India has a similar "product 30" and is not visible in the foreseeable future. The board also seems to be already there - I don't think there will be any difficulties in terms of capabilities, weight, dimensions and cost of the Su-57 equipment. The question for me is in what "weight" category to do it. As for me, it is necessary to do SUPER LIGHTWEIGHT on the basis of the BEAMLESS (thrust 11 tn.) Version of edition 30, especially because of the drone based on it. This will provide a normal take-off weight of about 12 tons. (maximum 15-16 tons) in the dimensions of the MiG-21. And yet - as for me, the necessary quality of such an aircraft - the ability to take off from metal runways or even from compacted soil. Something like this...
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 15 December 2020 09: 25
      +1
      I repeat for the 158th time the truth, at least for me, obvious: "You can't make money on those who don't have it." There is no point in bothering with an airplane, then with difficulty selling fifty copies to Africa. And now there are no fully functional fighters with an empty weight of less than 6-6.5 tons. It just won't work to place everything.
  • Russ
    Russ 12 December 2020 10: 01
    +5
    Does everyone know us better? recourse
    wink
  • evgen1221
    evgen1221 12 December 2020 10: 02
    +2
    They just decided to make an inexpensive plane for the poor.
    1. Orange bigg
      Orange bigg 12 December 2020 10: 38
      +1
      The Turkish Air Force also uses light, relatively inexpensive F-16s. Do you think this is a poor country Turkey?
      1. Alexey Polyutkin
        Alexey Polyutkin 12 December 2020 10: 41
        +6
        Not the richest. Their economy is as feverish as ours.
        1. Orange bigg
          Orange bigg 12 December 2020 10: 47
          +3
          Then I will cite as an example the USA, Israel, Belgium. These are countries whose main fighter aircraft is the F-16. wink What say this?
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 12 December 2020 11: 39
            +7
            A single-engine fighter needs a powerful engine.
            If a new engine for the Su-57 is ready, then it can
            will put on the projected single-engine.
            So far, none of the existing engines provides
            alone enough traction.
            1. Alex777
              Alex777 12 December 2020 18: 43
              -1
              How similar is my version of the SUVDP to the truth? wink
            2. EvilLion
              EvilLion 15 December 2020 09: 27
              +1
              Does the world know? And then the RD-33 and GF-404 are used for vehicles with an empty weight of 6-7 tons, and the Swedes from the GF-414 switched 8 tons to the Gripen NG. Only the series of all such aircraft are small.
          2. Alexey Polyutkin
            Alexey Polyutkin 12 December 2020 15: 48
            +1
            That the conversation was about Tupyurtsia))) Personally, my opinion is that single-engine fighters are needed.
      2. evgen1221
        evgen1221 12 December 2020 11: 13
        -1
        Well, compare the cost of two and one engine, mind you without the managerial markups. It can go well for export - everyone will not have a lot of money after the covid.
        1. Orange bigg
          Orange bigg 12 December 2020 11: 31
          0
          That's what I'm talking about, it's just that there are no planes for the poor and the rich. Everyone knows how to count money, especially the rich, otherwise they would not be rich otherwise.
          1. evgen1221
            evgen1221 12 December 2020 12: 06
            0
            Well, as if not, but as it were, the rich countries are more on newfangled whistles and high-tech in the database, and the poor so that it is reliable and everything in moderation. But how to myself and how to export, it can go, if it is not delayed for 10 years.
            1. Orange bigg
              Orange bigg 12 December 2020 12: 21
              -1
              there are rich countries more on newfangled whistles and hi-tech in the base are killed, and the poor so that it is reliable and everything in moderation.

              There is one rich country that wants to become even richer and offers its own product for each country. For shearing coupons from the rich, the F-35 was invented. And even a tuft of wool from the black sheep. Therefore, F-16. But everyone's hands are wringing. Opinions differ regarding the capabilities of the F-35.
  • Mykhalych
    Mykhalych 12 December 2020 10: 03
    +2
    "... it is not clear why the Russian Aerospace Forces needs a new fighter and whether there are potential buyers for such an aircraft abroad .."- i.e. there, abroad, such a thing as "Internal Market" of Russia is no longer perceived from the word at all .... Yeah? ..
    1. Doctor
      Doctor 12 December 2020 10: 57
      +3
      Internal Market "Russia is no longer perceived from the word at all .... Yeah? ..

