Development of a light single-engine tactical fighter started in Russia

241

Russia is developing the first single-engine light tactical fighter. The work is carried out by the company "Sukhoi" on its own initiative, without attracting budget funds.

It is reported that the first Russian single-engine tactical fighter will have supersonic speed and low radar signature. The takeoff weight of the fighter will not exceed 18 tons, the speed - over Mach 2. One engine with a deflected thrust vector will give the aircraft super-maneuverability. It is planned that the thrust-to-weight ratio of the aircraft will be at least 1.



According to the source, whose words are quoted TASS, the aircraft will also have improved take-off and landing characteristics. He did not give other details of the development.

Last spring, the United Aircraft Corporation announced work on a promising aviation platform. It was about the LMFS - a light multipurpose front-line aircraft, which in the future should replace the Su-25 attack aircraft. The development, again on an initiative basis, is being carried out by RSK MiG.

At the end of 2020, Rostec confirmed the development of a promising single-engine aircraft in the light and middle class, but they did not provide details, other than that it would be a universal platform.
    Our news channels

    Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

    241 comment
    Information
    Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
    1. +5
      26 May 2021
      18tn normal is already a lot for a light fighter with one SU.
      1. +11
        26 May 2021
        For a car on one engine from heavy drying, the empty weight will just be 8.5-10 tons, and the maximum (it says "will not exceed") is just 2 times more.
        1. +2
          26 May 2021
          from what ceiling is it taken? Takeoff weight is written. More often than not, the characteristics are about the normal, and not about the maximum. Normal takeoff weight is called flight weight. And the maximum takeoff is already the limit at which the plane taking into account all payload can take to the air.
          1. 0
            26 May 2021
            Read the article
            The takeoff weight of the fighter will not exceed 18 tons
            1. +10
              26 May 2021
              Read the article
              The takeoff weight of the fighter will not exceed 18 tons

              read a reference book, such as a military aviation glossary of terms. Why argue with your speculations if there are clear definitions?
              1. -4
                26 May 2021
                Why are you writing this to me? Ask the author why he uses such words and not the accepted terminology.

                What is a normal take-off weight, let's say for the Su-27 it is the weight with a standard refueling (EMNIP 5400 kg) and suspended weapons from 2 R-27 and 2 R-73. Obviously, with max. takeoff weight is very weak.

                In the tables, however, there is always empty weight, normal takeoff weight and maximum takeoff weight. The latter, as a rule, is somewhere in 2-2.5 times, more than empty. And 18 tons of maximum speed for the analogue of the Chinese J-10 is just the expected value.

                The question here can only be in the concept of normal take-off weight, because it is in the tables, but I have not come across its definition, I assume that this is the weight of the flight configuration for which the tabular values ​​of max. speed, ceiling, range, and the coefficient of resource consumption is taken equal to 1.
                1. +5
                  26 May 2021
                  Why are you writing this to me? Ask the author why he uses such words and not the accepted terminology.

                  what does the author have to do with it? It was not the author who wrote to me, but you. I answered you.
                  The question here can only be in the concept of normal take-off weight, because it is in the tables, but I have not come across its definition,

                  the answer is in the Aviation Regulations (airworthiness standards).
                  1. +4
                    26 May 2021
                    <Censored Cut>, the article reads:

                    The takeoff weight of the fighter will not exceed 18 tons


                    "Will not exceed" can only be interpreted as the maximum takeoff, but not as "normal", which is always much less than the maximum.
                    1. 0
                      26 May 2021
                      <Cut by censorship>, I answered below to a friend, so I'll just copy my own answer from ICAO:
                      Aircraft take-off weight (TOW): Weight at take-off at the airport of departure. It is equal to the landing weight at the destination plus fuel for the flight (the amount of fuel required for the flight) or the weight without fuel plus take-off fuel (the required fuel supply when the brakes are released during takeoff, including the safety stock)

                      with regard to the maximum take-off weight (constructional) it says:
                      Maximum structure take-off weight (MTOW): The take-off weight (TOW) must never exceed the maximum structure take-off weight (MTOW) determined according to structural strength in flight, landing gear and vertical landing impact criteria.

                      that is, read my comment on the maximum takeoff weight above. And if the ICAO terminology is not enough for you, then I really don't know what will break your stubbornness out of the blue. I am writing you data from reference books, and you answer me with "concepts." Can we end the dispute not on the merits? request
                      1. +5
                        26 May 2021
                        Once again, show me in the article where it says about normal takeoff weight. "Will not exceed" means "maximum". Because it cannot mean anything else.

                        And over "definitions" I can only neigh, because for a combat or amphibious aircraft, the change in weight in flight occurs not only due to the development of fuel, but also the release of the ASP, or cargo.

                        As for the maximum weight, you will not believe it, but in the traffic rules, in relation to the maximum mass of the car, the same is written. "Mass with cargo and passengers, set by the manufacturer as the maximum permissible".

                        So thanks Cap, we wouldn't have guessed it ourselves.
                        1. 0
                          26 May 2021
                          in short, I look from your side, the schoolboy trolling went in half with arguments of the "so it seems to me" format.
                          And over "definitions" I can only neigh because for a combat or landing aircraft, the change in weight in flight occurs not only due to the development of fuel, but also due to the release of the ASP, or cargo.

