Military Review

"Su-24 was still bombed in Afghanistan, and today they threaten the ships of the US Navy": Western press about aircraft developed by the USSR

97

The American media discusses the "survivability" of aircraft developed by the USSR in terms of the duration of their use. Business Insider points out that the planes that were built back in Soviet times are still actively exploited, not only in Russia, but also in many other countries. The American press also discusses the fact that the Soviet military and transport aviation to this day it is even operated by NATO countries.


The publication notes that the Su-24 bombers and their modifications, which are now part of the Russian Aerospace Forces, as well as such countries as Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Iran, Algeria, and others, are in active operation.

From the material:

These planes also bombed Afghanistan and are still operating, threatening the US Navy ships.

In particular, an example is given a flight of one of the versions of the Su-24 at low altitude over the American destroyer "Donald Cook". The same flight, which has already become overgrown with "mythology" and partially turned into memes.

Special attention is focused on strategic aviation. The author in Business Insider writes that the Tu-95 "Bear" aircraft were created in case of a possible nuclear war between the USSR and NATO countries. The article notes that "fortunately, such a war did not happen, but Russia is actively using these aircraft even after the end of another war - the Cold War." At the same time, the American observer for some reason does not say anything about the fact that the US Air Force uses strategic bombers that were created more than 60 years ago. The end of the Cold War for some reason did not prevent the United States from using its B-52s in the Air Force.

Speaking about NATO countries, it can be noted that Soviet (early Russian) aircraft are still used in Poland, Slovakia, Bulgaria. This indicates a high operating resource and reliability. The American press noted that this also says how advanced the Soviet weapon in my time.
97 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. seregatara1969
    seregatara1969 28 January 2021 06: 45
    +5
    What do you think? It was a big country
    1. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 28 January 2021 06: 50
      +18
      Quote: seregatara1969
      It was a big country

      Big and strong, but vulnerable on the inside. Wildly sorry that she was gone!
    2. Civil
      Civil 28 January 2021 07: 30
      +14
      The USSR was powerful and strong. Until they exchanged for jeans with gum.
      1. krot
        krot 28 January 2021 08: 14
        +14
        The USSR was powerful and strong. Until they exchanged for jeans with gum.

        Now they want to exchange for tik-tok for Facebook.
        1. Civil
          Civil 28 January 2021 08: 40
          0
          Quote: krot
          Now they want to exchange for tik-tok for Facebook.

          How is it different from working gum and jeans?
      2. sgrabik
        sgrabik 28 January 2021 08: 50
        +12
        We exchanged the USSR for jeans and chewing gum, and what we got in the end was an under-market economy, "cosmic" prices for all goods and services, stratification of society into the poor and the rich, between whom there is an insurmountable abyss, here it is "democracy" in all its glory! !!
        1. Quadro
          Quadro 28 January 2021 12: 14
          +1
          Quote: sgrabik
          We exchanged the USSR for jeans and chewing gum, and what we got in the end was an under-market economy, "cosmic" prices for all goods and services, stratification of society into the poor and the rich, between whom there is an insurmountable abyss, here it is "democracy" in all its glory! !!

          So did you want capitalism, or did you think you would live like in Hollywood films? In his mansion with his model wife and a bunch of cars in the garage?
          1. sgrabik
            sgrabik 28 January 2021 12: 20
            +4
            I personally never wanted capitalism, everything suited me before, but now the country is a complete mess, lack of justice and total corruption, that's exactly what no one ever wanted or dreamed of such a future, as they say: they wanted the best, but everything turned out as always!!!
            1. Alex777
              Alex777 28 January 2021 17: 15
              +1
              This is how Western capitalism thrives on the robbery of colonies.
              As the robbery ends, it turns out that capitalism alone is not enough for a beautiful life. hi
      3. Captain45
        Captain45 28 January 2021 11: 27
        -2
        Quote: Civil
        The USSR was powerful and strong. Until they exchanged for jeans with gum.

