Military Review

"Simplicity and proven Russian engine": first JF-17 fighters transferred to Nigeria

85
"Simplicity and proven Russian engine": first JF-17 fighters transferred to Nigeria

The Nigerian Air Force officially accepted the first three JF-17B fighters on Friday. The delivery took place as part of the 2016 contract, which provided for the transfer of three vehicles (the value of the transaction is not known). At the same time, as funds become available, it is planned to expand the fleet of Pakistani aircraft, forming a squadron from them. The next delivery is expected in the coming months.


We are happy and excited about the transfer of JF-17 fighters from Pakistan

- said the Minister of Defense of Nigeria Bashir Magashi.

According to British columnist Justin Bronk, terrorists from Boko Haram are currently the main threat to Nigeria. JF-17, having a wide range of weapons, is able to effectively deal with them, including around the clock, thanks to the equipment of the electro-optical module.

One of the key attributes of the JF-17 for Nigeria is ease of maintenance [...] The combination of a lightweight airframe with modern technology, a proven (albeit rather old) Russian engine based on the RD-33 [we are talking about RD-93] and digital electronics should allow the country increase combat readiness compared to the previous fleet of fighters

- says Bronk.

Earlier, within the framework of military-technical cooperation with Nigeria, Islamabad equipped Karakorum K-8 combat training aircraft for firing unguided missiles and provided technical assistance in maintaining the fleet of F-7NI Fishcan fighters.

85 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. OgnennyiKotik
    OgnennyiKotik 22 May 2021 16: 21
    0
    "I should be in his place!"
    The decision to make the MiG-29 twin-engine was wrong. It has no advantages over the Su-27, including in terms of price. Whereas the need for light single-engine fighters is not diminishing. Including with us. The argument that there was no suitable engine does not hold water.
    1. Mitroha
      Mitroha 22 May 2021 16: 44
      +4
      Quote: OgnennyiKotik
      The decision to make the MiG-29 twin-engine was wrong

      How convenient it is to criticize the past.
      We are all strong in the aftermath
      1. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik 22 May 2021 16: 55
        +2
        This all applies to the MiG-35. Unnecessary to anyone. These are already real.
        The motherland of MiG-17/19/21/23 should not have had such questions. The same USA, using the Soviet experience (including), created the F-16, the French Mirage 2000.
        1. TermNachTer
          TermNachTer 22 May 2021 17: 03
          0
          And F - 14, 15 and 18 did not make mattress covers or were they for other purposes?
          1. donavi49
            donavi49 22 May 2021 17: 16
            +11
            The F-14 is also heavy for the fleet.
            F-15 = Su-27/30.
            F-18 for the fleet again. And there is no export if that actually. Canada / Australia as vassals. Kuwait - as a program for the development of oil dollars. Spain on the basis of a program of participation in the assembly and maintenance and then, a minimum of machines. As a result, real sales are Finca and Switzerland + cheap second-hand to Malaysia.


            And the single-engine F-16 - 2500 vehicles sold in 30+ countries of the world. Outstripping both in terms of deliveries and coverage of F-14/15/18 combined.
            1. TermNachTer
              TermNachTer 22 May 2021 19: 28
              0
              And who said that a carrier-based aircraft cannot fly from coastal airfields? Check out how many F - 18s flew from coastal bases during the Gulf War. 2500 sold, has a very simple explanation. Low price and operating costs. Again, good for low intensity conflicts. Jews bought both F - 16 and F - 15, because they were going to fight in earnest.
        2. Mitroha
          Mitroha 22 May 2021 17: 08
          +7
          created the F-16, the French Mirage 2000.
          I agree with you if the phrase sounds like this:
          A single-engine, inexpensive fighter is also needed, at least for export
          1. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik 22 May 2021 17: 18
            -5
            This is the first part that a light fighter is needed and its relevance is not lost.
            The second part, that specifically the MiG-29/35 is an unsuccessful machine, losing to the Su-27/30/35 in absolutely everything. That said, a price gain of about 30% does not compensate for this difference, and the cost of maintaining different types of aircraft eat up this difference.
          2. ccsr
            ccsr 22 May 2021 18: 31
            +3
            Quote: Mitroha
            A single-engine, inexpensive fighter is also needed, at least for export