                          well, tear it up, tear it up. Considering that the term "takeoff weight" comes with the addition of "starting", your whinny looks just silly. Are you going to drop cargo during takeoff? This is definitely "hilarious" laughing fool
                          but about the definitions, I'm interested in WHAT you yourself are guided by. Aviation rules are not an argument to you. You don't give a damn about the flight manual. What, dear man, is that rich? A specific example, give the link. Preferably a reference book, not a summary of your alternative world
                        2. +1
                          26 May 2021
                          Considering that you did not even read what was written in the article and began to carry some kind of nonsense about normal and other weights, about which not a word was said, but it was clear that we were talking about the maximum, then only troll and remains. Moreover, ICAO refers to civil aviation in general.
                        3. 0
                          26 May 2021
                          I ask you again: WHAT are you guided by in their statements ?! Do you not understand the question or do you master the text poorly in Russian? What regulatory documents ?! Don't blabble out of your head here. "What is my nonsense" is described in a specific reference book. Do you have a claim to Aviation Regulations and RLE? Well, indicate the specific documents and rules according to which aircraft fly in your universe. Compare, discuss
                          Moreover, ICAO refers to civil aviation in general.

                          and what, in your alternative world, the flights of civil ships are subject to other physical laws? laughing
                          finish writing already. The further you write, the more meaningless content you get. hi
                        4. -1
                          26 May 2021
                          Don't you understand the words "will not exceed"? Are you definitely from Russia?
                        5. -2
                          26 May 2021
                          He is a troll and a troll in Russia.
                          ICAO is not at all a topic here.
                        6. +2
                          27 May 2021
                          He is a troll and a troll in Russia.

                          he is in Africa. This has a direct bearing on you
                          ICAO is not at all a topic here.

                          Another sofa ehsperd got out, which considers aviation rules a piece of paper, and his opinions - an axiom.
                        7. +1
                          27 May 2021
                          what have I got to do with it? I ask you for the third time - what were you guided by in their statements on the determination of comparative characteristics of the aircraft? If you cannot give a link to a specific source (unlike me), then you get your "knowledge" from your sofa ideas about flying. So what is all boron cheese for? One illiterate wrote an article with mistakes, the second illiterate argues to the best of it. Are you trying to squeeze a specialist out of yourself? Well, just crap disgraced
                        8. +1
                          27 May 2021
                          Do you like it or what? There is a common terminology that is prescribed even in technical documentation. And even in the design specifications it is written: ".... the takeoff starting weight should not exceed so many tons ... What are you doing here as a clown a booth? The maximum takeoff weight in relation to aircraft is used exclusively as a limitation. Read before climbing with your own "expert" opinion for 100500 comments
          2. +3
            26 May 2021
            Well, so the takeoff weight is the maximum. Full refueling and non-refueling.
            1. +2
              26 May 2021
              What nonsense. Takeoff weight is generally calculated for each takeoff. In this case, the total weight of the fuel in the tanks and the weight of the cargo are considered. Both are different in each case. With the calculation of the takeoff weight, the takeoff mode is selected. This is not an average parameter for you.
              And here is how the normal take-off weight acts as a characteristic of the aircraft. What is it - I wrote above. Read
              1. +3
                26 May 2021
                If I understood you correctly, then an airplane (helicopter) is sent on a combat mission with a minimum of fuel, only for takeoff and landing and with a minimum b / c, just so that something hangs under the planes? Elementary logic suggests otherwise.
                1. 0
                  26 May 2021
                  No, they hang up as much as the task requires, refueling for some machines may not be complete, for example, the Su-27 for a short training flight will be refueled only for a standard refueling. Excess weight reduces performance characteristics and increases airframe wear. There are more than 6 air-to-air missiles, they are rarely suspended.
                  1. +1
                    26 May 2021
                    If for training. And if into battle? In battle, there is no extra fuel and extra b / c. It happens either very little, or just a little.
                    1. +4
                      26 May 2021
                      Quote: TermNachTER
                      And if into battle?

                      It all depends on the task at hand, then what does not need to be suspended will not be. For the BVB PB, they are superfluous, like any means for working on the NC. Excess weight in the BMVB is a guarantee of losing. Well, this is me for an example. The calculation of the order of forces and means is carried out before the fulfillment (for the fulfillment) of the combat mission.
                      1. +2
                        26 May 2021
                        The fuel reserve has not bothered anyone yet. Similarly, to throw 2 tons on the head of the enemy or four? A combat aircraft does not have an extra load, any kilogram will come in handy. In aerial combat, is it better to have four missiles or six?
                    2. +2
                      26 May 2021
                      It happens, because the weight of this excess fuel, or BC can be measured in tons. Plus, the ASP on the suspension gives resistance. In the history of the MiG-21, there was a modification that turned out to be stupidly overweight due to the increased fuel supply, and had to be rolled back.