        And in my opinion, according to your words, it turns out that the Union was not so powerful and strong, since it was exchanged for chewing gum.
        1. sgrabik
          sgrabik 28 January 2021 12: 28
          0
          And so it happened because of the stupidity and naivety of our individual leaders of the country, how ridiculous and unfair it is when the fate of many millions of people depends on the decisions of individual incompetent and erroneous leaders of the state (I mean Gorbachev and Yeltsin), the consequences of their ridiculous mistakes and delusions we now feel on ourselves to the fullest !!!
          1. DymOk_v_dYmke
            DymOk_v_dYmke 28 January 2021 12: 46
            +3
            Quote: sgrabik
            And so it happened because of the stupidity and naivety of our individual leaders of the country, how ridiculous and unfair it is when the fate of many millions of people depends on the decisions of individual incompetent and erroneous leaders of the state (I mean Gorbachev and Yeltsin), the consequences of their ridiculous mistakes and delusions we now feel on ourselves to the fullest !!!

            Both had no mistakes or delusions.
            They led purposefully to what they led to.
            Khrushchev's relapse into Trotskyism failed, they did it.
            The filters on the party and state ladder were weak. hi
          2. Captain45
            Captain45 28 January 2021 17: 33
            +1
            Quote: sgrabik
            And so it happened because of the stupidity and naivety of our individual leaders of the country, how ridiculous and unfair it is when the fate of many millions of people depends on the decisions of individual incompetent and erroneous leaders of the state (I mean Gorbachev and Yeltsin), the consequences of their ridiculous mistakes and delusions we now feel on ourselves to the fullest !!!

            But what about the 18 million members of the CPSU and 5 million members of the Komsomol, or vice versa? I don’t remember after 30 years who, where, how much. It turns out that it was a herd that was foolishly led by some naive leaders? No, I am convinced that these were not rams, it was just the result of 70 years of hard pushing into the ears of people whose real life, unlike the propaganda of the CPSU Central Committee, was before their eyes. Therefore, they made their choice in 1991, only they had to choose from the bad and the even worse; they chose the worst, because they had already lived in the bad, and did not believe what they said about the worst, as everything that the party brought to the people's ears about honor, intelligence and the conscience of the era. Now, having made a fortune and having eaten their fill of the worst, the people will choose the best share. The question is that the criteria for this best share are acceptable for the whole society, or at least for its 90%, have not yet been formed, but for now "The idea will not take possession masses“As the founder said, any social and social changes are possible only in the form of a coup, a palace coup and the like seething of feces. as long as there is no acceptable proposal from the entire political party, then I will take care of myself.
    3. RealPilot
      RealPilot 29 January 2021 21: 34
      0
      Su-24 was bombed in Afghanistan, but today ...

      Let's remember the B-52, for example ... They also bombed Afghanistan, while sometimes they continue to do so today!
  2. tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 28 January 2021 06: 53
    +3
    They don't write about their B 52s, it's completely different. Why ours still fly, they saved the motor resource. For 25 years they haven't really flown. repeat
    1. Ka-52
      Ka-52 28 January 2021 06: 58
      +2
      Not only the B-52, the Americans are still in service with the early 16s F-80A
      1. tralflot1832
        tralflot1832 28 January 2021 07: 04
        +6
        F 16 is young, I just finished school when they started riveting it. And about B52, I was not in the project yet. wassat
      2. Toucan
        Toucan 28 January 2021 08: 36
        +1
        Quote: Ka-52
        Not only the B-52, the Americans are still in service with the early 16s F-80A

        Limited in the Air National Guard. At the same time, these vehicles went through a program of dramatic improvement in combat characteristics.
        1. Ka-52
          Ka-52 28 January 2021 09: 09
          +3
          Limited in the Air National Guard.

          EMNIP on the National Guard F-16 of a later modification
          At the same time, these vehicles went through a program of dramatic improvement in combat characteristics.

          ours also underwent modernization. Compared to the basic version that rolled out in the mid-70s - heaven and earth
          1. Toucan
            Toucan 28 January 2021 10: 10
            0
            Quote: Ka-52
            EMNIP on the National Guard F-16 of a later modification

            Including the upgraded F-16A. Here you can see:
            https://topwar.ru/105793-sistema-pvo-severnoy-ameriki-chast-4.html
            Quote: Ka-52
            ours also underwent modernization. Compared to the basic version that rolled out in the mid-70s - heaven and earth

            Excuse me, with all due respect, what basic versions have we upgraded?
            1. Ka-52
              Ka-52 28 January 2021 10: 41
              0
              Excuse me, with all due respect, what basic versions have we upgraded?

