The naval aviation of the Russian Navy will be replenished with the latest Su-30SM2 fighters

Marine aviation The Russian Navy will receive the latest Su-2022SM30 fighters by the end of 2. All fighters will undergo special naval revision.

The Russian Ministry of Defense has decided to supply naval aviation with the latest Su-30SM2 fighters. Currently in the military department, as they explain "News", the issue of the distribution of aircraft according to fleets... According to available data, the Northern, Black Sea and Baltic fleets are claiming the fighters first of all, but how the distribution will proceed is still unknown.

Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu announced the conclusion of a contract for 21 Su-30SM2 fighters last year. The Su-30SM2 fighter is maximally unified with the Su-35. It received an AL-41F-1S engine and an Irbis radar, improved avionics, electronics, and expanded the arsenal of weapons.

Initially, it was only about avionics and weapons, the aircraft thus upgraded received the Su-30SM1 index. In the future, it was decided to install the AL-41F-1C engine and the Irbis radar on the fighter. This option, coupled with the previously made changes in armament and avionics, was named the Su-30SM2. The Ministry of Defense plans to upgrade the entire Su-30SM fleet to this level.

The Su-30SM fighter has been serially supplied to the troops since 2013. The aircraft is armed with an extensive arsenal of high-precision weapons and bombs.

Comments

[Orkraider]

The Su-30SM2 fighter is maximally unified with the Su-35. He received an AL-41F-1S engine and an Irbis radar

Strong!
Excellent solution that was rumored and here it is. This is no longer a rumor, but sounded information.
Excellent!

And if it was actually announced about the modernization of the entire Su-30SM fleet to this level, then ... I am very glad. The headache of suppliers and technicians will be solved

[bayard]

Such unification has long been asking for implementation, and the contract with India to modernize the entire fleet of their Su-30MKI to the level of the Su-30SM2E has moved this topic from a dead center.
But regarding the modernization of our entire fleet of Su-30SM ... it might be better to deliver them with revision for export (for example, Iran - they need such aircraft as soon as possible), and build new ones for themselves to replace, immediately in the version of the Su- 30CM2.
It seems that something similar is being prepared for the Su-34M - an upgraded version with the AL-41F-1C and an updated, pumped avionics.

[TermNachTer]

The Persians seem to have come to an agreement with the Chinese. Barter - oil in exchange for Chinese second-hand. Not the best option for the Persians, but they have financial problems.

[bayard]

We could also take oil for our refineries in India. But if the choice is in favor of China, then only thanks to 300 billion dollars. investment.
The choice is theirs in any case.

[3danimal]

Not the Persians, but their Islamist leadership.
This is how there are Germans in general, and there were Nazis who usurped power.

[figwam]

They write that this Su-30cm is being tested in Zhukovsky already with the AL-41F-1S.

[rocket757]

The naval aviation of the Russian Navy will be replenished with the latest Su-30SM2 fighters

To increase military power, economic power. Move forward without dwelling on small, third-party problems.

[antivirus]

Perhaps this is a call to the deck instead of MIGOV29? ..............

rejoice moremans - they will build Av, but not soon

[bayard]

The Su-30 is not suitable for the deck - too heavy and oversized. They will have to build 100 tonnes with catapults.
Su-30SM2 is for the base aviation of the Fleet, ground / land aviation of the naval subordination.

[antivirus]

now they will work out on heavy equipment, according to tasks, capabilities and shove the unpickable into a light Su45AM (?) (aircraft carrier, sea)

[bayard]

This will not be soon. According to the most optimistic forecasts, technically, Russia will be ready to lay down the first aircraft carrier in 4-5 years. The construction will take 7-10 years. There are two more years to bring to combat readiness.
Total: 5 + 10 + 2 = 17 years old.
Not earlier than 17 years later, the first Russian aircraft carrier will go to sea with its own air wing.
And what kind of aircraft will be on it by that time, only Ahura-Mazda knows.
You will have time to grow old ... And I may not live at all.

[antivirus]

the life of the country, the people, the state should be measured by generations (33g) -3 generations-100 years - not years.
AV will be built quickly when the "collective deeripaska" requires

[bayard]

One generation - 20 - 25 years.
From birth to reproduction of one's own kind.

[antivirus]

33 years old and not less ............ knee-deep, chest-high.

[antivirus]

you take statistics from the registry office and ... and ... and ..and - at the age of 20 they don't make children. I have not read it - but but the first and only one can give birth at 25 years old.
and further?

[bayard]

I know those who give birth even at 18. Especially girls. and they, too, are people.
Now my nephews are getting married at 23 - 24 years old ... they wanted it earlier, but they forced me to graduate from the university.
Most of my friends got married before they were 24 years old.
And now they give birth late because of selfishness, the desire to first make a career in big cities.
But this is not normal.
Before they got married soon after serving in the Army, while studying at the institute, and the girls often right after school - so as not to remain an "old maid".
Our modern way of life in society is absolutely abnormal and has never been such - these are signs of the degeneration of society ... When people stop multiplying.

[3danimal]

And now they give birth late because of selfishness, the desire to first make a career in big cities.

Or because of responsibility and ability to plan life?
My future wife and I: finished our studies / worked, lived in a rented apartment, bought our own, went for an increase (income increased), made repairs and gave birth at 29/30 years old. And my daughter has everything she needs, and we don't have to squeeze too hard on finances.

and girls are often right after school - so as not to stay "old maid".

In the 19th century, in Pushkin's "The Captain's Daughter": she was a young man, she recently turned 17 years old

[bayard]

Quote: 3danimal

In the 19th century, in Pushkin's "The Captain's Daughter": she was a young man, she recently turned 17 years old

Just about, and when that girls after the turn of 13 years were passed off as husbands ... UZHZHZHAS , but the human race multiplied and multiplied. And in Europe, and in America, and in Russia.
And now blacks, Arabs, Turks, Latinos, Southeast Asians breed ... but not the white race.
And this is a disaster.

[3danimal]

And now blacks, Arabs, Turks, Latinos, Southeast Asians breed ... but not the white race.
And this is a disaster.

In general, people with low IQ.
No kidding, in Singapore even a special program was organized, to introduce people, send them on a joint vacation, payments for the birth of children ..

but on the other hand the human race multiplied and multiplied

By the way, it multiplied rather slowly compared to the 20th century. The decline in infant mortality, mortality during childbirth, and an increase in life expectancy have radically changed everything.

[TermNachTer]

When the new Russian aircraft carrier is laid down on the slipway, then the air group will be ordered. They will just enter the home stretch together.

[antivirus]

on the contrary, they can blind the trough, and the competence of using that piece is how to fly into space, a new person needs to be raised - both aviation and the entire butt to AB

[TermNachTer]

Remember how many reworked "Gorshkov"? They did not do it from the beginning, but simply altered it. All aircraft carriers (helicopter carriers) of the USSR were built in Nikolaev.

[antivirus]

even more - they developed the proletarian south of the outskirts with a specialist (without a naval base and other infrastructure in the north) in defiance of the Bandera and Kiev aristocrats. -Kuchma and Pinchuk with Yulia, Lazorenko and many oligarchs (Kolomoisky ..) did not oppose Bandera, but against the Russian Federation, yes.
already in the 70s, a reversal and contempt for the bast shoes of Russia from the progressive Ukrainian SSR were visible

[TermNachTer]

In fact, the shipyards in Nikolaev were built during the reign of the tsar

[Sailor]

Excellent modernization, as it is always half-measures, like tanks or artillery, I generally keep quiet about the fleet.

[Alex777]

Our country is large and each issue has its own price.
I support the idea of ​​modernization and unification with the Su-35!

[lucul]

Excellent upgrade

Well, yes, with a PTB, it has an excellent combat radius for naval aviation, and a wide variety of weapons.

[Magog_]

Why "fighter"?

The Su-30SM fighter has been serially supplied to the troops since 2013. The aircraft is armed with an extensive arsenal of precision weapons and bombs.

Maybe then the Su-24, Su-34 should be included there?

[3danimal]

Multipurpose fighter-bomber

[Magog_]

Multipurpose fighter-bomber

: Su-30SM, Su-24 and Su-34 of all modifications. Did I understand your thesis correctly? What are the fundamental differences between these devices, in order to call them by a different class?

[3danimal]

The last two are structurally poorly adapted for air combat, the Su-24 has a bomb bay, the Su-34 has a toilet and a kitchen.
The Su-30SM drops its "cargo" and becomes a good maneuverable fighter (although it is inferior to the Su-35).