                      And in the years of WWII, the ammunition was sometimes charged by 1-2 clicks on the trigger, because more often you need to shoot extremely rarely, and the duration of the firing does not exceed 2-3 seconds, while the difference in weight of a couple of hundred kilograms mattered.
                2. +1
                  26 May 2021
                  no, not right. I repeat once again: an airplane (helicopter) is sent on a flight with a load according to the flight task. Before departure, the navigator calculates the takeoff takeoff weight and selects the takeoff mode. There are both available takeoff power and max. evolutionary takeoff speed and minimum take-off speed, etc.
                  In civil aviation, there is a concept of take-off weight. It is the weight of the aircraft taking off at the airport of departure. It is equal to the landing weight at the destination plus the flight fuel (the amount of fuel required for the flight) or the weight without fuel plus the take-off fuel (the required fuel supply when the brakes are released during takeoff, including the safety stock).
      2. +3
        26 May 2021
        Sukhoi and MiG decided to throw up planes? Attack aircraft to light fighter?
        1. 0
          26 May 2021
          Sukhoi finishes Su57 ... and he needs to do something new for the future ...
          1. +1
            26 May 2021
            Su-57M will do, or Su-57A, that's how they decide to designate modifications.
            1. +2
              26 May 2021
              Modernization and production support is one department ... development of a new one is another.
        2. 0
          26 May 2021
          this is one corporation.
        3. 0
          26 May 2021
          You have a short memory. There was such an aircraft Su-17M4 and there was a project of a new aircraft without variable sweep with one Al-31 engine. There have been developments for a long time ...
          1. +3
            26 May 2021
            Quote: VO3A
            There have been developments for a long time ...

      3. 0
        26 May 2021
        Quote: Ka-52
        18tn normal is already a lot for a light fighter with one SU.

        It all depends on the engine, i.e. product 30, which is most likely to be installed on the LMFI. In this case, the thrust-to-weight ratio should be (slightly) more than one at the maximum take-off weight. Everything is logical.
        1. +2
          26 May 2021
          It all depends on the engine, i.e. product 30, which is likely to be installed on the LMFI

          not everything depends on the engine. Rather, the thrust-to-weight ratio is calculated according to the aggregate characteristics of the engine thrust, aircraft mass (take-off weight): Rdv / Gtakeoff.
          In this case, the thrust-to-weight ratio should be (slightly) more than one at the maximum take-off weight.

          the thrust-to-weight ratio is not calculated based on the maximum take-off weight. I wrote above. This is the evaluation criterion of the aircraft, not its payload.
          1. +2
            26 May 2021
            Quote: Ka-52
            not everything depends on the engine.

            Yes, I wrote a little exaggerated about "everything". But, if you want to get a thrust-to-weight ratio greater than 1, then either do not exceed the weight, or increase the engine power. There is an engine, i.e. will be in the series, and they dance from him.
            1. +1
              26 May 2021
              But, if you want to get a thrust-to-weight ratio of more than 1, then either do not exceed the weight, or increase the engine power

              this is if we operate with the thrust-to-weight ratio without understanding its relationship with other flight characteristics. In aerodynamics, wing loading, span loading, aerodynamic quality, etc. are equally important characteristics. There are examples when aircraft with a lower thrust-to-weight ratio have better flight characteristics than their high-thrust counterparts.
              1. +1
                26 May 2021
                Quote: Ka-52
                There are examples when aircraft with a lower thrust-to-weight ratio have better flight characteristics than their high-thrust counterparts.

                Did I write about "flight characteristics" in general? This is a completely different topic.

                Nobody argues that at one time the F-5 "made" the MiG-21 and MiG-23 in dog fight, although their thrust-to-weight ratio was better.
                1. -1
                  26 May 2021
                  Did I write about "flight characteristics" in general? This is a completely different topic.

                  it is not different, it is interconnected. The thrust-to-weight ratio is a design criterion. Designed to determine the flight performance of the designed aircraft. And in the draft, there are dozens of such criteria, which, in aggregate, give out specific flight capabilities: speed, maneuverability, climb rate, payload, fuel consumption, etc.
                  1. +1
                    26 May 2021
                    Quote: Ka-52
                    it is not different, it is interconnected.

                    You can connect a lot of things, but there was no question of that! Let's start with the simplest, the definition of thrust-to-weight ratio:
                    Thrust-to-weight ratio (TV) - the ratio of thrust to weight, more precisely, thrust to gravity.

                    Those. take the aircraft, put it on the tail and the engines at maximum power. It will take off - it means TV> 1, but no, it means <1. To analyze the properties of an aircraft in a complex is a slightly different topic. hi
                    1. +1
                      26 May 2021
                      To analyze the properties of an aircraft in a complex is a slightly different topic.

                      and what is the thrust-to-weight ratio for, if not for the characteristics of the aircraft as a whole? Or have you suddenly decided that with a primitive thrust-to-weight ratio alone you will make the aircraft the fastest, most maneuverable and with the largest payload? belay Well, the F-35 has more thrust-to-weight ratio than the MiG-25, and what's the point? Where and how flies a flare, and where is a penguin. Here's the thrust-to-weight ratio
                      1. +2
                        26 May 2021
                        Quote: Ka-52
                        Or have you suddenly decided that with a primitive thrust-to-weight ratio alone you will make the aircraft the fastest, most maneuverable and with the largest payload?

                        Read my posts carefully, I only talked about TV and nothing else. I did not give any characteristics of the aircraft, like the most-most ... Simply, I stated the facts.
                        And here is what I am suddenly decided - I'll keep it for myself, because in the absence of information it is simply speculative.
        2. +1
          26 May 2021
          Quote: Kurare
          Everything is logical.

          In this case, the main thing is not even this, but the fact that the developer offers development at his own expense:
          Development is underway in Russia the first single-engine light tactical fighter. The works are carried out by the company "Sukhoi" on an initiative basis, without attracting budget funds.