              well, the basic cracker was a really heavy machine. Many changes were made there: the 21e engines were modified, the VZ was finalized, the K-36D was replaced, the mechanization was finalized, many changes were made to the avionics (ARPA, SPO, SRO, the RDSN were finalized), the number of pylons was increased and they were adapted for MZD. This is just what I remember. I think there were still changes
              1. Toucan
                Toucan 28 January 2021 10: 50
                +1
                You did not answer the question, what kind of basic modifications of the 70s have we recently modernized?
                If you are talking about the Su-24M, then that car appeared much later.
                1. Ka-52
                  Ka-52 28 January 2021 11: 25
                  +1
                  If you are talking about the Su-24M, then that car appeared much later.

                  how much is it? EMNIP rolled out the basic one in the early 70s, and the emka appeared in the second half of the same 70s.
                  1. Toucan
                    Toucan 28 January 2021 11: 31
                    +1
                    Su-24M began to operate in the first half of the 80s. Massively began to switch to it since 1985.
                    1. Ka-52
                      Ka-52 28 January 2021 12: 01
                      +1
                      Su-24M began to operate in the first half of the 80s. Massively began to switch to it since 1985.

                      Well, in Lipetsk2, basic ones appeared in TsBPiPLS back in 73. That you are fixated only on emke?
                      1. Toucan
                        Toucan 28 January 2021 12: 12
                        +1
                        What does "basic" have to do with it? Do you know how the Su-24 differs from the "emka"? But the differences are very significant. One way or another, there are no modernized aircraft of basic modifications of the 70s as part of the Russian Aerospace Forces. No.
                      2. Ka-52
                        Ka-52 28 January 2021 12: 25
                        -1
                        What does "basic" have to do with it? Do you know how the Su-24 differs from the "emka"?

                        I know, I know, don't worry. You are thinking in Internet categories in which an index is assigned upon modification. And I'm talking about upgrades in the aircraft itself. And this technical work happens within the versions themselves. I wrote what was done above. Or do you not think this is a modernization?
                        there are no modernized aircraft of basic modifications of the 70s as part of the Russian Aerospace Forces

                        some kind of nonsense. Maybe we are talking about different things and therefore do not understand each other
                      3. Toucan
                        Toucan 28 January 2021 12: 32
                        0
                        Glad you know good
                        As for the "Internet categories", do you know where the 277th Mlavsky BAP is based? You should not judge unfamiliar people indiscriminately.
                        As for the "basic" modifications, can the Su-27S be considered a basic modification of the Su-35S?
                      4. Ka-52
                        Ka-52 28 January 2021 12: 39
                        +1
                        As for "internet categories"

                        this is not to say something to you, but to point out a common misconception
                        you know where the 277th Mlavsky BAP is based

                        Your 277 is at least reanimated, but our 203 TBAP only remains in memory.
          2. bober1982
            bober1982 28 January 2021 11: 38
            +2
            Quote: Tucan
            If you are talking about the Su-24M

            Su-24 upgraded to Su-24M
            Su-24M upgraded to Su-24M2
            That is, the basic model of the Su-24 was consistently brought to the Su-24M2 (already in our time)
            1. Bongo
              Bongo 28 January 2021 13: 14
              +2
              Quote: bober1982
              Su-24 upgraded to Su-24M
              Su-24M upgraded to Su-24M2
              That is, the basic model of the Su-24 was consistently brought to the Su-24M2 (already in our time)

              Among the Su-24M2, it is necessary to distinguish between the machines modernized within the framework of the ROC "Gusar" and the ROC "Metronome".
              1. bober1982
                bober1982 28 January 2021 13: 28
                0
                Perhaps what I don’t know, I don’t know.
                1. Bongo
                  Bongo 28 January 2021 13: 41
                  +1
                  Quote: bober1982
                  Perhaps what I don’t know, I don’t know.

                  On occasion, chat on this topic with the "ancient". He took part in the practical implementation of both ROCs. I once did an article on the Su-24, it is mentioned there. You even commented on this publication.
                2. bober1982
                  bober1982 28 January 2021 13: 44
                  0
                  Quote: Bongo
                  You even commented on this publication.