      +
      Not everyone will guess that the land country of Russia just needs an airplane with one engine.

      The article has achieved success, it is being introduced into the consciousness that the single engine is only for export.
      The campaign has already been introduced into the brains of the RF Ministry of Defense.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 15 December 2020 09: 30
        +1
        No, it's just that the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation understands perfectly well that in our Russian conditions, such happiness did not fall for them. The cheapness of the aircraft itself is more than offset by the need for more of them, as well as a larger number of bases with the worst performance characteristics and the inability to make an aircraft with internal. placement of weapons small.
  • Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 12 December 2020 10: 10
    -4
    And such a plane is really not needed without a correct economy. I mean, easy, with any number of engines.

    It will still turn out to be expensive (it will not be twice as cheap as the heavy one), it will be inferior in all characteristics to the heavy one, etc.

    And all the talk about the cost of a flight hour will end with the advent of shock drones.
  • alipes
    alipes 12 December 2020 10: 27
    -2
    Another author, not related to aviation in general. The concept of "single-engine fighter" existed during the world war.
  • Doctor
    Doctor 12 December 2020 10: 36
    +4
    Russia is working on the creation of a new light single-engine fighter, writes The Drive.

    And it will look something like this:

    1. Orange bigg
      Orange bigg 12 December 2020 10: 54
      +2
      The picture is clearly not a light fighter. It is only 4-5 tons lighter than the Su-57. And the light aircraft should be about twice as light as the Su-57. The F-35 is essentially a classmate of the Su-57. The same heavy machine, but slightly lighter due to the single-engine layout.
      1. Doctor
        Doctor 12 December 2020 11: 10
        +1
        The picture is clearly not a light fighter. It is only 4-5 tons lighter than the Su-57. And the light aircraft should be about twice as light as the Su-57. The F-35 is essentially a classmate of the Su-57. The same heavy machine, but slightly lighter due to the single-engine layout.

        Light, heavy are relative concepts.

        An analogue of the Raptor was molded at an oil price of 100. But even the states did not pull it.

        Now we decided to sculpt an analogue of Lighting.
        By the time the world switches to UAVs, they are riveted. wink
        1. Orange bigg
          Orange bigg 12 December 2020 11: 24
          -4
          Once again. An analogue of the F-35 is the Su-57. Heavy fighters. Just one has two engines, the other has one due to which the difference in weight is plus or minus 4 tons somewhere. But the Su-57 due to two engines is faster and longer If they create a light vehicle, then it will weigh about 2 times less than the Su-57 / F-35 and naturally it will not be an analogue of the F-35. Different weight categories.
          The Su-57 also has superiority over the American fighter in maneuverability, speed and range. The Russian fighter can reach speeds of up to 2600 km / h, and the American one - 1930 km / h. The maximum flight duration of the Su-57 is about twice that of the F-35: 5,8 hours versus 2,36 hours. The maximum combat load of the Russian aircraft is 10 kg, while that of the American aircraft is 000 kg. The maximum takeoff weight is also higher for the Su-9: 100 kg versus 57 kg.

          https://aif.ru/society/army/sravnitelnye_harakteristiki_istrebiteley_su-57_i_f-35_infografika
          1. Doctor
            Doctor 12 December 2020 12: 03
            0
            Once again. An analogue of the F-35 is the Su-57. Heavy fighters. Just one has two engines, the other has one due to which the difference in weight is plus or minus 4 tons somewhere.

            It's clear. The question lies in the price / quality plane.
            In the Second World War, the main shock work was done by Stuck and Eli. If they had fought on Pe and Henkels, they would have gone bankrupt by 1943.

            For the transitional period, we can easily get by with a twin Su-35 for naval aviation and a single-engine analogue for the Air Force.

            Invest forces and resources in promising UAVs.
            1. Orange bigg
              Orange bigg 12 December 2020 12: 34
              0
              Invest forces and resources in promising UAVs.