          In any case, the Ministry of Defense is in the win - the result will be "candy", and it will be possible to adopt it. If it does not meet the requirements of the Aerospace Forces, then it will be possible to try to push it abroad or use it as training in our army.
          I suspect that there are foreign customers for this aircraft, who will subsequently incur indirect costs to pay for this development.
          In general, we can only welcome the beginning of this development - this should be done with armored vehicles, air defense equipment, automotive and engineering equipment, intelligence and communications equipment for foreign buyers.
      4. +2
        26 May 2021
        18tn normal is already a lot

        The maximum takeoff weight for the F-35 is 31 tons. wink
        Thrust-to-weight ratio - 0,64 / 0,67 (from modification at max.weight).
        Thrust-to-weight ratio - 0,75 / 0,88 (from modification at normal weight).
        The maximum takeoff weight for the F-16 is 17 tons.
        And the thrust-to-weight ratio is 1,02.
        So draw your own conclusions. hi
        1. -1
          27 May 2021
          So draw your own conclusions. hi

          What are the conclusions, mister divanoanalyteg? The Americans have both a maximum takeoff weight and a ferry weight. It includes the weight of the pilot and full tanks + PTB and so on. But these are not performance characteristics. I understand that on the couch you were not told about it laughing
      5. +1
        27 May 2021

        Somewhere like this, a car on the same engine
    2. +12
      26 May 2021
      At the numerous requests of the workers at the VO, the UAC finally drew attention to the single-engine fighter, it will definitely be steeper than the F16, otherwise we cannot !!! good
      1. +5
        26 May 2021
        This decision makes sense, including the one dictated by the "economy of war."
        By installing one engine instead of two, we get two planes. In this case, the engines are the same or almost the same.

        And, in the event of the start of real hostilities in the format of a big war, modern high-tech aircraft engines will very quickly become scarce.
        Plus, it is worth considering the "lifetime" of a fighter / attack aircraft in battle - it will expire much faster than the resource of the engine and airframe.

        Also, let's think about the unmanned future. I absolutely do not exclude that the fighter / attack aircraft will be optionally piloted. And periodically it will go to bomb or patrol without a man on board. Accordingly, the second engine in this scenario is redundant: it increases the cost of a flight hour, does not affect safety, and in the event of a shootdown, it deprives us of the opportunity to launch a second aircraft of the same kind into battle, since the reserve engine has already been lost.

        Again, twin-engine aircraft are more important for peacetime, when it is important in most cases to save the lives of pilots and equipment.
        Well, in wartime for strike missions.

        So a single-engine aircraft has its advantages. Let's see the result.
        1. +1
          26 May 2021
          Any modern aircraft engine is high-tech and complex, it will not be possible to repair it, let alone make it "on the knee". Therefore, there must be a reserve for a quick replacement. And here simplicity of design and ease of access and maintenance are more important than the number of engines on the plane. If two engines on a MiG can be replaced in 6 hours, and one on an F - 16 in 8 hours, then why is it better?
          1. +2
            26 May 2021
            Quote: TermNachTER
            Any modern aircraft engine is high-tech and complex, it will not be possible to repair it, let alone make it "on the knee". Therefore, there must be a reserve for a quick replacement. And here simplicity of design and ease of access and maintenance are more important than the number of engines on the plane. If two engines on a MiG can be replaced in 6 hours, and one on an F - 16 in 8 hours, then why is it better?


            Now compare the life cycle of these aircraft engines.

            The Poles who operate both types of aircraft you mentioned believe that the F-16 with the newest version of its engine (132 version) is at least 12 thousand flight hours on a single engine.
            And the MiG-29 during this time will require changing at least 6 engines.

            And the stock is taken at 10% ...
            1. +5
              26 May 2021
              I work for Motor Sich, though not a designer or an engineer. There are no engines with a service life of 12 hours without overhaul. so these are mattress tales. An inexperienced pilot can ditch a new engine in the first flight and a lot of options, because of which the engine life is greatly reduced.
              1. 0
                26 May 2021
                Quote: TermNachTER
                I work for Motor Sich, though not a designer or an engineer. There are no engines with a service life of 12 hours without overhaul. so these are mattress tales. An inexperienced pilot can ditch a new engine in the first flight and a lot of options, because of which the engine life is greatly reduced.

                well yes...
                The pilot is considered a fool.
                GE with a colossal experience in the production of modern engines in the thousands a year is a fool.

                MotorSich is your FSE ...
                Foreva.
                1. +3
                  26 May 2021
                  Are mattress motors made from other materials? Are their mattresses brought from another galaxy?))) The same heat-resistant alloys, titanium and composites, where it is permissible. I can believe that mattress mats have slightly better materials, a little better technology. But if TV - 3 - 117, the first overhaul in 2 hours, then I can believe that GE in 000, "close my eyes" - 4000 hours. But 6000 is nonsense. Because, the "weakest part" of the engine is the end stages of the compressor, the combustion chamber and the turbine. There are the highest temperatures and pressures, and nothing new has yet been invented.
                  1. 0
                    26 May 2021
                    Well, let's say there may be 12k hours there, only with software restrictions on aircraft control and in ideal climatic / fuel / operating conditions. So in the end, even if they now have 12k, in a real war they can sharply drop to lower values.
                  2. +2
                    26 May 2021
                    Are mattress motors made from other materials? Are their mattress toppers brought from another galaxy?)))