[Magog_]

If the Su-24 or Su-34 drop their warheads "on the ground," they will be able to stand up for themselves in a fight with an air enemy. The only question is efficiency, and this is not a "fundamental" difference. F-18 fully loaded as an air fighter - none, but called the letter "F".

[3danimal]

Any fighter loaded bomber is a bad fighter. Even the Su-35 or Su-57.
The Su-24 is almost doomed in battle, the Su-34 ... will be inferior.

[Magog_]

It depends on what type of air combat to conduct, what weapon of such a battle to use, what kind of enemy is in the air, etc. There are no definite answers. And the name of the device should only correspond to the tasks for which the aircraft was created. That is why I misunderstand the use of the word "fighter" for the Su-30SM.

[3danimal]

If we are talking about the Su-24m - only the BVB, with the R-60 against the fighter Suicide, just get a medium-range missile.
Su-34 is better, it can carry R-27, R-77-1, R-73. But in terms of maneuver, the maximum is 7g, and the entire additional load limits its ability to quickly accelerate.
IMHO, it was necessary to make a variant of the F-15E based on the Su-30: strengthen the glider, add fuel, sighting hanging containers (without a toilet and microwave ).
Easier, but by dropping "bombs" and PTB, you can normally conduct air combat. Including, immediately fly out on patrol if there are not enough aircraft in this area.

[Sands Careers General]

The naval aviation of the Russian Navy will be replenished with the latest Su-30SM2 fighters

Fine

Wang farting "Western partners" in our direction)))

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

Western partners have thousands of fighters and more than 10 aircraft carriers.

We need not only heavy Su-30/35/57 and medium MiG-29/35, but also a light, economical light fighter that is not resistant in terms of armament and radar capabilities, in order to increase the number of fighters and not be left without trousers.

We need a single-engine fighter unified with the MiG-35 in terms of engine and avionics.

Such a light fighter will be in demand on the international market.

And we also need a small and relatively inexpensive AWACS aircraft, such as the Yak-44 project, to see what is happening in the air and on the surface for hundreds of kilometers in all directions.

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

And we also need a small and relatively inexpensive plane.

Sure sure.
You can't make a big and expensive one, but you are dreaming about a small and cheap one.
To do this, you need to have an electronics production, and where to take it.

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

Big and expensive we make and do well - Su-30/34/35/57.

And with electronics for aviation, everything is fine, it is special there, for combat missions, and not to pull the latest version of computer toys.

The training battles of the Su-30 against NATO aircraft at all distances show the superiority of our machines.

Our generals do not yet understand that we need a light fighter. And he is needed, it must be a first-line fighter, light, inexpensive, but at the same time he must detect and attack the enemy at the same distance as he does, at least.

Light fighter (single-engine), based on the MiG-35, in my opinion the best option.

Not always and not everyone needs a super-maneuverable fighter with a bunch of missiles, sometimes it is enough and something simpler with less b / c.

For example, why are we intercepting NATO reconnaissance aircraft MiG-31? This fighter weighs about 45 tons with weapons and fuel !!! So we will lose the entire resource of these aircraft, and we will burn all the fuel before the war, just chasing NATO scouts.

For these purposes, you need something simpler and cheaper. And here's a single-engine fighter based on the MiG-35. It can be positioned closer to the border, and heavy fighters as cover in the depths of the country. So that the first missile attack does not knock out all our aviation.

And in Vietnam, single-engine MiGs successfully fought against more advanced American heavy fighters.

The same American F-16 is in demand all over the world.

So why are we ignoring this positive experience? Well, in the 90s there was no money for anything, but now the situation has changed.

We need, like air, an inexpensive but effective single-engine fighter based on the MiG-35.

It will be in demand on the international market and will compete with the F-16, it will be bought by those for whom the Su-30/35 is unnecessary or as an addition to heavy fighters in order to increase the total number of fighters.

Heavy fighters such as MiG-31, Su-30/34/35 are second-line aircraft that will operate from the depths of the country.

Heavy fighters + light = maximum aviation capabilities at optimal cost.

Among other things, in fact, only the glider needs to be done, everything else is already there.

Even for the sake of experiment, it's worth spending money on a single-engine fighter project.

I would order prototypes based on both the Su-35 and the MiG-35, and then compare them in all parameters and prices.

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

Big and expensive we do and we do well

You generally wrote about AWACS, but we made exactly 1 (one) of them. And then at a time when imported electronics were available.

with electronics for aviation, everything is fine, it is special there, for combat missions, and not to pull the latest version of computer toys.

That's right, she should be able to do more and withstand tough working conditions. And we have no household, no combat. Therefore, they are inserted into the new SU30cm2 radar station fifteen years ago. One can only envy even the Chinese about AFAR.

For example, why are we intercepting NATO intelligence officers MiG-31?

Look where.
In the Far East, we have only a couple of airfields on many thousands of borders, there simply no other plane can reach it.

We need, like air, an inexpensive but effective single-engine fighter

here I completely and completely agree.

in fact, only the glider needs to be done, everything else is already there.

Even for the sake of experiment, it's worth spending money on a single-engine fighter project.

You are an optimist, however.
We have over there the IL114, which has not been tormented in any way, but everything is there, even a ready-made glider.
No one.

[bayard]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

We need, like air, an inexpensive but effective single-engine fighter based on the MiG-35.

It is technically impossible - based on the MiG-35 airframe. The MiG has two nacelles, where will you fit one engine? Where, however, is clear, but what about the air intake?
Make one like the F-16?
Or two - like the F-35?
This will require the entire glider to be redesigned.
And on what engine?
Now work has begun on a promising single-engine fighter. If they take an engine from the Su-57 of the second stage for it, install two keels with a collapse and use the avionics from the Su-57 to the maximum, then we will get an excellent and not expensive single-engine fighter. Such a fighter may appear only by the end of this decade, and it will be possible to start supplying the troops only in a decade in the future, so the old line-up schemes will not work for him - they will look deeply archaic.
And it would be nice to create a light export model - lighter than the one outlined above. On one engine from the MiG-35. But it will be a la "Tejes" or an analogue of the product of Sino-Pakistani creativity. With its creation, we will definitely be late and China will overwhelm the market with its "mad printer". This is the risk of such undertakings.
But the single-engine light-medium on the "Product-30" is the very thing for the long term.

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

This is technically impossible - based on the MiG-35 airframe. The MiG has two nacelles, where will you fit one engine?

Naturally, the airframe will be different, from the MiG-35, you need to take - the engine, avionics and a number of units that can be used on a single-engine fighter.

[bayard]

As I said earlier, we were late with such a fighter. If it is done using the technology (glider) of the 4th generation, China will fill up with an analogue by that time everyone. For our Aerospace Forces, such an aircraft will be weak, in all respects - thrust-to-weight ratio, payload, radar (limiting the antenna area). Therefore, it is nevertheless necessary to do not an analogue of the MiG-21, but an "analogue" of the F-16 - a half of a heavy fighter. We have such a Su-57. Take from him and avionics, including the radar.
And the MiG-35 (if AFAR is finished for it) will fit as a transitional model until a new light-medium single-engine MFI appears.

[Arkon]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

Naturally, the airframe will be different, from the MiG-35, you need to take - the engine, avionics and a number of units that can be used on a single-engine fighter.

And what does the Yak-130 not suit you?

[3danimal]

The Yak-130 will not fit everything. And in terms of maneuverability, there are not enough stars from the sky.

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

The Yak-130 was created for the initial training of pilots, and not as a combat aircraft.

If the Yak-130 is somehow converted into a fighter, then everything in it must be altered, a special radar station and all other units must be made for it.

The point is to make a single-engine fighter as unified as possible with a twin-engine one.

Let it lose a little in maneuverability and range, in combat load, but at the same time it will be cheaper and its operation will be cheaper.

[Arkon]

The radar is already in its final stage: https://ria.ru/20150917/1258166597.html
For the rest, the Yak-130 will quite cope with the destruction of targets on external control centers near their bases.

[Loh]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

Light fighter (single-engine), based on the MiG-35, in my opinion the best option.

And what is wrong with a light fighter based on the Yak-130?

[bayard]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

We need a single-engine fighter unified with the MiG-35 in terms of engine and avionics.