            This is exactly how we should approach the potential capabilities of our military-industrial complex, which should spend part of the funds on reducing the cost of our weapons models. Without touching aviation, for example, it is clear that the same Nigeria will never buy any "Armata", but a cheaper T-72 or T-90 tank will be happy to buy, albeit in small quantities. And so it is necessary to work across the entire spectrum of weapons, not only in aviation, but also in the air defense systems of the ground forces, automotive and engineering equipment - this will be in demand in many developing countries.
          3. TermNachTer
            TermNachTer 22 May 2021 19: 31
            +3
            Yeah, and the French made the "Rafale" twin-engine just like that, just neighing cleanly)))) True, it turned out to be a bit expensive bastard, no one explained to them that this was an erroneous concept. Eurofighter is also two engines, probably the Germans and the British are also stupid))) as well as mattress toppers.
        3. PVV66
          PVV66 22 May 2021 21: 16
          +1
          MiG-19 is two-motor. Learn the math.
    2. TermNachTer
      TermNachTer 22 May 2021 17: 01
      +10
      And the fact that twin-engine aircraft have a high speed, better acceleration characteristics, climb rate - this does not mean anything))) under the Union, a liter of aviation kerosene was cheaper than half a liter of lemonade. So the questions of economy have never bothered. Not to mention that the twin-engine scheme increases survivability.
      1. donavi49
        donavi49 22 May 2021 17: 25
        +11
        And how many planes have crashed due to engine failure? Mostly they fall for other reasons. This is good in the Union, but the modern market dictates different requirements, which makes twin-engine LMFIs feel bad.

        The best performance characteristics are certainly good, especially when the customer plans not to use them. wassat Well, let's take Nigeria. What was in the original article, but what is not in this reprint:
        At a ceremony on May 20, it was announced that the JF-17 aircraft received by Nigeria were equipped with an outboard container target designation system Aselpod manufactured by the Turkish company Aselsan.


        That is, it is an economical and capacious bomb platform that can bomb Boko Haram in the northern states day and night.