                    No, they say that they have a very advanced diagnostic system that constantly evaluates the condition of the engine and thereby optimizes the time for a TO-Cap repair. That is, they plan to send the engine for repairs not according to the development of standard hours, but according to its actual state ... How they counted 12k hours there, this is already another conversation.
                    1. 0
                      26 May 2021
                      How can a diagnostic system improve the physical properties of titanium?
                      1. +1
                        26 May 2021
                        No way. But it is easy to change / extend the life cycle of an engine.
                        1. +1
                          26 May 2021
                          If not difficult, then explain. I know that such and such a titanium alloy, at such and such temperature and pressure, can work for a certain number of hours, after which the part must be changed. How does diagnostics affect? if the part has worked out its resource?
                        2. 0
                          26 May 2021
                          How does diagnostics affect? if the part has worked out its resource?

                          Well, at least it allows you to more accurately track at what temperature / pressure and how much the part has worked.

                          In addition, does the part that has worked its own have any noticeable externally changes? Can they be diagnosed well, at least by a change in the vibration level?
                        3. +2
                          26 May 2021
                          There are the so-called details of a one-time staging. For example, covering discs in a turbine. They are replaced during overhaul, regardless of their condition. Since the next repair may not last. How to diagnose a plate about 50 cm in diameter and 4 cm thick?
                      2. +2
                        26 May 2021
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        How can a diagnostic system improve the physical properties of titanium?


                        I am not an expert, if I spend 3-4 weeks looking through a lot of documents, I could say more informatively ..
                        But I know that absolutely any engine has 2 points of major wear.
                        start-up (spin-up and before entering the operating mode) and shutdown (cooling).
                        If with the help of diagnostic sensors it is possible to change these two stages so that there is no increase in excessive loads on parts and components in a short period of time (and for any unit and any material there is a golden engineering rule of "gradualness"), then the reliability of the system increases in times.

                        The same Pratt-Whitney, on their 229 modification, excluded the flight clock parameter altogether.
                        They have become irrelevant for this engine!
                        They followed the correct engineering method by the number of engine starts.
                        This is what they began to refine and lick.
                        And as a result, they made an engine with 6000 start-off cycles.
                        6000 thousand cycles. How long is the average flight there? Hour, 15? An hour and a half, two hours?
                        Yes, even non-stop from Leukenheath to Tripoli and back ...
                        At 15 o'clock.
                        This is one cycle.
                        This is how they write about it "The F100-PW-229 EEP engine increases the engine depot inspection interval from seven years to 10 years and provides up to a 30 percent cost reduction over the life of the engine. The EEP will also offer significant safety benefits. with an expected 25 percent reduction in the already low probability of in-flight shutdown. "
                        Those. they put 10 years of operation or 6000 cycles before overhaul ...
                        those. 6000 flights with a duration of 1 hour and 20 minutes is quite the same 8000 engine hours taken as a starting point.
                        Or maybe there will be 15 thousand engine hours in fact, if the average flight lasts 2,5 hours ...


                        And the engine I mentioned from GE in 132 modifications is clearly positioned by the manufacturer as having a service life of 50% longer than its competitor in the latest version ... Therefore, the figure of 12 thousand engine hours is not "fantasy" for him ...
                        1. +1
                          26 May 2021
                          Cranking the afterburner does not affect the engine runtime? Why then limit the afterburner mode? On non-combat aircraft, it is possible that GE's calculations are valid somewhere, since after reaching a given altitude, the engine operates in one mode. But in a combat aircraft, especially in a fighter, the modes change and the load on the engine changes. Measurement of the engine resource by starts and shutdowns is generally absurd. We started the engine, took off, refueling in flight. The engine has worked for 30 hours, and according to the form we have one start-off. We multiply 6 by 000 - how much do we get?))))
                        2. +2
                          26 May 2021
                          Quote: TermNachTER
                          Cranking the afterburner does not affect the engine runtime? Why then limit the afterburner mode? On non-combat aircraft, it is possible that GE's calculations are valid somewhere, since after reaching a given altitude, the engine operates in one mode. But in a combat aircraft, especially in a fighter, the modes change and the load on the engine changes. Measurement of the engine resource by starts and shutdowns is generally absurd. We started the engine, took off, refueling in flight. The engine has worked for 30 hours, and according to the form we have one start-off. We multiply 6 by 000 - how much do we get?))))


                          Yes, at least 20 thousand hours.
                          You are not a technologist, apparently, and do not understand what I wrote about ...
                          And for you this is absurd ...
                          But for me not.
                          My machines are working on the project.
                          They have a production rate of 660 hours per month. And the runs are different. From 5 to 30 thousand km per month.
                          UAZ cars run over 3 thousand km for 700 years of the contract. No major overhaul.
                          Also cornfields, Toyota, Mitsubana.
                          But why?
                          Because the motors are turned off very rarely.
                          And they do not have this very problem - launch ...
                          They always have an "engine operating mode"
                          This is so, for example.

                          I described to you the situation with the combat engines.
                          The latest modifications to the F100 from Pratt Whitney and the F110 from General Electric.
                          Which are installed on the latest modifications of the F-15 and F-16. Their engines are interchangeable by the way.
                          And also Pratt Whitney can make his engine from an earlier modification for the price of regular maintenance. And this suggests that the main thing in increasing the resource is not a replacement at all.
                        3. 0
                          26 May 2021
                          I am not a technologist or an engineer, but I have been driving cars, thank God, for more than 30 years. I know what a cold start is for an internal combustion engine, which leads to wear of the cylinder - piston group. But aviation gas turbine engines are slightly different from a gasoline engine. I see no analogies. Toyota has a diesel engine with a million people for a long time, but although the GTE works on the principle of a diesel engine, in all other respects, it does not look like it at all.
          2. -1
            26 May 2021
            If two engines on a MiG can be replaced in 6 hours, and one on an F - 16 in 8 hours, then why is it better?