Want a new MiG-21?
And will the customer be satisfied with his characteristics?
It is another matter to make a single-engine fighter (namely single-engine, then the economic effect will be and the maintenance will be simplified) on the basis of the second-generation engine from the Su-57 - on the "Product-30". Such an aircraft will be easier to maintain and operate, and with a maximum power of 18 - 20 tf at afterburner, it will have excellent flight characteristics and payload. And it can be unified with the Su-57 to the maximum, which will also reduce the cost of development and production.
A light / medium twin-engine fighter is justified only as a carrier-based fighter.

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

Yes, I want a new MiG-21 from the MiG-35 units.

Do you want a Russian analogue of the F-35? It wouldn't be bad, just how much will it cost? So far, the second stage engine is not being installed on the Su-57 either.

Maybe for a start, make an analogue of the F-16?

It is expensive to fly on heavy fighters, an hour of flight costs even on our planes under $ 40 per hour, and each pilot needs to fly 000-160 hours a year.

A light single-engine fighter made of the same units as the twin-engine fighter is, in my opinion, a reasonable solution for increasing the number and inability of our aviation.

[3danimal]

Maybe for a start, make an analogue of the F-16?

Or at least JF-17
F-110 (F-16) has 13 tons of thrust at afterburner, against 10 tons of RD-33MK.
And the F-16 has an engine from the heavy F-15 Eagle, reinforced and modified.
By analogy, the engine must be taken from Sukhoi heavy fighters (AL-31, AL-41 family).
For example - AL-31F M2, which has a thrust of 14 tons at the afterburner. It is 500kg heavier than the RD-33 (1500 versus 1000kg), but what an increase in thrust.

[Barberry25]

the question is in the range ... the 16th on the inner tank, how many flies? 750 km radius? and all of its 1 is due to hanging tanks .. well, what's the point of fencing a vegetable garden then?

[3danimal]

So the F-16 is not compared with the Su-27 or F-15, but with the MiG-29.
For Mig, Practical range - 1430 km without PTB,
F-16 - 1315 km without PTB.

[Barberry25]

Well, if we compare now, then with the MIG-35, and it has a combat radius without a PTB with a normal bombing unit 1 km ... so the practical range is 000 km

[bayard]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

Yes, I want a new MiG-21 from the MiG-35 units.

Will be weak against all even light enemy fighters. Weak by definition. There are no miracles.

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

Maybe for a start, make an analogue of the F-16?

That's what I want. And not at all an analogue of the F-35, the airframe of which was created for the F-35V version (VTOL), which is why all its inferiority. We do not have to inflate the glider under a huge vertical thrust fan, shorten it, put up with a poor view of the cockpit (back). It is not necessary to make large arms bays (internal) either. As a result, we will get a clean, non-mutilated, aerodynamic glider for a fighter with a high thrust-to-weight ratio (unlike the F-35), super-maneuverability (thanks to an all-aspect nozzle), excellent avionics borrowed from the Su-57. And at the same time for a reasonable price (about 2/3 of the Su-57), with half the consumption of kerosene, much easier to maintain and a life cycle cost of 60 - 65% of the Su-57.
It should be understood that such an MFI can appear in our country only at the turn of this and the next decade, and be actively exploited until the middle of this century ... so the old schemes will not work here. We need to look to the future - he must fight aircraft of the 5th, 5+ and 6th generations.

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

So far, the second stage engine is not being installed on the Su-57 either.

In the coming years, they will deliver, because this is not the 5th generation, but at least the 5+ generation engine - it significantly surpasses the F-35 engine in specific thrust. And this is a variable contour motor.

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

and each pilot needs to fly 160-180 hours a year.

It is for this that the Ministry of Defense purchases a new series of Yak-130s for the Aerospace Forces - here they will be able to fly at least 200-250 hours, and the resource of combat vehicles will be protected ... let's say 50/50% of the flight time on each.

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

A light single-engine fighter made of the same units as the twin-engine fighter is, in my opinion, a reasonable solution for increasing the number and inability of our aviation.

Quite right. But the heavy fighter should be of the LAST generation, and not the modernization of the 35-40-year-old airframe.

[3danimal]

And not at all an analogue of the F-35, the glider of which was created for the F-35V version (VTOL), which is why all its inferiority.

According to the characteristics, it is not at all flawed.
Range (fuel), maneuverability, armament, stealth (even better than on the Su-57)
At a cost - less than $ 100 million (F-35A).
Service cost - at the level of F-18.

https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/rates/fy2019/2019_b_c.pdf

And the F-35B variant is the best of the serial SCVVP. Which would be extremely useful for our naval forces, who want to have carrier-based aircraft (can be based and take off from the UDC).
The program - yes, it is very expensive, the price can be reduced only at the expense of a huge series (about 3000 aircraft).

We don't have to inflate the glider with a huge vertical thrust fan

The Russian version of this program would consist of 2 models - a conventional fighter and an SCVVP.
And recently the question of the need for the latter has been raised.

In the coming years, they will deliver, because this is not the 5th generation, but at least the 5+ generation engine - it significantly surpasses the F-35 engine in specific thrust

F-135-PW-100/400
Link:
Maximum: 13000 kgf
Afterburner: 19500 kgf
Length: 5,59 m
Maximum diameter: 1,17 m
Inlet diameter: 1,09 m
Weight: 1701 kg

I have not found the characteristics of "product 30". I would like to compare

put up with poor cockpit visibility (back)

Let's be fair: the view back in the F-35 is at least comparable to the Su-57

[bayard]

Quote: 3danimal

And the F-35B variant is the best of the serial SCVVP.

There is no doubt about it. Despite the fact that others simply do not exist in nature.
As a VTOL aircraft, this arrangement is justified and effective.
But for an ordinary MFI - no. Very suboptimal.

Quote: 3danimal

At a cost - less than $ 100 million (F-35A).

For USA only. And together with the infrastructure, weapons, equipment, etc. As well as the reliability and the degree of operational readiness.

Quote: 3danimal

The Russian version of this program would consist of 2 models - a conventional fighter and an SCVVP.
And recently the question of the need for the latter has been raised.

Yakovlev's design bureau is poking around, but so far it seems to be just a study.
You can and can do it well on the "Product-30". But the question is whether it is needed, the cost of the program and the required amount.
How many of these might Russia need?
A few dozens ?
A hundred ?
Two?
Will there be a demand for such a device in the rest of the world?
How much time and money will it take?
Are there enough engineering staff for such a complex and risky program?
If all this is there, then you can try. But such a scheme would be optimal only for VTOL aircraft. An MFI based on it will be inferior in characteristics to MFIs with the same engine, but according to the classical scheme. So if you do well, you will have to make two fighters according to different projects, but with one engine and, possibly, with one set of avionics.

Quote: 3danimal

I have not found the characteristics of "product 30". I would like to compare

Judging by the available information, the weight of the "Product-30" is about 1300 kg. , the dimensions are the same as those of the AL-31F, but slightly shorter and slightly larger in diameter. It has fewer turbine stages (therefore slightly shorter) and variable contour.
Thrust: 18 kgf. - 000 19 kgf Depending on the selected temperature on the turbine blades.
On such an engine, it is possible to make both VTOL aircraft and single-engine MFI with characteristics MUCH better than those of the F-35A. With the speed and thrust-to-weight ratio of the MiG-29 \ 35, the range is greater than that of the MiG-35 - about 1500 km. Avionics and airborne radars can be taken from the Su-57 (except for the tail segment of the airborne radar) with a view of 270 degrees.

Quote: 3danimal

Let's be fair: the view back in the F-35 is at least comparable to the Su-57

But the situational awareness of the Su-57 by its own means is incomparably higher than that of the F-35.
The F-35 has a very advanced avionics, average flight performance for MFIs, small ammunition in the internal compartments and low reliability / combat readiness. Long period of interflight training.
The Americans will grit their teeth to praise him, because they need to beat off the program for money by supplying their allies and partners. But the military, including the generals, are already swearing.

[3danimal]

average for MFI flight performance

One of the most maneuverable fighters without OVT. In particular, it makes a U-turn 135 'in 3s, versus 108' in 3s for the Su-27.

https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=53186

small ammunition in the internal compartments

Compared to a heavy fighter. But the same F-22 is twice as expensive
Let me remind you that 35x is already over 600, and it will be 3000.

along with infrastructure, weapons, equipment, etc.

This always raises the price.
What are the contracts for the purchase of 14 F-16 for .. $ 3 billion.
Obviously, except for all-inclusive planes.

But for an ordinary MFI - no. Very suboptimal.

But it still worked out.
A conventional wagon / SCVVP will be easier than a 3-in-one and cheaper.
I think it will come out cheaper than 2 separate planes.