              This is how it happens. Orion-RU, Altair-RU, Hunter S-70, are they not promising UAVs, or are there any other proposals?
              The question lies in the price / quality plane.
              In the Second World War, the main shock work was done by Stuck and Eli. If they had fought on Pe and Henkels, they would have gone bankrupt by 1943.

              Therefore, a single-engine, relatively cheap, promising fighter is needed.
  • rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 12 December 2020 10: 45
    -1
    The Drive knows everything, sees everything and predicts everything, especially in terms of the prospects for Russian military aviation. It might be easier to dig into your American one. Finally, to figure out and bring to the American layman whether the United States is needed, for example: F-35. Why climb into a strange monastery with your own charter and even battered dirty little hands?
  • Paul Siebert
    Paul Siebert 12 December 2020 10: 47
    -6
    Against the background of the recently crashed American "F-16", a conclusion suggests itself - twin-engine fighters are more reliable.
    The concept of a "light fighter" is subjective.
    In our country, this niche is filled by MiG Corporation machines.
    And they have two engines.
    Forum will be given to a single-engine "Fighting Falcon"!
    And in agility and speed. There is nothing to say about reliability.
    If one engine fails, it will return to base on another.
    With a high degree of probability ...
    And the American pilot in such a situation will have to pull the ejection lever ... wink
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 12 December 2020 10: 52
    +10
    When creating the MiG 29, F15 and F16 were already flying. AND...:
    1. Al31 was not ready and reliable
    2. Electronics and systems were heavier than F16
    3. For MiG29 they wanted to get an advantage in energy over F16.

    Now a fighter with Al41 (ed30) will allow:
    1. Reduce life cycle cost.
    2. Take over most of the shock functions of the Su30 and Su34
    3. Be a pretty decent fighter
    4. Better to export
    5. Simplify the modernization of both Brao and turbojet engines together with the older Su57-35-30 ....
    1. Orange bigg
      Orange bigg 12 December 2020 11: 08
      +1
      In addition, when creating the new Su-57, MiG-35, a technological reserve was obtained that will significantly accelerate the creation of a light fighter. Since the development is clearly not starting from scratch. The engine is the same RD-93MA / Product 30, depending on the class of the aircraft light / medium fighter.
    2. Alexander Vorontsov
      Alexander Vorontsov 12 December 2020 13: 44
      0
      Quote: Zaurbek
      When creating the MiG 29, F15 and F16 were already flying. AND...:
      1. Al31 was not ready and reliable
      2. Electronics and systems were heavier than F16
      3. For MiG29 they wanted to get an advantage in energy over F16.

      Now a fighter with Al41 (ed30) will allow:
      1. Reduce life cycle cost.
      2. Take over most of the shock functions of the Su30 and Su34
      3. Be a pretty decent fighter
      4. Better to export
      5. Simplify the modernization of both Brao and turbojet engines together with the older Su57-35-30 ....

      I agree with everything.
    3. NN52
      NN52 12 December 2020 14: 50
      +1
      Zaurbek