        Buyers of any F-16 also do not plan to use LTH too much. They also rely in the LMFI on multifunctionality (to bob everyone) and the presence of a powerful radar (in the latest versions of AFAR) and 4-6 AIM-120 missiles - which must be thrown back with a margin on the identified contacts and turned away when leaving the battle. Let there MiGi / Su - supermaneuver as much as they like.
        1. TermNachTer
          TermNachTer 22 May 2021 19: 18
          -1
          There is even nothing to argue about. A two-engine vehicle has a much better chance of surviving due to engine failure, even in a combat or non-combat situation. View statistics on twin and single engine disasters. Just because these airplanes are good against Islamic semi-bandit groups does not mean that they will be good against some serious enemy. Only very rich countries can afford the luxury of having many types of aircraft for both real war and the fight against guerrilla.
        2. IL-18
          IL-18 22 May 2021 21: 57
          0
          And why is everyone so looking for stupidity in structures tied to the Ministry of Defense led by Ustinov? Only a stupid person can consider him to be a stupid person. Why no one remembers that the USSR had a large shipbuilding program, including aircraft carriers (heavy aircraft carrier cruisers)? In the presence of the MiG-21, -23, the development of the MiG-29 looks like the most logical decision. And, if history moved in the right direction, and the Soviet Union was not destroyed, then naval aviation would develop in the logic of having its own AUG. And, who knows, maybe in the hot spots of the world the barmaley would be chased, incl. and MiG-21, naturally modernized, not to mention the MiG-23/27, and not more expensive machines.
          Although, something tells me, if the OVD was alive, that the GDR would not refuse the MiG-29, and Czechoslovakia, the Hungarian People's Republic, and the BNR. Romania would most likely refuse, but for economic reasons.
        3. Jager
          Jager 23 May 2021 17: 20
          0
          Then you need to take the SU-25 or the A-10.
      2. sivuch
        sivuch 22 May 2021 21: 11
        +5
        What is the hangover speed and acceleration of twin-engine cars better? All other things being equal, it will be exactly the opposite. If you take an airplane with one 10t engine. and from two to 5, then the second will be 20 percent behind. The midsection will increase, the harness will become more complicated. Those. with the same thrust, both mass and drag will increase.
        Another thing is when there is simply no engine of the required thrust. In Europe, there are no engines of 15-16 tons each.
        1. TermNachTer
          TermNachTer 22 May 2021 21: 33
          -2
          And if you take two engines of 10 tons? Whereas? F - 15, just two engines from F -16, who has better overclocking characteristics? Check out the statistics of battles in the Middle East.
          1. sivuch
            sivuch 23 May 2021 08: 49
            +3
            And if you take two engines of 10 tons?
            Then it will be a heavy fighter, expensive and few in number. I will find and give specific data on the accelerators. I already know the statistics.
        2. unhappy
          unhappy 23 May 2021 07: 23
          +2
          Lame logic.
          For comparison, it is necessary to take an engine with maximum thrust, and not for a training machine. Then it turns out that the maximum power density of the twin-engine configuration is higher, respectively, the dynamic characteristics.
    3. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 22 May 2021 17: 18
      0
      At the very least, it was possible to give the MiG23MLD one more upgrade, or even two. The Hindus were already offered radars from MiG29 and TRD Al31.
      1. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer 22 May 2021 19: 21
        -1
        If it had not been for the collapse of the Union, I think the MiG - 23 would still be in service. With a series of successive improvements and upgrades, it was quite possible for the car to reach normal conditions.
    4. zwlad
      zwlad 22 May 2021 17: 28
      +6
      The MiG-29 was once created not to reduce operating costs in peacetime, but for war.
      And if now there is a need for a single-engine combat aircraft, then nothing prevents its creation.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 22 May 2021 19: 33
        0
        And F16 was created for the parade? And there was something to compare it with F18 ...
      2. sivuch
        sivuch 22 May 2021 21: 27
        +5
        Let me remind you what Waldenberg argued for the need for a twin-engine aircraft? Stop losing pilots in peacetime! And in the military, firstly, more aircraft are needed (and a single-engine one is cheaper), and secondly, better flight characteristics. In the presence of an engine such as a hundred or AL-31, they are not worse in a single-engine one, and all signatures will be lower.
    5. Herman 4223
      Herman 4223 22 May 2021 17: 33
      +7
      The single-engine one has an advantage, it is several percent cheaper than the analogous two-engine one. But it also has not enough if a couple of planes breaks by a hundred due to the fact that the engine is one, then the price due to the loss is actually compared, and if more is broken, then it becomes more expensive. In the USSR, they knew how to count, and had experience in operating single-engine and two-engine machines, in very large quantities. Conclusions have been made.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 22 May 2021 19: 34
        +3
        KB Mikoyan wanted to catch up and overtake F15 .....
        1. Herman 4223
          Herman 4223 22 May 2021 19: 47
          0
          Catch up vryatli, but make it so that you can at least somehow compete with him, taking into account the fact that the fighter is probably light, yes.
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 22 May 2021 19: 50
            +1
            They then howled on horseback ... Maybe they watched the show-jumping in the USA between F-16 and F18 ...
            But the Mi23MLD of the later series was no longer bad. Best the enemy of the good.
      2. sivuch
        sivuch 22 May 2021 21: 32
        +2
        This is not a few percent. In aggregate (excess weight, larger midsection, an increase in all signatures, starting with RL and ending with the glacial), runs up by 20
        1. Herman 4223
          Herman 4223 22 May 2021 22: 47
          0
          In the Indian tender, the F-18 price tag was 10% higher than the F-16 price tag. 55 million versus 50. And this is not only a twin-engine aircraft, it is also a naval vehicle and a larger one.
    6. Sahalinets
      Sahalinets 22 May 2021 18: 03
      +5
      So Belyakov at one time directly said that there really was no reliable engine. And what, the pilots would have fought ...
      1. sivuch
        sivuch 22 May 2021 21: 37
        0
        Yeah, when the MiG-21 and MiG-23 were created were reliable engines, and then they disappeared? And this is when the AL-31, D-30F6 / 9 and R-59 were created?
        1. Sahalinets
          Sahalinets 23 May 2021 01: 59
          0
          The fact of the matter is that they were not reliable ...
      2. sivuch
        sivuch 23 May 2021 08: 57
        +1
        And they fought on the MiG-29 too. For various reasons, for example, in Wittstock, the wingman accidentally blasted the leader with a cannon. One of the shells hit the KSA (KSA was one for 2 engines).
        In Akhtyubinsk - one of the engines caught fire. The fire alarm failed. Since there was no partition on the MiG-29, the fire spread to the second engine with an understandable result.
        So the presence of two motors alone does not guarantee anything.
    7. AC130 Ganship
      AC130 Ganship 22 May 2021 18: 41
      +2
      The USSR decided to switch only to twin-engine fighters somewhere in the mid-70s. At that time, Mig25, Su15, as well as many single-engine ones were already in service. The main reason was called greater survivability in the event of one engine failure.
    8. bayard
      bayard 22 May 2021 18: 59
      +2
      Quote: OgnennyiKotik
      ... The argument that there was no suitable engine does not hold water.