[bayard]

Quote: 3danimal

One of the most maneuverable fighters without OVT. In particular, it makes a U-turn 135 'in 3s, versus 108' in 3s for the Su-27.

Now this is all advertising. In the United States, the performance characteristics of their aircraft (and other equipment as well) have always been greatly overestimated, this is already a historical tradition. Until the operational readiness of these aircraft in the US Air Force is achieved, the imperfections and remarks in a significant mass have not been eliminated. How reliable and easy-to-use it will be in the military remains to be seen.
But I would not like to repeat these errors with us.

[3danimal]

Now it's all advertising

Watch the video, believe your eyes

https://youtu.be/MJLoW1ClNE0

In the USA, they have always greatly overestimated the performance characteristics of their aircraft (and other equipment)

A comfortable position, and Yotafon can be better than an iPhone (our secret characteristics are underestimated ).
There is a video of the F-18s against the Su-30, where the first catches the second in a cannon sight several times. And some on the forum exhibited Hornet almost like a flying ax

https://youtu.be/H2VTwB06Rfc

[bayard]

Yes, energetically, but I suspect that the thrust vector helped here (although it is capable of deviating in one plane), there is a possibility of deviation slightly above the axis of the aircraft.

Quote: 3danimal

A comfortable position, so Yotafon can be better than iPhone

No, this is from personal experience and the study of the declared characteristics of their technique since the beginning of the 80s.

[3danimal]

that the thrust vector helped here (although it is able to deviate in the same plane)

On the F-35A there is no OVT, everything is only due to the glider.
Very developed wing mechanization, "vortex-forming" influxes, etc.
It is logical, because these aircraft (F-35A and Su-27) were created with a difference of 30 years.
And similar results head on smash the myths about Lightning's sluggishness.
(By the way, Rafale and Eurofighter can do as well, as far as I know.)

No, this is from personal experience and the study of the declared characteristics of their technique since the beginning of the 80s.

Generation 4 fighters?
Have you tested the F-16?

[bayard]

Quote: 3danimal

Generation 4 fighters?

Third. It all started much earlier.
Remember the declared characteristics of the F-111 , what speed was announced to him?
2650 km \ h !!!
Is it real?
2000 kmph.
And so on for a number of cars. It's just an American tradition - to suppress the enemy with the declared characteristics ... and it's nice to show off in front of others.
As a rule, our characteristics were somewhat underestimated. And also with intent - so that there was a surprise for the enemy in a real battle. And that worked too.
Interestingly, both sides knew about the preferences of the enemy and took this into account when studying their bid data.

Quote: 3danimal

And such results completely break the myths about Lightning's sluggishness.

Indeed, after the restrictions are lifted, they maneuver quite lively, but there are still too many shortcomings and comments. Systems are at war, not individual aircraft in one-off battles. What is the period of inter-flight training? What is the MTBF of the main avionics systems? Is it possible to repair such an aircraft in the field? Etc.
But even after eliminating all the existing shortcomings, he will have a very serious shortage in speed, despite the very powerful engine. This means that he will not always be able to intercept a high-speed target, get close to it, pursuing and attacking into the rear hemisphere.
Therefore, for our videoconferencing systems, I would prefer MFIs with more traditional and optimized aerodynamics, maximum speed and acceleration characteristics.
The F-35 is good as a strike aircraft, but as an MFI ... not versatile.

[3danimal]

Remember the declared characteristics of the F-111 smile, what speed was it announced?
2650 km \ h !!!
Is it real?
2000 kmph.

Where does this data come from? Which plane was tested, in what modes (they don't say how you got it)?

What is the period of inter-flight training? What is the MTBF of the main avionics systems? Is it possible to repair such an aircraft in the field? Etc.

Similar questions arise for all new aircraft.

after the restrictions are lifted, they maneuver quite lively

Consequently, the concept of "break into close combat (having lost half of the aircraft) and deal with them there" does not work.
A serious and dangerous opponent, there will be (no doubt) built +/- the planned number (3000 pieces). "Take by number" will not work either.

he will have a very serious shortage in speed, despite a very powerful engine

Comparable to the F-18, no one complains about it.
The very concept of use involves BVR combat (outside of visual detection)
Again, stealth helps. (Target will discover him later)

This means that he will not always be able to intercept a high-speed target, get close to it, pursuing and attacking into the rear hemisphere.

So he is not an interceptor, there is an F-15EX, an F-22.

The F-35 is good as a strike aircraft, but as an MFI ... not versatile.

The only negative is max speed
By the way, we must also remember about the cruising supersonic 1,2M (300 miles with weapons in the internal compartments). This will give an advantage against fighters that do not have one (the entire line of Su-27 and MiG-29).

for our videoconferencing, I would prefer an MFI with a more traditional and optimized aerodynamics

Can you explain?

[bayard]

Quote: 3danimal

Where does this data come from?

Banal reference books, which were corrected shortly after the last F-111 was removed from service. There was no need to splurge, and the Cold War was over.
This was the difference between the declared characteristics. The F-111, having a higher take-off weight and lower engine thrust than the Su-24M, was declared at 2650 km / h.
At the same time, the Su-24M was announced for a maximum speed of ... 1500 km / h.
but the trick was that for the Su-24M, it was speed at low altitude, with a low-altitude breakthrough of air defense ... and at altitude it gave out up to 2300 km / h. Which is not surprising given the thrust of its engines of 11200 kgf at afterburner.
But in all reference books it was 1500 km / h.
And calculations of take-off weight, engine thrust and aerodynamics, said that for the F-111 the speed ceiling is 2100 km / h ... well, up to 2200 km / h without weapons at an altitude ... But even that was doubtful, because the engines were not even gave out 10 kgf ...
And so it turned out.
Despite the fact that the plane was really good and interesting.

Quote: 3danimal

Consequently, the concept of "break into close combat (having lost half of the aircraft) and deal with them there" does not work.

I don't think this concept was taken seriously. Supermaneuverability is important not only for a "dog dump", but also for evading enemy missiles with active radio-technical countermeasures. And the Su-27 family (the same Indian Su-30MKI) proved this by not allowing a single hit with a sufficiently massive salvo of Pakistani long-range missiles (made by the USA) at them.
It all depends on the circumstances. The fighter must reach a range of confident target acquisition to launch missiles. And for each type of target, this distance will be different. But Russia also has long-range missiles with longer ranges than the United States.
And the quality of combat control and situational awareness will be of great importance.

Quote: 3danimal

A serious and dangerous opponent, there will be (no doubt) built +/- the planned number (3000 pieces). "Take by number" will not work either.

The opponent is serious and the number matters. But systems are at war. And here it is very important at what theater this will take place. Russia has a serious advantage in air defense, the quality and saturation of the theater of operations with anti-aircraft missile systems. Sometimes fighters can simply act as a decoy duck, luring the enemy under the fire of an air defense missile system, or luring them into "hasty retreat".
And it is far from always possible to keep the distance of the battle at long / medium distances. And in close combat, the advantage will still be on our aircraft. Almost all of them are equipped with OVT engines, and how you can maneuver with such engines can be seen in the demonstrations of the same Su-35.
And fights with Indian pilots are still fights with INDIAN pilots. On aircraft of export modification.
In addition, stealth fades very seriously at the "dm" and "m" radar ranges, and although the weapon cannot be aimed like that, it is quite possible to give target designation for the IA. And there and OLS to help them.

Quote: 3danimal

Comparable to the F-18, no one complains about it.
The very concept of use involves BVR combat (outside of visual detection)

Well, let's say the F-35s strike, and the Su-35s intercept them ... The difference in speed when pursuing at maximum speeds of 600 - 700 km / h.
It's a lot . And the distance will be torn apart very quickly.
Also, do not forget about the Soviet-Russian tradition ... to underestimate the characteristics of your weapons ... There can be serious surprises.

Quote: 3danimal

Again, stealth to help

You can enter the rear hemisphere one by one OLS, but on such a hot engine ... Yes, and there is no stealth in the rear hemisphere - there is an engine. With round nozzle.

Quote: 3danimal

Can you explain?

What is there to explain? The Su-57, despite the stealth technology, turned out to be quite aerodynamic and does not lose speed due to non-optimal aerodynamics. Yes, and he has speed limits for the temperature regime for the glider, and not because of the lack of power for more.
Such restrictions were also for the MiG-21, which with an engine from the MiG-29 accelerated almost to 3000 km / h, but ... the temperature limits for the airframe ... therefore, in the tables, the same 2170 km / h.