            This is advertising data, don't believe political statements ...
            1. 0
              26 May 2021
              I have named figurative numbers, for example. I don't know at all how long this process takes, for both
        2. +2
          26 May 2021
          Quote: RealPilot
          Again, twin-engine aircraft are more important for peacetime, when it is important in most cases to save the lives of pilots and equipment.

          The new aircraft is manufactured within a year. The new pilot is being produced for at least 19 years. In the course of the war, the shortage will not be aircraft, but pilots. This was perfectly understood by those Soviet soldiers who experienced real wars on their own experience. That is why in the USSR, from a certain moment, two engines for fighters became a basic requirement.
          1. +2
            26 May 2021
            I fully agree with you.
          2. +2
            26 May 2021
            Quote: abc_alex
            Quote: RealPilot
            Again, twin-engine aircraft are more important for peacetime, when it is important in most cases to save the lives of pilots and equipment.

            The new aircraft is manufactured within a year. The new pilot is being produced for at least 19 years. In the course of the war, the shortage will not be aircraft, but pilots. This was perfectly understood by those Soviet soldiers who experienced real wars on their own experience. That is why in the USSR, from a certain moment, two engines for fighters became a basic requirement.


            It was like this until the end of the 70s ...
            When the cost of the aircraft began to exceed $ 50 million, and reached, as it is now, the price of $ 150 million - the concept of "pilot" is more important - it became irrelevant ...
            The cost of training a pilot is 5-10 million dollars.
            Some, in addition to the Air Force, also maintain aviation units of the National Guard for a reserve of pilots.
            1. 0
              26 May 2021
              Quote: SovAr238A
              It was like this until the end of the 70s ...
              When the cost of the aircraft began to exceed $ 50 million, and reached, as it is now, the price of $ 150 million - the concept of "pilot" is more important - it became irrelevant ...
              The cost of training a pilot is 5-10 million dollars.
              Some, in addition to the Air Force, also maintain aviation units of the National Guard for a reserve of pilots.

              Well, take $ 50 million in 100 bills, put them in a bag, put them in the pilot's seat and try to send the plane into battle like this.
              I repeat again:
              The new aircraft is manufactured within year... A new pilot is produced within 19 years least. In the course of the war, the shortage will not be aircraft, but pilots.

              Planes can be made on a conveyor belt in dozens. Identical quality. And the pilots are made individually: 18 years for production and at least 1 year for training. During the Second World War, it often happened that the pilot changed several aircraft during the war. But the plane never changed several pilots.

              When the "Hunter" is completed in the version of an unmanned fighter, your logic will become correct.
              1. +2
                26 May 2021
                Quote: abc_alex
                Quote: SovAr238A
                It was like this until the end of the 70s ...
                When the cost of the aircraft began to exceed $ 50 million, and reached, as it is now, the price of $ 150 million - the concept of "pilot" is more important - it became irrelevant ...
                The cost of training a pilot is 5-10 million dollars.
                Some, in addition to the Air Force, also maintain aviation units of the National Guard for a reserve of pilots.

                Well, take $ 50 million in 100 bills, put them in a bag, put them in the pilot's seat and try to send the plane into battle like this.
                I repeat again:
                The new aircraft is manufactured within year... A new pilot is produced within 19 years least. In the course of the war, the shortage will not be aircraft, but pilots.

                Planes can be made on a conveyor belt in dozens. Identical quality. And the pilots are made individually: 18 years for production and at least 1 year for training. During the Second World War, it often happened that the pilot changed several aircraft during the war. But the plane never changed several pilots.

                When the "Hunter" is completed in the version of an unmanned fighter, your logic will become correct.

                Stop being delusional.
                And don't confuse God's gift with scrambled eggs.
                People have sex for their own gratification, not to create pilots in aviation 18 years later.
                From an increase in the enrollment at VVAUL by 200-300 applicants per year, the market for welders and managers will not collapse.
                He will not even notice this insignificant figure.
                And the cost of creating a reserve of pilots will increase microscopically.
                If you are in the subject, you should know that the cost of operating a combat aircraft in peacetime is 3 times the price of its purchase.
                Accordingly, the cost of owning an aircraft of the Su-35S type should be approximately $ 250 million each. Excluding purchases of $ 70-90 million.
                That will total about $ 350 million.
                And the cost of a campaign to promote ideas to become a pilot and the cost of training 2.2 pilots per aircraft will be only $ 12 million, which is 30 times less than the cost of an aircraft ...
                2.2 pilot per plane.
                30 times cheaper than an airplane.
                Already here and now.
                Without any hunters.

                You cannot make planes in dozens.
                To create an industrial base capable of building dozens of aircraft, you will need to increase tenfold the number of highly professional personnel at all affiliated enterprises and collections. These are tens, if not hundreds of thousands of highly qualified people. The costs of their training and qualifications are many times higher than the cost of aircraft, pilots, and Shoigu along with the entire Russian fleet.
                This is incredible money.
                And you also need equipment of the required quality, for non-piece production ...
                That's an example.
                File revision 3 parts per month, by one person.
                Or a plan for 30 parts, for which you need either 10 highly qualified files, or a couple of ultra-expensive machines, with workers and a fitter and and servicemen.
                Serial production is not always cheaper ...
                Is the analogy clear?