                  I remember well.
                  Quote: Bongo
                  He took part in the practical implementation of both ROCs.

                  Everywhere I was in time.
  • venik
    venik 28 January 2021 11: 43
    0
    Quote: Ka-52
    Not only the B-52, the Americans are still in service with the early 16s F-80A

    =======
    Yah? Just the same! They had one and only training squadron The Navy on the F - 16A, so that has already been re-equipped ...
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 28 January 2021 13: 31
      +1
      Quote: venik
      Yah? Just the same! They had one and only training squadron of the Navy on the F - 16A, so that one has already been re-equipped ...

      In 2019, the National Guard Air Force operated F-16A / B (F-16ADF) air defense interceptor fighters as part of the Mid-Life Upgrade (MLU) program, becoming functionally equivalent to the F-16C / D Block 20 models.
      Several F-16A aircraft are still in operation at the Fallon airbase of the US Navy, designed to simulate enemy fighters in air combat. Aircraft with relatively little flying time were taken from the storage base at Davis-Montan, they underwent refurbishment at Tucson AFB, where weapons, suspension assemblies were also removed from the fighters, communications and navigation equipment were changed, and the fuselage and wings were reinforced.
  • user1212
    user1212 28 January 2021 07: 37
    +3
    Quote: tralflot1832
    They don't write about their B 52s, it's completely different.

    And the P-3? And B-1B, the newest of which was built in 88. А10 - 1972 year of creation, AC-130 - 1968, F15 - 1976 but all of them are countless
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 28 January 2021 13: 37
      +2
      R-3S are gradually leaving, they are being replaced by R-8A. In addition, the US Navy operates only the latest modifications of Orions, and only the airframe and the landing gear remain from the R-3A. In the course of major overhauls, B-1B went through a modernization program. The same can be said for the Tnanderbolts. You are disingenuous about the Hanships. I will not go into details regarding avionics and weapons, but the AC-130J, even in terms of the airframe, is very different from the aircraft built in 1968.
  • Stas157
    Stas157 28 January 2021 07: 38
    +1
    Quote: tralflot1832
    Why are ours still flyingmotor resource saved... We haven't flown for 25 years.

    Have our resources taken care of all over the world? And what is typical, where the resource was not "saved" (abroad), Soviet technology was preserved even better!
    1. tralflot1832
      tralflot1832 28 January 2021 07: 41
      +1
      Are you talking about the Houthis and T 34? We are waiting for Abrashka to be cut like a hot water bottle. laughing
  • Maki maki
    Maki maki 28 January 2021 06: 53
    +21
    What a strange news - The USA recognizes the high reliability of weapons from the USSR ... What's new?
    1. NDR-791
      NDR-791 28 January 2021 07: 32
      +5
      What a strange news - The USA recognizes the high reliability of weapons from the USSR ... What's new?
      Maybe they want to order? Therefore, so not intrusively hintwassat wassat wassat
  • Vladimir61
    Vladimir61 28 January 2021 06: 56
    +3
    These planes also bombed Afghanistan ...
    Surprised Yankees? So the Russian "Kalash" was still in Vietnam, but this did not lose its lethality!
  • The comment was deleted.
  • syndicalist
    syndicalist 28 January 2021 06: 59
    +2
    I don't understand the tone of the news. Is it admiration or a mockery?
  • Strashila
    Strashila 28 January 2021 06: 59
    +5
    "The American press noted that this also says how advanced Soviet weapons were at one time." Most importantly, everything on these aircraft is domestic, no import.
    1. nsm1
      nsm1 28 January 2021 07: 29
      -2
      They are already upgrading by import.
      1. sgrabik
        sgrabik 28 January 2021 08: 59
        -3
        In the military-industrial complex, no imports are now used and will no longer be used in the future, a small exception to the rule is the microprocessor component, but here, too, supplies from China are not in very large quantities.
        1. nsm1
          nsm1 28 January 2021 09: 05
          +2
          Have you seen the video of the disassembly of the black box of the downed Su-24?
          On the contrary, there is only one non-imported microcircuit.
          There is both an atmega and a converter from the maximum ...
          In general, this is correct - the domestic component is used as an exception.
          And very often on the contrary - our microprocessor, for excuses, everything else is import.
          1. sgrabik
            sgrabik 28 January 2021 13: 42
            -2
            I mean the electronics that are used in the military-industrial complex now, and not what it was before !!!
            1. nsm1
              nsm1 28 January 2021 15: 13
              +2
              Do you have information about new developments?
              Where, if not a secret?
              Do not offer TV.
              I admit that I don't have one, but I was interested in the domestic nomenclature ...
              Frankly, not a lot.
              There is progress, this is so ...
              Not so long ago (I worked as a designer, but, although this work brings great moral satisfaction - it is not paid much, I returned to the oil industry) I offered to put a controller from Milander into the product, so I had heard enough ...
              "You (here like alternatively gifted, you can't write a word on the site) tunnels" is one of the most decent expressions!
          2. keeper03
            keeper03 1 February 2021 20: 57
            -1
            Our microprocessor guarantees no bookmarks and failure to work at the wrong time! yes So this is no excuse. soldier
            1. nsm1
              nsm1 1 February 2021 20: 58
              -2
              This is not the only point of failure.
              1. keeper03
                keeper03 1 February 2021 21: 00
                0
                She is the main one - the brain of the system! winked If you have an enemy brain, then the body does not belong to you, something like that! bully
        2. Bongo
          Bongo 28 January 2021 13: 38
          +1
          Quote: sgrabik
          In the military-industrial complex, no imports are now used and will no longer be used in the future, a small exception to the rule is the microprocessor component, but here, too, supplies from China are not in very large quantities.