Quote: 3danimal

By the way, we must also remember about the cruising supersonic 1,2M (with weapons in the internal compartments). This will give an advantage against fighters that do not have one (the entire line of Su-27 and MiG-29).

Why don't they have "cruising supersonic"?
In non-afterburner mode, both the Su-27 (especially later modifications), the MiG-29, and the Su-35, and even the MiG-31 quietly overcame the sound barrier, accelerating to 1500 km / h. And today they know how.
It's just that there was no such term and fashion before, and the maximum thrust mode in the non-afterburner mode is not very useful for the engine resource.
But they always could.

[3danimal]

In non-afterburner mode, both the Su-27 (especially later modifications), and the MiG-29, and the Su-35

There is information only on the Su-35, 1,1M (where is 1500 km / h? ), with incomplete tanks and without weapon suspensions.
The MiG-29 with the RD-33 is clearly not about that, the old engine.
Compare with the engines of Raphael and Eurofighter ..

and even the MiG-31 quietly overcame the sound barrier, accelerating to 1500 km / h

Too low thrust-to-weight ratio, unlikely.

What is there to explain? The Su-57, despite the stealth technology, turned out to be quite aerodynamic and does not lose speed due to non-optimal aerodynamics.

Two engines of the 5th generation (they will be when they are finished) and a high thrust-to-weight ratio.
The F-22 also has a maximum speed of 2400 km / h, 1,6-1,8 M without afterburner (but here all aircraft have a time limit for operating in this mode).

You can go into the rear hemisphere one by one OLS, but on such a hot engine ...

The engine has a flow cooling system at the nozzle, the bypass is also good. Without afterburner, the detection range is reduced.
But, it is still 2 times more in ZPS than in PPP.
The presence of DAS allows you to detect the enemy at a very large distance, this must be taken into account.

Well, let's say the F-35s strike, and the Su-35s intercept them ...

This is unlikely to be: two groups are used, one covers.
I'm not talking about the presence of AWACS with a range of 500 km.

Almost all of them are equipped with OVT engines, and how you can maneuver with such engines can be seen on demonstrations of the same Su-35

Not at all.
MiG-29 without OVT (except for single copies), most of the Su-27 / Su-30 - too. (More expensive to manufacture and operate). OVT on them is not all-aspect.
Much depends on the pilot - an example of an F-18S versus Su-30MKI combat training analysis with an OVT, individual and group training.

And it is far from always possible to keep the distance of the battle at long / medium distances.

As long as the P-77 and AIM-120 are available, both sides will keep their distance, IMHO.
Capture, launch, descent to the ground (into denser air, for large speed losses from enemy missiles).

But Russia also has long-range missiles with longer ranges than the United States.

R-37 with outdated seeker and four times greater (than R-77-1 and AIM-120) mass.
Their advantage is speed, they need a different tactic than against the R-77. (But on an inconspicuous target, it will not be possible to launch further than from 100 km)
Minus - Max target overload is 8 units, versus 12 units for lighter R-77.
We need a modification of the R-77 with a long (180 km) maximum range comparable to the AIM-120D.

Sometimes fighters can simply act as a decoy duck, luring the enemy under the fire of an air defense missile system, or luring them into "hasty retreat"

It is a big mistake to think that the presence of an air defense system will be a surprise.
The F-35 is able to see the radar, in fact, its first strike missions will be against them.
And without the cover of the Su-35, they will confidently suppress them (salvos of PRR and MALD imitating targets from the F-15 EX, Lightning as RTR aircraft).

Supermaneuverability is important not only for a "dog dump", but also for evading enemy missiles with active radio-technical countermeasures.

True, but the flight at 0,5M and 0,9-1,2M is different, there are limitations.
When dodging missiles, you need to not lose speed to the maximum (well implemented in DCS, I advise you to look), this is the best defense. Not compatible with aerobatics at an air show, it is about close combat.

I don't think this concept was taken seriously.

It is important that the pilots know what they will actually have to face so that there is no expectation of an easy walk.

after all, the engines did not give out even 10 kgf ...

11200 kgf
Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney TF30-P-100 afterburning turbofan engines, 17,900 lbf (80 kN) thrust each dry, 25,100 lbf (112 kN) with afterburner

And the calculation of take-off weight, engine thrust and aerodynamics, they said that for the F-111 the speed ceiling is 2100 km / h ... well, up to 2200 km / h without weapons at an altitude ...

F-111 and Su-24M have a similar mass and the same engine thrust. This difference in max speed is questionable, right.
Realistically, the difference is in the Max range, the 111 has 1,5 times more fuel in its internal tanks.
During one of the shock operations against Gaddafi in 1986, this was clearly manifested (flight from the UK).

[bayard]

Quote: 3danimal

There is information only on the Su-35, 1,1M (where is 1500 km / h?

Pure extrapolation can be considered. The thrust without afterburner for the AL-41F-1C is 8800 kgf according to Wikipedia. This is the afterburner thrust of the Phantom engines. The mass is different, the aerodynamics (drag) are close ... I don't see any problem in achieving the above speed.

Quote: 3danimal

The MiG-29 with the RD-33 is clearly not about that, the old engine.
Compare with the engines of Raphael and Eurofighter ..

Very good engines in terms of specific thrust, comparison of the aircraft of the late 70s and modern Rafale ... look at the comparative characteristics of the latest versions of the MiG-35, Super Hornet and Raphael engines and you will see that the engines are very similar in characteristics: weight, linear dimensions, thrust with and without afterburner, but maximum. There are differences in the resource, possibly in the quality of bearings, but the main characteristics of the motors are very similar.
RD-33 of the original version, max. thrust without afterburner - 5040 kgf. x 2 = 10080 kgf.
This is almost equal to the thrust of the Su-17 engine ... but what is the speed of the Su-17?
Different aerodynamics but similar takeoff weight.
And what is the misunderstanding?

Quote: 3danimal

and even the MiG-31 quietly overcame the sound barrier, accelerating to 1500 km / h

Too low thrust-to-weight ratio, unlikely.

Well, here I’m sorry - banal reference data, classic and well-known. For engines with non-afterburning thrust of 9500 kgf. not surprising at all. The aircraft on the afterburner develops with a new glazing of the lantern up to 3200 km / h.

Quote: 3danimal

Two engines of the 5th generation (they will be when they are finished) and a high thrust-to-weight ratio.

The AL-41F-1C engine is quite a 5th generation engine. It was originally created for the 5th generation aircraft and had a thrust of 15 kgf, but in the AL-000F-41C version, for the sake of a resource (up to 1 hours), the power was lowered to 4000 kgf. (the F-14500 has a capacity of about 22 - 14750 kgf.). This power is more than enough for the Su-14850, but with the new engine it will hardly have to use afterburner and will have much better acceleration characteristics and thrust-to-weight ratio.
After all, it would never occur to anyone to say that the F-22 is not the 5th generation, because it has ... "weak" engines?

Quote: 3danimal

This is unlikely to be: two groups are used, one covers.
I'm not talking about the presence of AWACS with a range of 500 km.

I deliberately took the "spherical horse", because our aviation will also operate under the control of an AWACS aircraft. And there are also ground-based over-the-horizon radars and radars of the meter range, for which invisible people do not exist and they will be able to reveal the fact of a raid.
And, of course, they will have in mind the cover group for enemy strike aircraft - this is the basics.

Quote: 3danimal

MiG-29 without OVT (except for single copies), most of the Su-27

They are already maneuverable enough, but no one will use them against 5th generation aircraft.

Quote: 3danimal

Su-30 too. (More expensive to manufacture and operate). OVT on them is not all-aspect.

And who else has all-aspect?
Except the Chinese to whom we sold it?
In addition, the Su-30SM2 may have such a nozzle ... together with the AL-41F-1S engine. And such modernization is planned in the future for the all-su-30SM.

Quote: 3danimal

R-37 with outdated seeker and four times greater (than R-77-1 and AIM-120) mass.

In the R-37M, the GOS is already fresh, and the large mass provides 2,5 times greater range.
Yes, and not against subtle targets, it is, on the contrary - against large and high-priority ones. Although it was originally developed to intercept Tomahawks at long range.

Quote: 3danimal

Minus - Max target overload is 8 units, versus 12 units for lighter R-77.

Well, not every pilot can handle such an overload. Especially if there are two missiles.