      With two engines, it’s safer to fly ... there are more chances to "get" home ..
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 12 December 2020 19: 17
        +2
        They fall no worse ... and the reliability is now at a different level ... Grippen has received a civil certificate in general
        1. NN52
          NN52 13 December 2020 17: 46
          +2
          And when the bird flies into the engine? Is she first interested in the certificate?)
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 13 December 2020 22: 59
            +1
            Apparently, yes. Certification is serious business
  • Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 12 December 2020 11: 02
    +1
    UAVs are most likely made for defense purposes. Such a need is long overdue.
  • Diverter
    Diverter 12 December 2020 11: 04
    +1
    If the C 70 has / will have an engine from the Su 57go, then it will be not only an effective combination, but also economically competent. and I consider it necessary to supplement this bundle with a single-engine manned engine based on their technologies. As a result, the videoconferencing will use 1 engine, the same blocks of different systems - however, saving! And if it goes into production in 7-10 years, then it will be possible to put on sale your second-hand MiG 29.
  • Note
    Note 12 December 2020 11: 21
    +2
    There would be a plane, but there will be demand wink
  • Vovk
    Vovk 12 December 2020 11: 21
    +1
    Work is in progress in pursuit of the rest of the world.
    A cheap single-engine aircraft with pseudo AI is being created, which will be controlled both by a pilot and autonomously, as well as from another aircraft or from the ground.
    The US is doing a similar trick with the F-16, and China is doing similar research.
  • Kuz
    Kuz 12 December 2020 11: 36
    +15
    The single-engine certainly has its own niche in the Air Force, but ... is there a suitable engine for it? More precisely, when creating an aircraft around an engine, for example AL-31F, will it have acceptable characteristics?
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 12 December 2020 19: 19
      +1
      There is a Chinese J10 with Al31 ..... and in the Russian Federation, Al41 becomes the main one on the 30th campaign.
  • Alexander Kopychev
    Alexander Kopychev 12 December 2020 11: 44
    +6
    Want to create? Let them create !!! Let them use their brains, develop a personnel school and technologies. It is important!!! Because Good !!!
  • Victor Tsenin
    Victor Tsenin 12 December 2020 11: 47
    +2
    About the lack of demand, the dubiously conditional MiG-21 of the 21st century would be in demand, everyone appreciates the price / quality. And if the truth is being developed, then why not implement the S-54 (5x)?
  • iouris
    iouris 12 December 2020 12: 05
    -1
    Obey the Americans. In everything.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 12 December 2020 19: 20
      0
      Hello ideas why not adopt?
      Homosyatina, for some reason, is accepted faster than something really necessary.
  • Vadim_888
    Vadim_888 12 December 2020 12: 33
    +4
    For some reason, I did not see in any of the comments that the Air Force is performing its tasks in peacetime, where, in addition to steep combat characteristics, so-called "cheap" operational characteristics are needed, that is, a low cost of an hour of flight, while maintaining average combat parameters request
    1. iouris
      iouris 12 December 2020 14: 17
      0
      Probably a UAV. They can be purchased in Turkey.
  • HMR333
    HMR333 12 December 2020 12: 38
    -2
    In general, as always, the Ministry of Defense did not say a word about single-engine, but they decided and claim that it is single-engine! Without a gift in the USSR and Russia, a light fighter does not mean single-engine, but it is smaller and lighter! Example moment and su!
  • Azimuth
    Azimuth 12 December 2020 13: 47
    +3
    http://airwar.ru/enc/xplane/s54.html
    For those who did not know. The deck version is especially interesting.
    In a light fighter, there is no need for total implementation and application of stealth technologies, especially since it is almost impossible to arrange weapons in the inner compartments or semi-comfortably. It should be cheap and efficient enough, and such projects are not what they are, but as we can see they were.

    Our engines are used by two single-engine Chinese fighters of different classes. We have had the MiG-21 for a long time, its unlicensed version is still produced in China after dozens of upgrades, it is in service with them and is widely exported, especially the modernized MiG-21UB.
    Nothing prevents us from implementing the project of such a fighter on ready-made units and solutions, especially since the MiG-35 will most likely not be massively purchased by our Defense Ministry, a small batch, and everything else for export, but the units and solutions have been worked out and tested, production and people is, so nothing gets in the way.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 12 December 2020 19: 23
      +1
      FT17 flies with RD93 and J10 with Al31.
      The trouble is that the RD stopped at 93m, and the AL series has already gone ahead of the 41st and 30th ......... and it takes about 93 years to make a turbojet engine of the RD15 size adequate to the time. And Product30 at the exit.
  • bar
    bar 12 December 2020 14: 13
    +1
    However, there is the question of who will eventually buy the new lightweight single-engine Russian fighter, if one is created.