          Apparently you are not well informed ... No.
  • abrakadabre
    abrakadabre 28 January 2021 07: 17
    0
    The American press noted that this also says that how advanced were the Soviet weapons in my time.
    From this turn! From the mouth of the enemy ...
  • anclevalico
    anclevalico 28 January 2021 07: 33
    +1
    Why did they link the mythology? There is really more fiction than reality. Especially about electronic warfare, which the Su-24 never had, but which he was able to "suppress" the foe.
  • silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 28 January 2021 07: 41
    +1
    the author did not discover anything new for Soviet citizens ... yes, yes ... there was a Great Country ... which made various and mostly very reliable equipment with good modernization potential) ...
    well, and the second side ... but technological breakthroughs ... well, that's how, by and large, based on other physical principles (engines ... weapons, etc.) and there are no yet ... and the T-34-85 somewhere they use it with a bang))
    1. sgrabik
      sgrabik 28 January 2021 09: 17
      +1
      You are disingenuous here, because our hypersonic missile is almost ready for mass production, hypersonic nuclear warheads are already entering the Strategic Missile Forces on combat alert, and in the West hypersonic is still being developed, our combat lasers are already serving in the troops, but you say no no breakthroughs, well, in the next five to six years in the military-industrial complex we were promised the creation of a whole range of new weapons, just based on different physical principles, and there is no reason not to trust this.
      1. silberwolf88
        silberwolf88 28 January 2021 20: 24
        0
        you probably don't read the comments carefully:
        1. hypersound has already been tested earlier in the USSR and in the USA too (projects of hypersonic products of the X series) ... what we now call "Avangard" development has been going on since the 80s (slang name Ptichka) using a coating similar to that on the space shuttle "Buran" ... I saw these products myself in the research institute ... the work was simply hampered by the devastation of the 90s, and after all, not only these topics
        2. What other principles ... wave gravitational plasma or something else that was not there before ???
        that's what I was talking about
        while we use something that is no longer new as a BUT technology at a new level of engineering performance ... that's what we're talking about ...
  • Ros 56
    Ros 56 28 January 2021 07: 48
    +2
    And if you look at history, you can see that the Germans gave the iron cross for the downed Po-2, but not for the fighter. Here's the conclusion, it's not about age, but about the quality of technology and the ability to use it effectively.
  • mojohed2012
    mojohed2012 28 January 2021 07: 57
    +4
    Saving the resource of aircraft (gliders and their engines) in the 90s can be attributed to our not new aircraft, but forget about the fact that when we started to resume scheduled operation, we gasped. The planes standing idle in places began to be covered with corrosion, the avionics elements worked every other time. As a result, a lot of aircraft went through factory and current small repairs. It was popular to repair it from a donor - the same aircraft, but the decommissioned one could no longer fly. There was a lot. But over time, the resource was restored. I have a relative at an airfield in Siberia at that time served as a deputy engineer.
    1. sgrabik
      sgrabik 28 January 2021 09: 02
      0
      Now a similar picture can be observed in Ukraine, out of 3 planes they assemble one, which can still fly somehow !!!
    2. bober1982
      bober1982 28 January 2021 11: 44
      0
      Quote: mojohed2012
      a relative at an airfield in Siberia at that time served as a deputy engineer.