                One has only to release a film like "topgan", and the number of those wishing to become a military pilot will increase tenfold. Add to this the material and moral component of support and everything will increase even more ....
                Which will greatly increase the availability of pilots.
                Once I counted from open sources, and concluded that each F-35 will have about 2.2 pilots per plane ...
                To ensure the combat effectiveness of air operations.

                It's just that our young people don't know about the level of pilots' salaries.
                And that anyone (not in Russia) can get a commercial pilot license for civil aviation very inexpensively and very quickly. Which (surprise) is also accepted by Russian airlines. And the salary of a Russian civil aviation pilot is from 300 thousand rubles. In Europe from 10 thousand euros.
                And tuition at the Lufthansa school costs only 44 thousand euros.
                And we desperately need an institution similar to the US National Guard Air Force. Where there are already civilian pilots, they are required to fly combat aircraft at the training camp.
                Where they can, once every 5 years, be taken away for hostilities for 12 months, while maintaining a job in their main, civilian work.
                1. +1
                  28 May 2021
                  Quote: SovAr238A
                  From an increase in the enrollment at VVAUL by 200-300 applicants per year, the market for welders and managers will not collapse.

                  And you will get at best 200-300 "yellowworms" for one battle. Well, it was all in the Second World War. There is no end to those who wish. But what is needed is not "take-off-landing", we need professionals. I didn't just talk about "minimum 19 years. "In real life, a combat pilot turns out well if after 25-27 years, 19 years of growing up, 5 years of school and 1-3 years for combat training.
                  And the "zheltorotiki" will simply heroically destroy planes in the first battle, thereby overstraining the industry.

                  Quote: SovAr238A
                  Accordingly, the cost of owning an aircraft of the Su-35S type should be approximately $ 250 million each. Excluding purchases of $ 70-90 million.
                  That will total about $ 350 million.

                  Here we enter a complex jungle of economics, where it would be good to begin by clarifying what you are talking about price... That is, the amount of compensation, in the conditions market pricing. It's not a cost. In the course of mass production in pre-war conditions or in war conditions, there can be no talk of market pricing, and the figures you quoted will not be relevant. Enter now the UAC non-commodity refund and you will find a sharp decline in the price of the aircraft. In the USSR, during the war, the price of T-34 tanks (which in 1940 were a real high-tech for the USSR) fell from 269 thousand rubles. up to 135 thousand, i.e. twice.

                  Quote: SovAr238A
                  And the cost of a campaign to promote ideas to become a pilot and the cost of training 2.2 pilots per aircraft will be only $ 12 million, which is 30 times less than the cost of an aircraft ...

                  It's not about the promotion of the action. The point is that pilots are not cloned or born that way. They are born in lumps of flesh weighing 3-4 kilograms, which need 18 years to grow up, basic training and education. All this time, a lot of people have been working for this, which also needs to be supported and a huge social structure is functioning, at a cost much more than $ 350 million. And the resource of 18-year-olds is finite. You will not be able to replenish it with aluminum, silicon and titanium. And planes - you can. It turns out that the cost of an 18-year-old man during the war will constantly increase, and the cost of the aircraft (and, as a consequence, the price) will constantly decrease.


                  Quote: SovAr238A
                  You cannot make planes in dozens.

                  Me not. For this, there are specialized enterprises with equipment and accessories. Which, if necessary, expand production, increasing the output multiple. Let me remind you that since 1943, during the war, the Novosibirsk aircraft plant produced "a regiment per day" - 28-30 aircraft per day. Despite the fact that back in 1941 he did not produce aircraft at all. I understand that it was a feat. But it was possible to do it in 2 years. But it is not realistic to increase the production of 28-year-olds by 30-18 times, even in theory.

                  Quote: SovAr238A
                  It's just that our young people don't know about the level of pilots' salaries.
                  And that anyone (not in Russia) can get a commercial pilot license for civil aviation very inexpensively and very quickly. Which (surprise) is also accepted by Russian airlines. And the salary of a Russian civil aviation pilot is from 300 thousand rubles. In Europe from 10 thousand euros.
                  And tuition at the Lufthansa school costs only 44 thousand euros.
                  And we desperately need an institution similar to the US National Guard Air Force. Where there are already civilian pilots, they are required to fly combat aircraft at the training camp.
                  Where they can, once every 5 years, be taken away for hostilities for 12 months, while maintaining a job in their main, civilian work.

                  You see, but at the beginning of the post they said that a pilot is cheaper than an airplane. But it turns out he needs to pay 300 thousand a month, plus maintain the structure of the national civil aviation and a special structure to maintain combat skills. :)
      2. +1
        26 May 2021
        The thrust-to-weight ratio is 1,0, which is higher than that of the Su-33 (0,84).
        Everyone is talking about export. Don't think about aircraft carriers?
        1. +3
          26 May 2021
          Su - 33 in general, a very specific machine, built in a small series. If they want to leave it on the Kuzi deck, it will require a very serious modernization of everything - engines, avionics.
          1. -1
            26 May 2021
            I am for a conceptually new aircraft.
            There is no point in upgrading the Su-33.
            And the series is small, and the condition is not very good.
            And in general, not a very good solution.
            1. +2
              26 May 2021
              I am afraid that the creation of a new heavy deck-based aircraft, such as the F - 14, is a long, complicated and expensive business. Although, I read an article by a retired mattress commander, they believe that F - 14 was written off early. In terms of a number of characteristics, the Hornet is much inferior to the Cat. Through a series of successive upgrades, it could be upgraded to the level of the modern F - 15.
              1. +2
                26 May 2021
                It makes no sense for the United States to modify old aircraft.
                Superiority with an equal opponent will not be ensured.
                Therefore, they place the F-35 on their aircraft carriers.
                And our SUVVP, by the way, will also be single-engine.
                1. +1
                  26 May 2021
                  I'm not talking about F - 14 not just written off, they have already been cut. The point is that the "cat" through successive modernizations could still be kept "in service" now. F - 35, this is still a big question. There was information that the first are already going to write off, and then they will get to the next.
                  1. +2
                    26 May 2021
                    F - 35, this is still a big question. There was information that the first are already going to write off, and then they will get to the next.