    It seems to me just the opposite. A light and inexpensive fighter for local conflicts, which are now on our balloon above the roof, is just the thing. And small countries participating in these conflicts will buy it with pleasure. Not everyone, like Hindus, needs the 5 +++ generation right away. Moreover, not everyone can afford it. They will not be superfluous in our VKS. To drive Banderlog across Syria, it is not at all necessary to start a Tu-160.
  • Yaro Polk
    Yaro Polk 12 December 2020 15: 49
    0
    When the Amerzians say that ...
    So we are doing everything right, so they do not want us to do it.
    So it "burns" with them.
    By the way. and why we do not have such planes, they will be even cheaper, you can churn out thousands)
  • Alex1949
    Alex1949 12 December 2020 17: 40
    +1
    I can suggest several reasons why Russia does not need a single-engine fighter:
    1. Reliability. One engine is out of order. On the second - finished the battle and went to the base;
    2. This is a fighter and the higher the take-off speed, the earlier the fighter enters the battle, and at the same time it will leave the enemy waiting for its takeoff;
    3. Airplanes fly faster and higher on two engines;
    4. Two engines will have more ammunition and auxiliary equipment;
    5. Maneuvering engine thrust is a big plus to the maneuverability of the fighter.
    1. Thorvlobnor IV
      Thorvlobnor IV 12 December 2020 20: 17
      +3
      A possible niche for a single-engine fighter jet is combating attack and reconnaissance drones, especially if mid-air refueling is provided.
  • Kettle13
    Kettle13 12 December 2020 19: 51
    0
    The US was not asked why.
  • I'm walking by
    I'm walking by 13 December 2020 00: 13
    +1
    Rzhu with people with conditioned reflexes instead of brains, the article says that the military edition is doing what it was created for, and in the comments of outrage at the impudent US intervention in Russian politics)
  • Alexander Terentyev
    Alexander Terentyev 13 December 2020 05: 09
    +2
    In general, we need to make three-engine aircraft
  • Basarev
    Basarev 13 December 2020 11: 09
    -1
    Russia needs a single-engine one. It becomes clear that our impoverished industry does not pull out the Su-57, even modifications of the twenty-seventh and twenty-ninth are being built in ridiculous batches, almost piecemeal. We need a fighter that, even in our conditions of complete ruin, can produce exactly what is serial - in hundreds and thousands. That is, a modern analogue of the MiG-21.
  • Baron pardus
    Baron pardus 13 December 2020 11: 29
    +1
    I don’t understand the Russian Air Force’s dislike for single-engine fighters. History has shown more than once that single-engine fighters are very successful both in operation and in combat. Let's not go far. Mirage 3, Mirage 5, Mirage 50, Mirage 2000, Kfir, F16, F8, Mig-21, Mirage F-1. Wiggen, Drakken, Grippen, F-16, Mig-23 (not very successful, but the problem is not the engine), A-7, A-4 (yes, they lost a lot of them, but NOT because of the engine, just an attack aircraft without armor ... not camilfo), SU-17 and many others. When you have a country with a huge length of borders, you need a LOT of fighters to close it. And it is not necessary that all of them carry 8000 kg of bombs and have a flight range of 3000 km without hanging tanks. They need to close the border and not fly over 3000 km and bomb someone. By the way, F16 even of not the most recent series is calmly carried by the Penguin anti-ship missiles, on the same engine. Twin-engine fighters are banally more expensive to manufacture and operate. Yes, F15 can carry a lot more bombs than F16. But to cover the border, the aircraft DOES NOT NEED to carry 8000 + kg of bombs and missiles. The Canadian Air Force has calculated that the best fighter they have been offered on the basis of Cost Effectiveness is FLU. Precisely considering the length of its borders. And not Rafale or Typhoon, and certainly not Super Hornet. Grippens can be bought trite twice as much as rafals. and one and a half times more than the F18 Super Hornet. And Russia, by the way, is not a rich country. Even compared to Canada. By the way, an hour of operation of the F16 costs about $ 8500, an hour of operation of the F18 Super Hornet - $ 10.500, an hour of operation of the F15 costs 21000-23000 dollars. But in air combat, the F15 does not have an overwhelming advantage, and the F / A18 super hornet generally loses in the F16 air battle as a rule.

    By the way, in terms of maneuverability, the TWO-MOTOR F15 is inferior to the single-engine F16. And both gain height almost the same. The newest single-engine F16 and Grippens have radars that are in no way inferior to radars from F16 or Typhoon. And the Japanese in their F2 (modernized F16 Agile Falcon), shoved AFAR radar before the Americans pushed it into F22. And the single engine did NOT interfere. I don't understand the argument that "If a rocket arrives in one engine, then you can fly in the second." You might just as well say "Let's put the second cockpit, kill one pilot, the second will bring the plane home." Yes, it is POSSIBLE that the rocket will remove only one engine from construction. Another argument is that if one engine simply fails, then on the second you can hold out and sit down. Perhaps, and perhaps not. It's cheaper to just make high-quality engines. By the way, even the crooked Indians managed not to threaten a single Mirage 2000 due to engine problems. It's just that the French made the engine, albeit not very powerful, but unkillable. The presence of a second engine, for example on F15, Rafal or Typhoon, DOES NOT GUARANTEE that the aircraft will survive after receiving a missile, not to mention that "only one engine will be destroyed." On F18 and the typhoon, the engines are generally side by side. Fly a rocket into one engine, well, as it is absolutely impossible to believe that the second engine will survive.

