The Ministry of Defense of Kazakhstan named the preliminary reason for the crash of the Su-30SM fighter of the republic's air force

The Ministry of Defense of Kazakhstan made preliminary conclusions on the fact of the crash of the Su-30SM fighter in the Karaganda region. According to the press service of the military department, the most likely reason for the crash was a collision with a bird.

A special commission of the Kazakh military department, having studied the details of the incident with the Su-30SM fighter, came to the conclusion that the most likely cause of the plane's crash was a collision with a bird. However, these are preliminary conclusions and they are not final, the commission is considering a number of reasons. It is still unknown when the investigation will be completed.

Also, the Ministry of Defense clarified a little the situation with the fall of the fighter. As noted, the pilots tried to land the damaged plane and left it only after making sure that it would not cause destruction on the ground. By this time, the cockpit of the fighter was filled with smoke, and he himself was at an extremely low altitude, therefore, during the ejection, one of the pilots received a fracture of the thoracic spine, the second did not need hospitalization.

It is emphasized that the fighter is new, which has recently entered service with the Kazakh Air Force. Was checked before departure and was in good condition.

Recall that on April 16, in the Karaganda region, a Su-30SM fighter crashed while approaching the airfield of the aviation training center in the city of Balkhash. The pilots managed to eject, there are no casualties or destruction on the ground. The multipurpose Su-30SM have been in service with the Kazakh Air Force since 2015.

Comments

[Zorro21]

This is where a bird can get so that smoke starts in the cockpit?

[prior]

I think when the engine is on, the smoke is not only behind the burning engine.
Recovery pilots.

[d1975]

In order not to write such nonsense, you should have attended not a forestry school, but an ordinary one. How old are you since you bothered to write such nonsense? The bird usually gets into the air intakes! Information is the sea. Yes, degradation on the face!

[Yok Migarek]

Quote: d1975

In order not to write such nonsense, you should have attended not a forestry school, but an ordinary one. How old are you since you bothered to write such nonsense? The bird usually gets into the air intakes! Information is the sea. Yes, degradation on the face!

I personally "caught" a bird in the front glazing of the cockpit canopy. Anything can happen ...

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Zorro21

so that smoke starts in the cockpit

The car was damaged, which means with a high probability the cabin was depressurized, and the smoke could be sucked in from anywhere, even from a short-circuited wiring, even from a burning engine, from which, by the way, the blades could splash.

[NIKN]

Quote: Zorro21

This is where a bird can get so that smoke starts in the cockpit?

Not only smoke can get in (the air intake for pressurizing the cabin is taken from the engine), but there was also a case when, during the destruction of the turbine, the hydraulic line and a number of highways, including the pressurization of the cabin, were interrupted, then in the lungs of the unfortunately dead AMG pilots- 10 (hydraulic fluid). discovered.

[WHAT IS]

the pilots tried to land the damaged plane and left it only after making sure that it would not cause destruction on the ground.

The pilots are great, courageous people.

[voyaka uh]

This is a clear example that if even one engine is damaged
(bird, rocket, technical stop - any reason)
the pilot / pilots are leaving the plane.
Twin-engine fighters are no longer tenacious
than single-engine ones, like the F-16 or MiG-21.

[novel66]

it depends on the height, there would be a margin - there would be a chance, but when landing ... but a single-engine one does not have

[yehat2]

Quote: novel xnumx

but a single engine and at a height does not

there is. there were landings in sand and water, after which the plane was restored.

[novel66]

Well, if one engine is running, then you can also land on the lane, no?

[loki565]

This is a clear example that if even one engine is damaged
(bird, rocket, technical stop - any reason)
the pilot / pilots are leaving the plane.
Twin-engine fighters are no longer tenacious
than single-engine ones, like the F-16 or MiG-21.

This is not so, with two engines there is always a chance that the second will survive and it will be possible to land the plane,

F16 has only bailout.

[Piramidon]

Quote: voyaka uh

Twin-engine fighters are no longer tenacious
than single engine

Nonsense. The history of aviation has many examples of continuation of flight and landing with one engine failed.

[Pereira]

They are more tenacious. Proven in battle, not birds.