      I've never heard of such an argument. The decision that "From now on, all fighters are only twin-engine" were made exactly when they were compiling the technical specification for the MiG-29.
      They thought about a single engine much later, when the cost of operating the MiG-29 even surpassed that of the Su-27.
      But the MiG-35 has eliminated this drawback.
      But a single engine is still needed. And they are already doing it.
      1. Herman 4223
        Herman 4223 22 May 2021 19: 26
        +1
        How could the cost of operating the mig-29 exceed the cost of operating the su-27? Maybe the cost of operating the mig-23?
        1. bayard
          bayard 22 May 2021 20: 56
          +2
          Quote: Herman 4223
          How could the cost of operating the mig-29 exceed the cost of operating the su-27?

          The MiG-29 was very tightly packed and its maintenance was not very convenient. In addition, the engines did not have the best resource and needed timely replacement. And to change one engine or two at once, these are two big differences. In addition, there is not much difference in size when servicing if two engines need to be serviced. In general, naked statistics won and MiGs of earlier versions stopped buying. For a light aircraft, it was too complex and expensive in its life cycle.
          This is the official statistics - in the life cycle of the MiG-29, it really turned out to be more expensive (not by much). Meanwhile, capitalism came and everyone (including in the Army) began to count money. That is why the MiG-29 was put out of action in the first place, and in the procurement of new aircraft they relied on the heavy Su-30 and Su-35.
          And the MiG-23, too, was cursed by technicians for the inconvenience and complexity of maintenance, because (as the test pilot of the MIG design bureau said) "The result was a MiG-23 ... sloppy."
          my friend and classmate flew a MiG-23, when he asked him (still young) "how do you like the plane", only waved his hand with the word "fuel oil". And at the first opportunity he retrained to a helicopter and until retirement flew the Mi-14 (on floats).
          1. sivuch
            sivuch 22 May 2021 21: 44
            +2
            Well, everything was well painted, but they forgot about the economy. The MiG-29 also had, let's say, features here.
            As for the MiG-23, this is a special conversation. First of all, which one is the 23rd?
            1. bayard
              bayard 22 May 2021 23: 40
              +1
              Quote: sivuch
              Well, everything was well painted, but they forgot about the economy. The MiG-29 also had, let's say, features here.

              yes And he also smoked heavily with his engines, which had not been carried out in this regard.
              This is no longer on the MiG-35.
              Quote: sivuch
              As for the MiG-23, this is a special conversation. First of all, which one is the 23rd?

              Here is his last version of MDL, in my opinion, was not at all bad. We shortened the fuselage, installed a more powerful engine (over 13 tons ... 13200 kg s, if memory has not changed), thereby raised the thrust-to-weight ratio ... new missiles (well, not entirely new) and the plane began to play with new colors. They were even going to modernize it at the Odessa ARZ - to install a radar from the MiG-29, R-27 and R-73 missiles, a helmet-mounted laser designator ... But with the collapse of the country, the program did not work.
              But the entire line of MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-25 had a very bad view from the cockpit, especially back. What the Israelis used. Having studied the MiG-21 (after Operation Penicillin) and its dead zones, their pilots sneaked up on the MiG-21 and felled them just in batches. The same type of cockpit was used by the MiG-23. This flaw was corrected only on the 4th generation fighters.
              And ... I am not a pilot after all, I am an air defense officer in the past ... I didn’t let them fly.
              hi
              1. sivuch
                sivuch 23 May 2021 09: 06
                +2
                I had in mind not only the well-known fact that the AL-31 had higher specific efficiency, but the very arrangement of the engines on the MiG-29 was not entirely successful. To avoid bottom drag, the engines must be placed either end-to-end, which is bad for survivability, or vice versa, far enough from each other (I don't remember the exact value). On the hefty Su-27, this was no problem. And on the MiG-29 they did not want problems with raznotyag and paid a couple of percent of efficiency.
                I have not read about the MiG-23. I wrote about him. smile 23-18 (MiG-23MLD) could be developed further sad But in any case, it was the plane for the captains, and the MiG-29 was for the sergeants.
          2. Herman 4223
            Herman 4223 22 May 2021 22: 33
            +1
            When servicing, it may have been more difficult. I am not an expert to say so. But spare parts are certainly cheaper for a moment. The Chinese bought the engine from the mig-29 for 2,2 million dollars apiece, and the al-31 from the su-27 for 5.
            1. bayard
              bayard 22 May 2021 23: 53
              +1
              During maintenance it was more difficult, the resource (including the airframe) was calculated for 10-15 years of operation - then it was believed that the fleet of fighters should be renewed every 10 years, regardless of the technical condition. In order not to lag behind the enemy. Therefore, they did not bother with the resource. And when the Cold War ended, it turned out that it would be impossible to change fighters so often ... And they began to write off the MiG-29.
              And the Su-27 initially had a huge modernization potential. It had huge unoccupied interior spaces where additional equipment could be placed. And therefore, the Su-27 was initially preoccupied with the greater resource of the Su-XNUMX.
              And the initial characteristics of the RD-33 were ... somewhat specific in terms of economy (fuel efficiency). So even on fuel it was not possible to save much.
              But now all these problems of the RD-33 (in the latest modifications) have been eliminated, the resource has grown, they no longer smoke and have become quite economical.
              1. Herman 4223
                Herman 4223 23 May 2021 08: 58
                0
                How could you not save on fuel? If the specific fuel consumption for RD-33 is 0,77, and for Al-31 is 0,75. And the difference in traction is XNUMX times
                1. bayard
                  bayard 23 May 2021 13: 53
                  0
                  Quote: sivuch
                  I had in mind not only the well-known fact that the AL-31 had higher specific efficiency, but the very arrangement of the engines on the MiG-29 was not entirely successful. To avoid bottom drag, the engines must be placed either end-to-end, which is bad for survivability, or vice versa, far enough from each other (I don't remember the exact value). On the hefty Su-27, this was no problem. And on the MiG-29 they did not want problems with raznotyag and paid a couple of percent of efficiency.