    It seems to me that the abandonment of single-engine fighters was simply done in order to buy more EXPENSIVE aircraft on which you can simply cut more dough. I'm not really sure that the Su-33 will come out as a 16% winner in the confrontation with the Grippen-E. Or even from F2015 of the last series (On which AMRAAMs and AFAR radars are installed). By the way, during the Falcon Strike 27 exercises, the Grippens-S (the previous generation) were smashed to hell by the Chinese Dryers SU-XNUMXSK. Without even getting into close combat. And two engines did not help, and a large ammunition load did not help either.

    Twin-engine does not mean BETTER and therefore EXPENSIVE. Single-engine does not mean WORSE and therefore CHEAPER. It's just that different fighters are needed for different things. To close your own border, then a single-engine driver will calmly cope. Hang on with bombs and hit a distant target, well, for this F15 will be better than Grippen and F16. The US Air Force knew what they were doing when they made the "Heavy / Light Fighter" concept, as did the USSR Air Force, after all, the MiG-29 and Su-27 were supposed to work with us as "light / heavy" fighters ..
    1. bk0010
      bk0010 13 December 2020 13: 14
      0
      1) At one time, in the USSR, many pilots were beaten on single-engine aircraft (in peacetime), so the MiG-29 was immediately ordered with a twin-engine (plus, he had to surpass the F-16 in air combat, which with the then engines was only possible in a twin-engine option).
      2) The engine is now not the most expensive part of the aircraft, avionics are more expensive, so the savings on one engine are now unimportant (the second aircraft cannot be profitable on this anymore).
    2. CastroRuiz
      CastroRuiz 13 December 2020 15: 16
      0
      Baron Pardus.
      Glubokiy poklon za Vash koment.
      Vsyo mudro i pravilno.
  • Aleks2000
    Aleks2000 13 December 2020 13: 41
    -1
    And why are you all arguing?
    Of course, a versatile cheap single-engine aircraft would be needed. Primarily because of the single-engine cheap operation.

    But, it is not and is not expected.
    IMHO, there is simply no design or production capacity, no money.
    Look at the rate of launch of the previous fighters - Su, MIG, the rate of release of UAVs, the rate of release of ARMATs, Uraniums, Terminators, ships and others, etc.

    They will buy it, this is already the 2nd question, the next one ... If it would be successful, they bought it ...
  • Alex347482
    Alex347482 13 December 2020 13: 56
    +1
    If it was not needed, it would not have been created. In the States, as always, the attic hangs on such news.
  • Evgeny Seleznev
    Evgeny Seleznev 13 December 2020 16: 48
    0
    In principle, the combination of the front-line light fighter MiG-29 and the heavy air defense fighter MiG-27 and the long-range interceptor MiG-31, according to the zones of use, is justified. Although the whole world is striving for unification. It is cheaper to have one fighter for different tasks (taking into account the information security function), the effectiveness of the application can be debated. Only the US and the Russian Federation can afford this. But whether it is worth doing is not all unambiguous. Ideally, you need to have one type, the smaller the range of weapons, the easier it is to train flight personnel and maintain aircraft + logistics, weapons, spare parts, etc. This is what we should strive for. And not spray.
  • Yuriy Filatov
    Yuriy Filatov 13 December 2020 19: 04
    0
    The concept of a single-engine aircraft for Russia is new ...
    MiG-21 and SU-17 left the chat =)
  • Maksim_ok
    Maksim_ok 18 December 2020 12: 50
    0
    The MiG-29 could be single-engine. but there was no such engine as on the F-16. Actually this is the reason.