[yehat2]

Quote: voyaka uh

Twin-engine fighters are no longer tenacious
than single-engine ones, like the F-16 or MiG-21.

well that's what you are talking about
really not aware of the sad statistics of the f-16?
the second engine provides sufficient traction and gives a CHANCE to hold on to a normal landing
This is not an indulgence from all troubles.
If we were going to the full combat survivability, there would be measures applied on the a-10 or su-25 - engine isolation, add. duplication of systems, etc.
2 engine fighter as survivability primarily means landing after engine failure. The same is true if a crowbar falls from a stinger - it usually cuts out 1 engine locally
But when large-scale destruction occurs or critical systems are touched or a fire starts, install at least 10 engines, this will not help.
In this case, there was a fire. Apparently, the bird ate a lot of peas and peppers before takeoff.

[voyaka uh]

Accident statistics for F-16 and Su-30 are similar.
Engine failure - bailout.
If Russia had an engine of sufficient thrust, then the MiG-29 would be single-engine.
Its designers themselves spoke about this directly.

[Reserve buildbat]

Warrior, who was told such nonsense? Is it okay that the 4th generation was originally planned to be twin-engine, since single-engine aircraft are much less tenacious? In the USSR, it was in order to increase the combat survivability of aircraft that it was decided to build only twin-engine ones. For the same reasons, passenger aircraft were built with three engines. So that I could continue the flight if one engine fails. In the case of fighters, sit on one engine.

[voyaka uh]

And now in Russia they want to create a single-engine light fighter.
Analogue of F-16.
For which (single engine) there is a great demand.
But there is no engine with sufficient power.

Military Wath has assessed Russia's plans to create a new generation single-engine fighter. They were recently voiced by the head of the Rostec corporation, Sergei Chemezov.

Military Wath has assessed Russia's plans to create a new generation single-engine fighter. They were recently voiced by the head of the Rostec corporation, Sergei Chemezov.

military watch:
“The magazine believes that the new aircraft will have a lot in common with the Su-57, and most importantly, it will receive the same second stage engine, but one, not two. It is more powerful than the F135, which is currently installed in the American single-engine F -35.

The light fighter will be inferior to the Su-57 in endurance, flight range and will not be able to carry the same payload. But it will have a great export potential due to lower prices and lower operating costs. "

[Reserve buildbat]

Strange ... There is an engine, there seems to be demand, but not only do they not create, but do not even consider single-engine projects. Not to mention the fact that you have no engines at all, except for the handicrafts purchased from mattresses that are not the first freshness. However, with planes you have the same situevina)

[voyaka uh]

If they manage to increase the thrust on the "second stage engine" for the Su-57, then there will be
engine for a single-engine light fighter. And all talk about the reliability of the twin-engine circuit will stop at once.

[Reserve buildbat]

Aha
We'll see. If they create a single-engine fighter, it will be exported. And in terms of characteristics, mattress engines are no better than ours. Although, of course, from the outside, without engines, without planes, and without a design school in these areas, it is much better to see what is really where.

[voyaka uh]

"according to the characteristics of the mattress engines are not better than ours" ///
----
In terms of thrust, in terms of thrust / weight ratio, Russian ones are not worse.
In terms of resource - the Russian ones are worse, although the resource of the Russian ones has doubled in recent years.

[Reserve buildbat]

I agree. Our resource is worse. But the life of the engine is of great importance in peacetime. And if the plane is for battle, then the specific thrust, throttle response, efficiency in all modes are more important, and not cruising.

[OgnennyiKotik]

I don't think the problem is in the engine. Here is the JF-17, a light IB, flies on one engine from the MiG-29. Has successful combat experience. The export potential is high, especially in block 3.
There are also AL-31/41 engines, they are one third more powerful.
Rather, it is a question of avionics, more precisely, in its size and weight. Well, or in the brains of the leaders of the Air Force and the military-industrial complex.

[3danimal]

One powerful engine of the "second stage" could be used to create your own version of the F-35B.
Which is able to close the "passion for heavy nuclear aircraft carriers", having the ability to take off from the UDC.

[yehat2]

Quote: voyaka uh

Its designers themselves told about this.

no one asked the designers of the mig-29
study the question. In addition, the project mig-29, influenced by the su-27, underwent a radical redesign.
and, finally, is it really possible that a car that has enough thrust to take off vertically upwards does not have enough 1 engine to reach the airfield? in the same place only about half of the thrust of 1 engine is required.

[Dizel200]

And that there are no scarecrows for birds at the airport? Or was there a bird unresponsive to the bogeyman

[Evil 55]

One bird is not a question at all .. But a flock of geese is already a real problem ..