                  Plus
                  Quote: Herman 4223
                  specific fuel consumption for RD-33 is 0,77, and for Al-31 is 0,75.

                  And although the difference in thrust is indeed 1,5 times, the fuel savings were no longer so great. And the complexity and labor intensity of maintenance + initially a small resource for the MiG-29 (which required more frequent repairs, over time, and more frequent replacement of parts during repair, as a result, and gave the effect of a more expensive aircraft to maintain than the Su-27. , but the plane is not much smaller and has less combat value.
                  1. Herman 4223
                    Herman 4223 23 May 2021 15: 27
                    0
                    Even if we calculate this bottom resistance (if this fact is of course), then the Mig-29's fuel consumption per hour of flight is at least 40% less. Spare parts are cheaper.
                    1. bayard
                      bayard 23 May 2021 15: 54
                      -1
                      Quote: Herman 4223
                      then the mig-29 fuel consumption per hour of flight is at least 40% less.

                      In no case .
                      If they had the same fuel efficiency (specific fuel consumption per kilogram of engine weight) and bottom drag, the fuel consumption ratio would be 2 to 3. That is, at best, 33%. Subtracting from these percentages the difference in fuel efficiency and bottom drag (aerodynamics, worst streamlining), we get a difference of 20 - 25%.
                      Let's stop at 25%.
                      But the greater complexity and EFFICIENCY of maintenance, more frequent repairs and replacement of components ... ate this 25% too. Indeed, even with an equal life cycle cost, these aircraft have never had an equal combat value. In terms of combat load, the MiG-29 was 2 times inferior.
                      So they wrote off (from us) and refused new purchases (foreign partners and operators) of the MiG-29s ... as a rule in favor of the Su-27 or other fighters of the world.
                      Only a complete redesign of the airframe and engines of the MiG-29K \ KUB, MiG-29M2 and MiG-35, a new avionics, returned interest in this extraordinary machine.

                      So, of course, they saved on fuel - 25 percent, but on the rest they lost more.
                      1. Herman 4223
                        Herman 4223 23 May 2021 16: 19
                        -1
                        "In no case .
                        If they have the same fuel efficiency (specific fuel consumption per kilogram of engine weight) "What is this what ?
                        There is a specific fuel consumption. A kilogram per thrust unit. At the moment of -29, it is 0; at the su-77, it is 27. Yes, drying is better, but quite a bit, but the difference in traction is one and a half times different.
                      2. bayard
                        bayard 23 May 2021 16: 40
                        0
                        Under the same conditions, the fuel economy is 33%.
                        The difference in fuel efficiency is 2,5 - 3%.
                        Slightly worse aerodynamics due to bottom drag (non-optimal nacelle placement) - 5%.
                        Subtract.
                        We get a total fuel economy of about 25%.
                        This is also a lot.
                        But that 25% of the fuel savings was gobbled up by the higher cost of ownership.
                        Well, minus for minus. And for carelessness.
                      3. Herman 4223
                        Herman 4223 23 May 2021 17: 27
                        0
                        If I'm not mistaken, there seems to be a way to see who gave you a minus or plus on this site.
                        I'm even afraid to ask where you got all this interest.
                        Here I can count for you, for example.
                        0,77 (specific fuel consumption) × 5000 (thrust RD-33) = 3850 (fuel consumption per hour in kilograms). Now the same for al-31: 0,75 × 7500 = 5625.
                        The rest can affect the acceleration and speed characteristics of the aircraft, but hardly on fuel consumption.
                      4. Herman 4223
                        Herman 4223 23 May 2021 17: 34
                        0
                        We consider further:
                        5625 ÷ 3850 = 1,46103 ...
                        The mig-29 engine consumes 46% less fuel.
                      5. bayard
                        bayard 23 May 2021 18: 05
                        +1
                        We just counted from different points. With a ratio of 2/3 (thrust and fuel consumption for both aircraft), from the side of the MiG-29 (as you thought), the Su-27 consumes one and a half times more fuel - that is, by 46%, and looking from the side of the Su-27, the MiG -29 spends fuel less by a third, that is, the same 33%.
                        It's like calculating VAT - from the sales amount, or the original amount.
                        In the end, a few percent did not really play any role, it was just that the MiG-29 was originally created as a fighter with a limited resource.
                        Plus a dense line-up complicating maintenance (labor intensity, man-hours). But this is all on the first models.
                        With an acceptable cost / labor intensity of servicing the new MiG-29 and MiG-35, lower fuel consumption already plays a role in the choice. And as a result, the MiG-29M2 began to be bought again. and on the MiG-35 there are also those who wish.
  • Captain Pushkin
    Captain Pushkin 22 May 2021 19: 35
    +1
    Quote: OgnennyiKotik
    The decision to make the MiG-29 twin-engine was wrong. It has no advantages over the Su-27, including in terms of price.