      The position is kind of strange, for an airfield, it may have been a tanker.
      1. mojohed2012
        mojohed2012 28 January 2021 13: 08
        +2
        Well, he studied the operation and repair of armored vehicles, served for a long time, and then retrained for aviation maintenance and repair. I've been everywhere. But he is no longer alive today.
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 28 January 2021 13: 11
          0
          No questions, I didn't want to offend.
  • storm
    storm 28 January 2021 08: 00
    -1
    Su-24 are the same age as F-15, let them be puzzled by their "survivability"
    1. Viktor Sergeev
      Viktor Sergeev 28 January 2021 10: 51
      0
      Don't confuse the F15 of that time with the present.
  • evgen1221
    evgen1221 28 January 2021 08: 05
    0
    Do not believe, insolent lie, because the commander-in-chief of the RF Armed Forces himself said that, -In the Union nothing but galoshes was produced. And for those who doubt, the corresponding articles of the AK and Criminal Code have been prudently introduced. (Sarcasm, otherwise the urapidiots will cling)
    1. prior
      prior 28 January 2021 08: 33
      +3
      There is an ancient anecdote about the quality of Soviet galoshes, this is when an installer fell from the very top of the Ostankino tower under construction, from the very "wet place", and the galoshes are as good as new.
      Galoshes turned out to be very high quality.
      That is why in the 21st century Russia is trying to restore the production of the TU-160 and MI-14 galoshes. And much of the new is just a modernization of Soviet weapons.
      And I would like to hear the opinion of the Americans later, in New York, upon signing the Act of Surrender
    2. mojohed2012
      mojohed2012 28 January 2021 13: 12
      +1
      Sure sure. As our liberal friends and sworn partners from abroad say: in ancient times, your ancestors lived in the forest and prayed to the wheel. And in general, an uncivilized people, however ... (friends and partners) would look at themselves ...
      In fact, galoshes were made in the days of the 90s, and now they continue to make them, but it turned out that galoshes do fly, and some galoshes are already on hypersound ... here.
  • APASUS
    APASUS 28 January 2021 08: 20
    +3
    ... Business Insider would have been even more surprised to know how these planes have been standing for years in open areas, rather than in warm hangars.
  • bar
    bar 28 January 2021 08: 20
    +2
    Tu-95 "Bear" aircraft were created in case of a possible nuclear war between the USSR and NATO countries ... Russia actively exploits these aircraft even after the end of another war - the Cold

    What to do, and the possibility of a nuclear war is still not averted, and the Cold War is not over yet. So let them fly.
  • realmadmaxx
    realmadmaxx 28 January 2021 08: 30
    -1
    and the B-52 in the USA kanesh is still a young airplane laughing
    climbed, looked, yeah
    A10s in service
    as for me the cutest plane in the Yankees

    AC-130 in service
    F15 in service
    F16
    1. Lord of the Sith
      Lord of the Sith 28 January 2021 09: 21
      +2
      A10 named Warthog
      Beautiful? laughing
      1. sgapich
        sgapich 28 January 2021 11: 12
        +2
        Quote: Lord of the Sith
        ...Beautiful? laughing

        They say delicious. laughing
        1. Lord of the Sith
          Lord of the Sith 28 January 2021 11: 44
          +2
          There is no dispute about tastes, but the meat of wild boars is tasteless, unless a well-known surgical operation is performed)))
      2. sgrabik
        sgrabik 28 January 2021 12: 37
        0
        They are somewhat similar, but our attack aircraft Su-25 Grach is much more beautiful !!!
        1. Lord of the Sith
          Lord of the Sith 28 January 2021 12: 40
          +1
          Rook, of course prettier))
          I climbed on such an aircraft, although not a pilot))
      3. realmadmaxx
        realmadmaxx 28 January 2021 13: 38
        +1
        everyone has their own beauty standards repeat
        who loves slender like a cypress)
        and someone loves dumplings wink
        and with planes)
  • rocket757
    rocket757 28 January 2021 08: 33
    +2
    The American media discusses the "survivability" of aircraft developed by the USSR in terms of the duration of their use.