Quote: 3danimal

Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney TF30-P-100 afterburning turbofan engines, 17,900 lbf (80 kN) thrust each dry, 25,100 lbf (112 kN) with afterburner

This engine was for the latest versions, and, as it were, not for the FB-111.
The thrust of the F-111 engines was about 9800 kgf. , he was also placed on the F-14A, and brought a lot of problems to this ship - up to 28% of these aircraft were lost because of him. And so it went on, until the engines from the F-15 - F-110-GE-400 were put on it.
In addition, the F-111 was still heavier and larger than the Su-24M. And had a larger supply of fuel.
But the speed of 2650 km / h was announced by the F-111 immediately after its presentation and after that it was repeated in all reference books and official data.
As well as the data on the maximum speed of the F-15, which was declared a speed of 2650 km / h, but only a specially prepared and maximally lightweight aircraft achieved this, without radar, without a radio-transparent nose cone (a light duralumin was installed), with the dismantling of all possible equipment and with minimum fuel supply. And all the records of the rate of climb were also set by this plane ...
Later, we made a similarly light version of the Su-27, which broke all the F-15 climb records.
But all of our combatant MiG-25 and MiG-31 freely accelerated up to 3000 km / h, and their restriction was only the BAN on the development of higher speed, because this threatened a catastrophe from overheating, primarily the cockpit canopy.
This is the difference in approaches.
The MiG-21 could also develop a higher speed than the declared one, but a restriction was added to it.

[3danimal]

But the situational awareness of the Su-57 by its own means is incomparably higher than that of the F-35.

Incommensurable?
In the IR spectrum, the F-35 has a 360 'view, on the Su-57 there is no such thing, only the OLS in front of the cockpit canopy (why couldn't they make the canopy solid? )
The only advantage is the radar in the slat, but its exact characteristics are unknown.
That is, the L-band antenna system H036L-1-01 versus IR 360 'DAS.
Lightning has more data from AWACS (because we do not have modern AWACS ). Systems like Link-16 have been tested on a variety of exercises.

[bayard]

Quote: 3danimal

In the IR spectrum, the F-35 has a 360 'view, on the Su-57 there is no such thing, only the OLS in front of the cockpit canopy

As far as I remember, the second (and even the third) OLS was installed even on the prototype of the Su-34, nothing prevents us from doing this on the Su-57. But "Squirrel" has four AFAR canvases, not only in front and on the sides, but also in the rear hemisphere. That is, a complete all-round overview by your own means Plus - meter in the slats, for "covert observation". I'm talking about the capabilities of the radar and the ability to shoot at the rear hemisphere with guidance.

[3danimal]

But "Squirrel" has four AFAR canvases, not only in front and on the sides, but also in the rear hemisphere

Add. The radars have low power and range, and will allow the R-73 to be launched into the ZPS.
The same as the DAS of the F-35.
Approximate parity in different weight categories.

As far as I remember, the second (and even the third) OLS was installed even on the prototype of the Su-34, nothing prevents us from doing this on the Su-57

In theory.
There were plans to equip the F-22 with additional radars, refused

[bayard]

Quote: 3danimal

Add. The radars have low power and range, they will allow launching the R-73

Smaller than that of the bow, but not small, there the antenna sheets have quite a decent (for their range) area. Yes, and the OLS for the rear hemisphere itself asks, so I would not be surprised if it is there.

Quote: 3danimal

Approximate parity in different weight categories.

It is difficult to talk about parity when the most interesting characteristics are not known. But still, it is not correct to equate the capabilities of OLS and RLC. They complement each other, the OLS allows you to detect a target without giving out radiation, but the radar allows you to detect targets at a greater range and with the same cloud cover.
In any case, the flight characteristics of the Su-57 are much higher (range, speed, thrust-to-weight ratio), and the ammunition load is at least 2 times greater ... in fact, 2,5 times higher.
But in a real war, quantity will also matter. But we, alas, will never be able to boast of such an advantage.

[3danimal]

But we, alas, will never be able to boast of such an advantage.

Small economy and insufficient production capacity.
Scientists are leaving (thanks to "treason cases", poor research organization and low salaries), including to China. Very sad data have been published recently.

In any case, the flight characteristics of the Su-57 are much higher (range, speed, thrust-to-weight ratio)

F-35 is a medium fighter.
Now the main rival in the weight category is 195 F-22. Almost as maneuverable (better than the F-35), almost as fast, the most unobtrusive.
I can't understand why ours could not make an uninterrupted cockpit canopy (there is not a single USSR / Russian aircraft with this)? The Chinese coped with the J-20

Again, there are no S-shaped air intakes that the Chinese, Raphael, and Eurofighters have. Poghosyan ..

[bayard]

Quote: 3danimal

(thanks to "treason cases",

There is no business without treason. Especially in our time, when there are no ideological and systemic (socialism / capitalism) reasons. Only self-interest. And that means - betrayal from selfish motives.
Once again, we do not throw such accusations ... even for image reasons alone.

Quote: 3danimal

F-35 is a medium fighter.

Compare its maximum takeoff weight (and dry weight) with that of the F-15.
The Americans have extended the concept of an "average" fighter very much.

Quote: 3danimal

I can't understand why ours could not make an uninterrupted cockpit canopy (there is not a single USSR / Russian aircraft with this)? The Chinese coped with the J-20

We had some experienced ones even in the 60s. ... solid-cast ... glass (thick quartz glass) and very heavy. To achieve maximum speeds, because ordinary plexiglass could not withstand temperatures.
Of course this is a minus, but apparently a limitation in technology. To master such a complex technical process for a hundred or two products ... go and force modern officials.

Quote: 3danimal

Again, there are no S-shaped air intakes, which the Chinese also have.

Yes, everything is there.

[3danimal]

There is no business without treason.

Take an interest in the circumstances of at least a few: it is very easy to start, adjust to the article.

Once again, we do not throw such accusations ... even for image reasons alone.

Left to the mercy of the "bottom". Slowly they start and plant. The statistics are known: there are almost no acquittals.
Have you communicated with colleagues from other countries (and now this is a normal research process)? Come here, the major needs a bonus and a promotion, but don't give a damn about the consequences. And people vote with their feet ..

Compare its maximum takeoff weight (and dry weight) with that of the F-15. smile

Almost the same 13,2t / 12,7t
But it differs markedly from the really heavy Su-35/57 (19t / 35t).

Yes, everything is there

No, no:

[abc_alex]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

We need a single-engine fighter unified with the MiG-35 in terms of engine and avionics.

Two engines are the BASIC requirement of the military. There will be no single-engine vehicles in the RF Air Force.

[3danimal]

We need a single-engine fighter unified with the MiG-35 in terms of engine and avionics.

The engine is better than 2 stages from the Su-57.

Such a light fighter will be in demand on the international market.

The new fighter, ideally, should replace the MiG-29 / 29M (IMHO) in the ranks of the Aerospace Forces, first of all.

you need a small and relatively inexpensive AWACS aircraft, such as the Yak-44 project

It's not just about the price, it's a complex machine. Look how long it took with the A-100. With AWACS in the VKS, everything is sad: 5 ancient A-50s from the 80s and 4 A-50Us of the 90s level.
In my opinion, we need a tiltrotor-AWACS. A sort of (ideally) version of the E-2C, but in the opposite V-260 Valor (not E-2D, so as not to inflate expectations), capable of taking off from a large UDC.
For the Navy, such a machine would be extremely useful.
Here, of course, the problem is the lack of experience in the production of convertiplanes, the lack of suitable engines.

[Barberry25]

interesting logic ... but nothing that training a pilot costs so much? And what difference does it make? silly

[3danimal]

What's wrong with single-engine ones?
JF-17, F-16, F-35, the same Mig-21
They are noticeably cheaper to maintain, they can be unified with heavy fighters in terms of their engine (the F-16 has an engine from the F-15), while good avionics can be installed.

[Barberry25]

and they are also less reliable .. every year count several sides are beating .. so there will be no more gain .. At the same instant-35, for example, a radius of 1 km .. hang an external tank and there will be 000 km .. a question .. why Better in fact to have 1 conventional cars, say 500 for patrols, another in case of war ... and in case of war, the mig-2-car is good

[3danimal]

and they are also less reliable .. every year count several boards beating ..