    I do not argue that a single-engine one will still have to be developed. But the MiG-29 is definitely cheaper to operate than the Su-27 - less weight, less fuel consumption per hour.
  • Revolver
    Revolver 22 May 2021 21: 14
    +2
    Quote: OgnennyiKotik
    "I should be in his place!"
    In fact, if you use the avionics and put at least the same engine from the MiG-29, and even more from the Su-27, with the OVT, then the MiG-21, and even more so 23, would look no worse. It would be something like 3 ++ or even a stretch of 4. Gliders are quite suitable for their capabilities. Of course, not now, when they were all cut, and those who had not yet been cut, they flew out the entire resource.
  • Guru
    Guru 22 May 2021 22: 08
    0
    OgnennyiKotik
    "I should be in his place!"
    The decision to make the MiG-29 twin-engine was wrong. It has no advantages over the Su-27, including in terms of price. Whereas the need for light single-engine fighters is not diminishing. Including with us. The argument that there was no suitable engine does not hold water.
    And why did the Yak-130 not please you?
  • VO3A
    VO3A 22 May 2021 22: 53
    +1
    And what side is MIG here? The Sukhoi firm had a single-engine aircraft with Al-31 ready, as a further development of the Su-17M4 ... No problems, but the collapse of the USSR suspended everything ... And the code was C-54/55/56 ...
    http://www.foxbat.ru/article/s54/s54_1.htm
  • alexmach
    alexmach 23 May 2021 00: 00
    -1
    Whereas the need for light single-engine fighters is not diminishing. Including with us

    and in what way does Russia need such aircraft?
  • DMi
    DMi 23 May 2021 12: 28
    0
    The USSR did MiG 29 for itself, and for its understanding of the tactics and economics of the Air Force. It is rather strange to criticize these decisions while in a completely different country and dimension.
  • knn54
    knn54 22 May 2021 16: 24
    +6
    And where would the JF-17 be without the MiG-21?
    1. Herman 4223
      Herman 4223 22 May 2021 17: 34
      +3
      Nowhere, this is its deep modernization.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 22 May 2021 19: 37
        +2
        The engine there is from the MiG 29 ...... but you are right, it is the wing (its shape) that is more optimal and the MiG21 and MiG 23 ......
        1. Herman 4223
          Herman 4223 22 May 2021 19: 54
          0
          This is a deep modernization of the Chinese version of the mig-21. The air intake was removed from the bow and a fairing and a more powerful radar were placed there. The engine from the mig-29 went well there.
        2. Herman 4223
          Herman 4223 22 May 2021 19: 56
          0
          The wing of the Chinese MiG-21 (J-7) of the later series looked the same as the J-17.
          1. donavi49
            donavi49 23 May 2021 08: 34
            +5
            Not. In general, it is more of an aircraft in the MiG-21 concept - cheap, massive, hardy, with an addition of F-16 (multifunctional, cool electronics).