    Whatever "survivability" was, but it will have to be changed. New / old tasks, new requirements for technology.
    1. cniza
      cniza 28 January 2021 09: 29
      +3
      Good time! hi

      Here the question of the filling also plays a role, upgrade the filling and solve problems ...
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 28 January 2021 12: 25
        +1
        Welcome soldier
        You can only upgrade to the limit that was originally laid.
        Further modernization does not give a significant increase in parameters and becomes costly.
        There is a limit to everything, and the requirements appear such that they can be realized only when the necessary is included in the design from the very beginning.
        The technique served as best it could, as much as it could, it's time to change
        1. cniza
          cniza 28 January 2021 12: 40
          +2
          Quote: rocket757

          You can only upgrade to the limit that was originally laid.


          They are surprised at this, but there is always a limit and the fatigue of the structure too ...
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 28 January 2021 12: 43
            +1
            Let them be surprised ...
            Our main resource is our people, warriors.
            There is no limit to self-improvement!
            1. cniza
              cniza 28 January 2021 12: 46
              +2
              It is really, it is even difficult for them to imagine this, they only care about their asses ...
              1. rocket757
                rocket757 28 January 2021 13: 26
                +1
                To listen to them, they say, they say, there is a lot and different ... and when you start to understand, everything rolls towards her and about her.
                1. cniza
                  cniza 28 January 2021 14: 15
                  +2
                  The Golden Calf overshadowed everything and everything for its sake ...
  • Toucan
    Toucan 28 January 2021 08: 33
    +1
    Su-24 was still bombed in Afghanistan, and today they threaten the ships of the US Navy ":

    And with the help of what ASP the Su-24 can fight modern destroyers and cruisers?
  • ism_ek
    ism_ek 28 January 2021 08: 48
    +3
    Su-24 - created to break through enemy air defenses - now it is a "conventional bomb carrier", although quite accurate.
  • steelmaker
    steelmaker 28 January 2021 08: 50
    -1
    Another article is like a nail on the cover of Putin's rule. He has been driving for 20 years, but there is no money for anything. She feeds everything with "breakfasts". Well at least there are enough brains to modernize what is. Although this is different from EBN. "Where is the money, Zin? ........"
    1. earlian
      earlian 28 January 2021 12: 07
      +2
      For example here:
  • Lord of the Sith
    Lord of the Sith 28 January 2021 09: 19
    -1
    The fact that the Yankees are actively using jets of the 50-70s, for some reason no one is soared about this))
    This is different, you need to understand? laughing
  • cniza
    cniza 28 January 2021 09: 26
    +2
    At the same time, the American observer for some reason does not say anything about the fact that the US Air Force uses strategic bombers that were created more than 60 years ago.


    And to this they have one answer for all cases - "and this is completely different" ...
  • Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 28 January 2021 10: 51
    0
    Su24 is an excellent remedy for constipation of the American military.
  • TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 28 January 2021 13: 59
    0
    Why shouldn't they fly? Glider titanium, duralumin - nothing to rot. Change engines, avionics and they will fly for another 20 - 30 years, or even more.
  • Klingon
    Klingon 29 January 2021 02: 22
    0
    I don't understand why they are so surprised. And they themselves still have Fortresses, Vepri (A-10) on the wing and all sorts of Chinook Iroquois and Cobras during the Vietnamese campaign !?
    and in some third world countries there are still phantoms, the second tigers and cats Tom fly. And in some places even Dakota wassat
  • lopvlad
    lopvlad 29 January 2021 12: 29
    0
    The American media discusses the "survivability" of aircraft developed by the USSR in terms of the duration of their use.


    survivability and a solid safety margin have always been a feature of the products of the Soviet and now the Russian military-industrial complex. After all, Russian weapons are taken not so much because of their low price (Chinese is cheaper) but because of their reliability. The most creepy Bedouin in the desert knows that the AK assault rifle of the Soviet or Russian-made is a thing and a Chinese AK is the very thing that smells bad.