The statistics of the MiG-29 accidents are rather big.
Can be compared with the F-16

At the same MIG-35, for example, a radius of 1 km ... hang an external tank and there will be 000 km

Combat radius: (Block 50)
with conformal tanks, 5 liters in the PTB, 542 × 2 kg of bombs, along the profile large-small-small-high altitude: 907 km
And all this for less money.
That's the idea, to make a massive light fighter. Save on maintenance and one engine.
Increasing the series of engines for the Su-30 / Su-35 (reducing their unit cost).
It works, the F-16 is the most massive aircraft, and it has more than enough combat experience.

[Barberry25]

only beats with the Americans .. and they seem to have better service staff than in other countries ..

[Barberry25]

as well as the number of fallen cars .. and yes .. everyone makes claims to the moment-29, But for some reason they forget that the 16th flies with suspended tanks .. and ours should for some reason fly without .. is not strange?

[3danimal]

Nobody makes nobody fly
The F-16 has a higher carrying capacity than the MiG-29

[Barberry25]

5,5 tons as standard, for mig-35 6,5 tons as standard

[3danimal]

The MiG-35 is somewhat different from the MiG-29, and there are very few of them in the world.
And you have incorrect data:

Mass of external load: (with full refueling of internal tanks)
with F100 engine: 8 855/9 635 kg (without / with conformal tanks)
with F110 engine: 8 742/9 190 kg (without / with conformal tanks)

(It weighs so much empty )
No, we take exactly the F-16 and the MiG-29. The latter has a very modest load with a large mass.
As a result, Falcon takes additional fuel, flies further, carries more weapons, has cool aiming containers, and is easier to operate.

[Barberry25]

"maximum load", the question is that with such a load, it already flies much less .. And yes .. "no, we take" .. why take? we look at the situation from the category that WE NEED .. And if to build, then build moment-35 ... or are you not interested, because the 35th will have a better range?)

[3danimal]

with such a load, it already flies much less

As well as the MiG. But part of the load is fuel.
Can be built on the already mastered "14-ton" AL-31F M2 single-engine fighter with comparable range.
It will be cheaper, easier to operate, and attractive for export.
Upon access to the "product 30" (when it will be finished with finishing and mass production will begin), it will be a noticeably superior MiG-35 aircraft.
(Lay the possibility of modernization).

[Barberry25]

I wrote everything above .. I see no reason to add

[Barberry25]

well, as if small ... but here the reason is rather the deterioration of the cars and the small number of raids .. About "as many as two bombs" ... you don’t bother that there are ONLY two bombs .. something tells me that the PTB is suspended for a moment. 29 even you can get the same radius and with similar weapons ... About the "mass" ... but will you personally produce pilots? And 2-3 pilots will wear flowers to the grave every year ... how to explain that everything is for the sake of economy ?

[3danimal]

ONLY two bombs

But this is 2x900kg Mk-84 or analogs. AIM-120 pair always comes with a "free" appendage.
Instead of these bombs (by weight), you can take as many as 12 AIM-120s, as soon as you attach them .. (although now there are holders for 2 and even 3 missiles per pylon).

Compare with the MiG-29, it has ... 6 missiles without PTB?

And you will wear flowers to the grave for 2-3 pilots every year ... how to explain that everything is for the sake of economy?

There are more planes, so there are more victims. In most cases, it turns out to be ejected.
The military industry will easily survive the extra 2,57%.
And the victims have to be paid $ 400 thousand (as in the USA), this is a very good practice.

[Barberry25]

Well, yes .. you don’t risk your life .. And this practice is not worth an egg, the relatives of the deceased pilot will explain very well to you about the fact that money will not replace a person .. about "but you cannot hang the drain at the moment-29" .. OU make add. fasteners and hang up ... In general, your "economy" will come out sideways .. so .. the whole question is closed .. to listen to the eternal mantra about "cheap and a lot" I'm already tired

[3danimal]

WELL, make an extra. fasteners and hang

There are no fasteners and the design was not calculated.

the relatives of the deceased pilot will explain very well to you about the fact that money will not replace a person

I'm talking a little about something else. The pilot, as a rule, leaves a family (children who need to be supported and trained) for which a medal, a flag and $ 400 thousand (30 million rubles) are much more useful than a medal, a flag and "4 rubles." ... (Since 2019)

[3danimal]

And you have incorrect data.

F-16: accidents 701, built 4604, 15,2%;

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/type/f16

F-15: accidents 207, built 1198, 17,27%;

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/type/f15

F-18: accidents 269, built 1480, 18,17%.

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/type/f18

(The latter can be discounted for the fact that most of them are deck-mounted)
But a difference of 2% NOT in favor of the twin-engine F-15.
(How do the pilots of the Needles sit at the helm without trembling, knowing this? )
Are you ready to change your mind?

[Barberry25]

why are you so restless .. but where are you all the F-15E business? the accountant of you is very bad .. everything .. go tell others a great story about "a wonderful F-16, we urgently need the same" .. I'm tired of you

[3danimal]

Did I drink with you for brotherhood or did I baptize children? Keep your distance.
Don't be nervous, you have to admit your mistakes and move on.
There is also a percentage of F-18 accidents.
The bottom line is that there is not much difference in accidents.

beautiful f-16, we urgently need the same

Not the same, but better

[Barberry25]

so go for a walk, otherwise it stuck like a bath leaf, I told you everything about f-16, then that you started to bring the left numbers, your problems, the Ministry of Defense has already said that there will be no single-engine cars, because they decided not to go down to such stupidity, well besides you of course ...

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

Twin-engine fighters fall every year.

The sales and operation statistics of the F-16 show that single-engine fighters are in demand and that they fight just as well as twin-engine ones.

[Barberry25]

Only moments are beating with a frequency of 1-2 per year .. and falcons with a frequency of 6-9 boards per year .. and if the MiGs are in operation in residual order and can be reduced to a "bad state", but when the falcons are beaten by the Japanese and Americans it is already difficult to blame that "the cars are old and not serviced" .. everything is simpler - 1 engine means that in case of problems with it, the board falls .. while two-engine cars have a higher chance of holding out on 1 engine ..

[3danimal]

F-16 is the most massive 4th generation fighter in the world.
Logically, more flying, more accidents.

[Barberry25]

It is not logical .. because the reason is not in "mass character" but in the fact that one engine is less reliable .. Example: 15th in the USA in relation to 16th, the ratio is 1 to 2 .. therefore they should beat like? Correctly 1 to 2 per year ..but in fact? On average, 1 F-15 falls for 3-5 lost F-16s .. Moreover, in the same USA F-15s may not lose for several years, and F-16s every year 3-5 cars .. and statistics ... the f-16 lost 671 aircraft per 4 produced = 604%, and the f-14,57 15 by 180 or 1%, although the f-500 began to operate earlier ...

[3danimal]

That is, according to statistics, the difference is 2,57% more, 20%?
Despite the fact that the F-16 fly more often.
Not convincing
He is not even close to "widowmaker" F-104.

[Barberry25]

what does it mean that it flies more often? the flight time of pilots 15 and 16 is the same) so the difference of 21% is just the difference between 1 and 2 engines ... in other words, by buying 100 aircraft with 2 engines, you can lose 20 aircraft during the service life, and with one 25 ... here's the difference ... 5 boards. And do not forget that pilots often die too ... So Russia needs twin-engine aircraft ... single-engine UAVs only

[3danimal]

And do not forget that pilots often die too.

Flying is generally dangerous.

https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/rates/fy2019/2019_b_c.pdf

Compare the cost of a flight hour F-15S ($ 21290) and F-16S ($ 8,374).
The cost of purchasing fighters is also slightly different.
For the safety of pilots - normal modern landing systems at airfields (this is not enough) and ejection seats.
The fact is that single-engine fighters can be produced more, at a lower unit cost, and cheaper to maintain.
In terms of combat capabilities, they are not inferior to their classmates with 2 engines.

[Barberry25]

for export, it may be worth doing, but for yourself, it is not necessary for nothing, unless in the UAV version, we do not have the same production rates and the wrong size of the aerospace complex to buy with aircraft that are 20% more hazardous due to one engine.

[storm]

We need a single-engine fighter unified with the MiG-35 in terms of engine and avionics.

Or maybe this is a supersonic Yak-130 than not an LFI, but two engines are more reliable than one ...

[Murmur 55]

In my amateur opinion, combat aviation (of all types) now gives complete superiority in combat, so the more new aircraft we have, the better, so good news.

[Zaurbek]

I didn't quite understand about PFAR. On another site they wrote about the "modernization of Bars"

[mark1]

Quote: Zaurbek

"modernization Bars"

There will be the most heinous "optimization" initiative - "Irbis" means "Irbis"

[Zaurbek]

Following the fifth generation fighters, the Su-30SM2 received the latest multi-channel integrated communication, data exchange, navigation and identification system (OSNOD). It allows you to integrate the machine into automated control systems and exchange information with the Su-57, and subsequently with drones.