            1. Herman 4223
              Herman 4223 23 May 2021 09: 27
              0
              Pictured above is a later version of the J-17 with root beads. This aircraft was originally named Super 7. And it was a deep modernization of the Seven.
              http://skyships.ru/?page_id=12675
  • Vladimir podryatov
    Vladimir podryatov 22 May 2021 17: 13
    +3
    This is a Chinese clone-symbiosis of MIG-21 and SU-22. With sufficient electronics, it will be a serious argument even for the Mirage-2000 or SAAB, F-18, F-15 and A-10.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 22 May 2021 17: 19
      +3
      We need a turbojet engine of the next generation instead of the RD-93. In the West it is, we do not have it. With him, the MiG35 would fly more cheerful.
      1. Herman 4223
        Herman 4223 22 May 2021 20: 05
        +2
        Here I agree. A new generation of engines are now being prepared for the series. One for the Su-57 and the other for the F-35 in the USA have a variable bypass ratio or a third contour as described in the USA. It can develop more thrust or be more fuel efficient in flight.
        After all, when the degree of bypass is less, then the thrust is greater, but the engine also eats more fuel, when, on the contrary, less fuel is absorbed, the engine is more economical, but the thrust also becomes less.
        This is regulated in new engines.
        1. dauria
          dauria 23 May 2021 10: 01
          +3
          After all, when the degree of bypass is less, then the thrust is greater


          A bit wrong. Thrust is the momentum of mass multiplied by the gas velocity minus the airspeed. With a smaller bypass, the gas outflow rate is higher. And the thrust is important not static, but its "remainder" of the flight speed. After all, it falls at a speed according to the law, the speed of gases minus the speed of the aircraft down to zero. If you want to fly faster - be so kind as to throw the jet back faster than you fly (the difference will go to resistance)

          The thrust can be increased by increasing either the mass or the speed of the gases. More profitable mass (Less energy consumption for this because of Em Ve square in half). This is done with a large bypass. But then you will not reach high speed - there will be no traction. Therefore, they spin with the "third" contour.
  • Cat Alexandrovich
    Cat Alexandrovich 22 May 2021 17: 30
    -2
    "We are happy and excited!" What a gentle and impressionable African military!
  • Artemion3
    Artemion3 22 May 2021 17: 38
    0
    The twin-engine scheme radically increases survivability in the event of failure of one, F-18 in the Gulf War, an example of this.
  • CommanderDIVA
    CommanderDIVA 22 May 2021 17: 55
    +4
    Nigeria is at least one of the strongest African economies, but it is not a critical market for fighting competitors for the spread of light MFIs, especially now there is a trend for relatively cheap single-engine MFIs, we simply do not have anything to offer developing countries, our primary clients in Africa are Algeria and Egypt, possibly pro-Khavtar Libya
  • Ratmir_Ryazan
    Ratmir_Ryazan 22 May 2021 17: 58
    -1
    Maybe we can also make the MiG-35 in a version with one engine?
    1. Piramidon
      Piramidon 22 May 2021 18: 45
      +3
      It will no longer be a MiG-35
    2. Ratmir_Ryazan
      Ratmir_Ryazan 22 May 2021 19: 00
      +1
      Sukhoi had a project S-54/55/56, everything is the same as on the Su-30/35, and the radar and weapons intervened, even the range did not suffer, since even though the plane took less fuel due to its size, but one engine ate less of him.

      Only reliability suffers, since there is only one engine, maneuverability and bomb load.

      But for certain purposes and countries, to whom even the MiG-29/35 is expensive and redundant, a single-engine version with a converted MiG-35 airframe could be suitable.

      Although of course a controversial option, I agree that reliability is very important, as is the life of the pilot.

      On the other hand, it is better to have a single-engine modern fighter than to have nothing.

      And while we are thinking, the United States and Pakistan are making money on the sale of single-engine fighters, and Pakistani planes fly on MiG-29 engines.

      Do we, that the MiG have a lot of money, do not want to earn at all?

      I would try and make a single engine option.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 22 May 2021 19: 39
        +2
        China has the J10, which is the newest single-engine 4th generation. In addition, with Al31 ...... now you can already imagine the "bells and whistles" in the form of Afar and Al41 ....
      2. IL-18
        IL-18 22 May 2021 22: 08
        0
        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
        single-engine version with a converted glider MiG-35

        It will already be the MiG-37 or whatever will be appropriated there, i.e. a completely new plane.
  • zootechnik 22
    zootechnik 22 22 May 2021 18: 46
    0
    those who can talk about it, wrote and signed ..)) therefore the opinions that are expressed are ... oooochen respected ..)))
  • AC130 Ganship
    AC130 Ganship 22 May 2021 18: 50
    +2
    Well, let's say a niche has appeared on the market to sell inexpensive single-engine fighters to poor countries. For the Russian Air Force, apparently, they have no place in the military doctrine. Then the question is: can bureaus Su or Mig create an inexpensive aircraft from scratch now? Not sure. Especially Su, who in the last 15-20 years has learned to master the state budget well in full. And then point fingers at the guilty, why the plane turned out the way it turned out ...
    1. Ratmir_Ryazan
      Ratmir_Ryazan 22 May 2021 19: 11
      +1
      Why from scratch? Sukhoi has a project S-54/55/56

      And the MiG could do the same.

      All you need to change is the airframe, and the radar, engines and most of everything else should be the same as for twin-engine base aircraft.

      A sort of economy class in fighters.

      Well, the MiG-21 was flown for 60 years almost and nothing. Yes, everyone wants a Mercedes (F-35, F-15, Raphael, Eurofighter, Su-30/35), but when there is no money for a Mercedes and its service, it is better to have a Grant (single-engine fighter) than to walk.
  • Al_lexx
    Al_lexx 22 May 2021 21: 27
    +1
    What's interesting to me here is that there are a bunch of clones and modifications of Russian combat aircraft and more. There are not so many American ones (there are practically no columns, except for the Chinese who draw pictures). Especially European ones. I mean exactly clones and self-made modifications.
    What does this mean? IMHO, that our "Kalash", brilliant, in their simplicity and efficiency of the design. Roughly like the same T-34 and PPSh-41, which are still in service in some places and even fight. Which, even if they do not wash, but they take it by skating. With which you can arm the entire people. In other words, it is our weapon, this is the weapon of the people.
    Yes, in our time, it is more likely for the underdeveloped, for whom nothing but our old technological groundwork is suitable. There are rare exceptions, like FN-FAL for Latinos and other drug barons. But nevertheless, this is an indicator.
    NATO-vskie standards, IMHO, it was more likely to drink a bobble (which we never dreamed of), which counter-geeks fight.
    Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I see it. I have a bunch of friends who have gone through a lot of hot (the same and vangers) and are still there. None of them said they would like to rearm with NATO weapons. And not at all because it does not have the opportunity. Well ... maybe a pistol to get a hit, nothing more.))
  • Synoid
    Synoid 23 May 2021 05: 48
    -2
    Quote: donavi49
    And how many planes have crashed due to engine failure? Mostly they fall for other reasons. This is good in the Union, but the modern market dictates different requirements, which makes twin-engine LMFIs feel bad.

    The best performance characteristics are certainly good, especially when the customer plans not to use them. wassat Well, let's take Nigeria. What was in the original article, but what is not in this reprint:
    At a ceremony on May 20, it was announced that the JF-17 aircraft received by Nigeria were equipped with an outboard container target designation system Aselpod manufactured by the Turkish company Aselsan.


    That is, it is an economical and capacious bomb platform that can bomb Boko Haram in the northern states day and night.

    Buyers of any F-16 also do not plan to use LTH too much. They also rely in the LMFI on multifunctionality (to bob everyone) and the presence of a powerful radar (in the latest versions of AFAR) and 4-6 AIM-120 missiles - which must be thrown back with a margin on the identified contacts and turned away when leaving the battle. Let there MiGi / Su - supermaneuver as much as they like.

    A similar tactic was already in place - they put in the missiles, removed the cannon. Why a gun if we shoot down everyone with missiles - there will be no close combat, the managers and generals of the United States assured them. And then they met with Soviet fighters and phantoms flared up.
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 23 May 2021 08: 31
      +4
      Only you have forgotten that at that time the cannons were also removed from the MiG-21 and the Su-15 without cannons was accepted as a little Su-9 without cannons. And they fought with the MiG-17-19, which used various tricks and tactics to impose the BVB. For there were no opportunities to conduct a missile battle.

      Also, a new technology always at the first mass application usually shows potential, but also critical jambs. How many BVB were in the wars of the 80s? Including the confrontation with the MiGami-29? They brought the new technology, came up with new missiles that do not need to be fine-tuned to the target, honed tactics.
      1. dauria
        dauria 23 May 2021 14: 39
        +1
        How many BVB were in the wars of the 80s?


        Most of them are "close" fights. Only not with a cannon, but with missiles. Even the Harriers against Skyhawks and Israeli-built Mirages in the Falklands. And the Jews against the Syrians, "Sparrow" rarely allowed, "Sidewinder" in the main. The average is much smaller, and the Americans even "scored" on the distant ones for a while after the "Phoenix". They decided that they would not need it for a bunch of reasons - and the identification needed was guaranteed, and the effectiveness was low.
        Now, yes, with the advent of non-semi-active averages with illumination, but "let-and-forget" will probably be equally divided
        middle and close.