The radar station N011-R "Bars-R" was modified for the fighter. She increased the range of detection and identification of targets, and also replaced imported components. The modernization will allow the use of a larger number of modern missiles, including heavy anti-ship missiles.

[mark1]

Why produce a variety of inferior quality? There is in the NO-35 series and that's enough. The new "Bars" and the old ones are still very different from each other (at the level of a new product).

[3danimal]

In theory, with a small budget, it is necessary to strive for maximum unification.
Oddly enough, Americans are more inherent in this.

[Holuay T.O]

Laughed
Where is the Pacific Fleet? There not today tomorrow the Japanese will take the islands away from us

[Nastia makarova]

you have no islands in Ukraine))))

[Alex_You]

Is the Su-30SM just a double Su-35? What is the difference then, explain. Previously, it was somehow easier for the Su-27 / Su-27M / Su-27K / Su-27IB and so on.

[Roma 1977]

No, not a double Su-35. There are too many differences. They will only unify to the maximum.

[abc_alex]

Quote: Alex_You

Is the Su-30SM just a double Su-35? What is the difference then, explain. Previously, it was somehow easier for the Su-27 / Su-27M / Su-27K / Su-27IB and so on.

Su-30 is a Su-27UB, reduced to the role of an aircraft - a flight leader. Initially, this is a command aircraft, an attempt to compensate for the shortage of AWACS aircraft. His tasks, in addition to educational ones, were as follows:
- gaining air supremacy,
- long-range patrolling and escort of strategic aviation aircraft,
- radar patrol, guidance and control.
If you remember, the Su-27 is an air defense interceptor.

In turn, the Su-35 is a combatant Su-27 (T-10) modified to perform strike functions. EMNIP, "nee" Su-35 is Su27M2. True, the Su-35S is already the Su-35BM.

But after the Indian tender, the Su-30 in the MKI version itself received shock capabilities. So now, in essence, these are machines with similar capabilities, and the only difference is that the Su-35S is a single-seat, and the Su-30 is a two-seater.
Personally, for example, I think both of these vehicles are equally bad for the navy. Moreover, one of them is generally superfluous in the range of weapons. Especially now, when the machines are unified in terms of motors and avionics.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: abc_alex

So now, in essence, these are machines with similar capabilities, and the only difference is that the Su-35S is a single-seat, and the Su-30 is a two-seater.

Although these aircraft are station wagons, the Su-35s is more sharpened for solving problems in the air, and the Su-30 for working on the ground (for which it also has a PGO, which reduces the load on the airplane and pilot's airframe at high speeds at low altitudes)

[abc_alex]

Quote: Bad_gr

Quote: abc_alex

So now, in essence, these are machines with similar capabilities, and the only difference is that the Su-35S is a single-seat, and the Su-30 is a two-seater.

Although these aircraft are station wagons, the Su-35s is more sharpened for solving problems in the air, and the Su-30 for working on the ground (for which it also has a PGO, which reduces the load on the airplane and pilot's airframe at high speeds at low altitudes)

As far as I know, on the contrary. The Su-35 was originally endowed with shock capabilities, and they are bolted to the Su-30 "with screws and scotch tape." Su-30, if it wins, is at the expense of the second crew member, who can fire. But the Su-35 also has a UB version - a two-seat one.

And the PGO is for him to expand the range of speeds, on the Su-35 its role is played by root influxes of the wing.

[Zaurbek]

one and two seater Su35S - this is the composition of the VKS - healthy people .......... In fact, the Su30 is one glider, Su35S is the most progressive glider from the T-10 today

[Piramidon]

All fighters will undergo a special sea revision.

I wonder what it is, is it really, including washing the windshield with a "sword"?

[Castro Ruiz]

Right decision.
No vazhni i postavki modernizirovanogo SU-34FN / SU-32 v MRA.

[Piramidon]

Dude, you're on a Russian site, so please write in Russian. After all, do you perceive the Russian text? Google-translator will help you, comrade.

[bayard]

Quote: CastroRuiz

No vazhni i postavki modernizirovanogo SU-34FN / SU-32 v MRA.

They will begin soon - an upgraded version of the Su-34M will be presented this year or early next year. The delivery of 80 of these machines and the modernization of the previously produced fleet (about 200 - 220 units) of the Su-34 are expected.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: CastroRuiz

Right decision.
No vazhni i postavki modernizirovanogo SU-34FN / SU-32 v MRA.

Quote: CastroRuiz

Correct decision.
But the delivery of the upgraded SU-34FN / SU-32 to the MRA is also important.

[Light]

Unification is very good, to produce as many new engines and radars as possible. As I understand it, this is a 2-seater version of the Su-35, with a front horizontal tail.

[abc_alex]

Quote: Bright

Unification is very good, to produce as many new engines and radars as possible. As I understand it, this is a 2-seater version of the Su-35, with a front horizontal tail.

Since 35, the Su-2000 has its own twin Su-35UBM.

[Light]

I looked on the Internet, it turns out that this pair of Su-35 also had a front tail, but somehow it is not as popular with customers as the Su-30, even in our units, probably it was the price and the need to load the Irkutsk plant? Now, I think, after complete unification with the Su-30SM2, there will be no need for a twin Su-35.

[3danimal]

PGO increases the aircraft's visibility, the risk of "diving" during vigorous maneuvers, EMNIP.

[abc_alex]

Quote: 3danimal

PGO increases the aircraft's visibility, the risk of "diving" during vigorous maneuvers, EMNIP.

In addition, as I was told, now, thanks to improved software for calculating the movement of air flows, the functions of the VGO are performed by the root influx of the wing.

[venik]

"....In the future, it was decided to install the AL-41F-1C engine and the Irbis radar on the fighter...."
======
But this is already SERIOUS !!!

[abc_alex]

Quote: venik

But this is already SERIOUS !!!

What's the big deal? Both cars are fighters adapted for percussion functions. Neither one nor the other can take more than one heavy long-range anti-ship missile system, and then in theory. Their main and only anti-ship weapon is the X-35. This is a 150-260 km range. A very controversial decision in the case of modern ship groups. This means that these aircraft cannot be used as a naval missile carrier. It makes no sense to keep an airplane for one rocket and one flight
Seriously, this is a Su-34MF with a pair of Onyxes under its wings. And even more serious with 2 Zircons. That's when the news "It was decided to purchase 80 Su-34MFs upgraded for Zircon missiles for the fleet" - this will be serious. Even divided into 2 groups - this is 80 missiles in a salvo with a range beyond the range of missiles. Now this will already look like the missile attack aircraft of the Russian fleet. In the meantime, this is more of an expansion of defense.
One thing pleases in the news: maybe in the course of modernization our industry will come to a reduction in the model range of aircraft based on the Su-27. Will leave one universal information security and one bomber.

[3danimal]

Neither one nor the other can take more than one heavy long-range anti-ship missile system, and then in theory. Their main and only anti-ship weapon is the X-35. This is a 150-260 km range. A very controversial decision in the case of modern ship groups.

2-4 Kh-35E is a serious threat to the warship. Especially when launching 4-8 missiles (2 planes).
You can fly up at a low altitude, making a jump of 40 km and launch, or even launch the anti-ship missile system at an external control center.
All this works, if we are not talking about an aircraft carrier order of course (greetings from E-2)

[next322]

21 aircraft? Even 2 squadrons are not recruited ..... and this is for 4 fleets? Eh ......

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

21 fighters are only in one party and obviously not the last.

The main thing is to upgrade the Su-30 to the level of the more advanced Su-35.

[bayard]

Quote: next322

21 aircraft? Even 2 squadrons are not recruited ... and this is for 4 fleets?

This is the first trial batch of this modification. There will be much more - all combat aviation of the Navy will be transferred to the Su-30SM2.

[Jacket in stock]

Sound decision.
I've never understood our "zoo".
The only pity is that even the modernization is based on long-dated equipment.
Either there is not enough money, or the industry is simply not able to make modern in the required quantities.

[abc_alex]

Quote: Jacket in stock

I've never understood our "zoo".

Poghosyanovschina in action.

[bars1]

Quote: Zaurbek

The N011-R "Bars-R" radar station was modified for the fighter

Sadly, of course, this is not what we expected ... But there is fish in the absence of fish and cancer.