                    I understand for the F-14. smile
                    Conceptually, the future belongs to the 5th generation single engine.
                    And the shortcomings of the F-35 are not a reason to change the concept, but the aircraft.
                    1. +1
                      26 May 2021
                      Yeah, only such a replacement will again cost tens of billions))) no, I do not argue - "Lockheed" will be very happy, he still has a lot of "smart ideas" - one more expensive than the other))))
                      1. +1
                        26 May 2021
                        Yeah, only such a replacement will again cost tens of billions)))

                        Well, there is still a question: how much will the operation of an unsuccessful aircraft cost?
                        How efficient will it work as intended?
                        1. +2
                          26 May 2021
                          My personal opinion is that F - 117, F - 22, F - 35 - this is a grandiose Lockheed scam to siphon money from the budget. Hundreds of billions of dollars were thrown in, they did not participate in any real hostilities))))
                        2. 0
                          26 May 2021
                          Hundreds of billions of dollars were thrown in, they did not participate in any real hostilities))))

                          All Chinese, Japanese and many other fleets fit your definition. And thank God. hi
                          Threat F-117 bombed Serbia at least.
                        3. 0
                          26 May 2021
                          Yeah, he also bombed Panama))) I really don't know if Panama has air defense? Somehow I have not heard)))
                        4. 0
                          26 May 2021
                          I'll give you a reference to read how the F-117 was developed.
                          I will repeat myself - I am glad that the aircraft you listed were not used in a big war. It was not the aircraft's fault that there were no rivals with strong air defense.
                          Russia has a strong air defense system. Well, something in China.
                          Israel, too, put in a lot of effort and built.
                          For others, it is too expensive a pleasure.
                          https://coollib.com/b/413874-ben-rich-skunk-works-lichnyie-memuaryi-moey-rabotyi-v-lokhid/read
                        5. 0
                          26 May 2021
                          Then what is the point of these airplanes? If there is a war between the United States, Russia, China, in various variations, then they will hammer in megatons. For the rest, they are simply redundant in terms of money and other parameters. Recently I read on this site that the breakthrough of the F - 35 will be ensured by the F - 15. What is the point in "invisibility" if there are devices that 55Zh6 discovers for 300 - 400 km.?
                          He laughed for a long time, once again convinced that this was a grandiose scam.
                        6. -1
                          26 May 2021
                          Then what is the point of these airplanes?

                          The point of technological superiority such as the F-35 is to ruin the enemy in the arms race.
                          This is if you are seriously interested in such a question. wink
                          Do you know why the Israelis are very happy to buy the F-35 and, in addition, they want the F15EX so badly?
                          To solve their main task - the destruction of Iran's nuclear potential, such a combination of aircraft is needed. hi
                        7. -1
                          26 May 2021
                          Air defense of Iran is completely surmountable by machines of the 4 + generation. The geography of the Middle East (around Israel) favors aviation, and is very inconvenient for air defense. All Israel's neighbors have weak air defenses. It's just that F - 35 go ​​to the Jews "on the ball". Why not use it?
      3. -7
        26 May 2021
        Yes, it will be cooler than fu-16, and even cooler than ... (Well, think of it yourself, cooler than anything else) .. It will be the coolest, coolest, it just doesn't happen. The key word here is "will" ... Yes
        1. -5
          26 May 2021
          Yes, it will be cooler than fu-16, and even cooler than ... (Well, think of it yourself, cooler than anything else) .. It will be the coolest, coolest, it just doesn't happen. The key word here is "will" ..

          How is the weather in Haifa? Have you stopped the shelling?
      4. +2
        26 May 2021
        Quote: tralflot1832
        workers in VO

        lol
      5. -1
        26 May 2021
        Quote: tralflot1832
        At the numerous requests of the workers at the VO, the UAC finally drew attention to the single-engine fighter, it will definitely be steeper than the F16, otherwise we cannot !!! good


        Less than 40 years have passed since the appearance of the F-16 ...
        :)
        1. 0
          26 May 2021
          Quote: SovAr238A
          Less than 40 years have passed since the appearance of the F-16 ...

          More precisely, not even 30 years have passed since the Air Force made a decision to abandon single-engine combat aircraft (MiG-23, MiG-27, Su-17, etc.). smile
          1. +2
            26 May 2021
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Quote: SovAr238A
            Less than 40 years have passed since the appearance of the F-16 ...

            More precisely, not even 30 years have passed since the Air Force made a decision to abandon single-engine combat aircraft (MiG-23, MiG-27, Su-17, etc.). smile


            Not...
            The Air Force's rejection of single-engine combat aircraft occurred much earlier. in the early 70s. when they began to give assignments for the advance projects of the future Mig-29, Mig-31, Su-25, Su-27
    3. +1
      26 May 2021
      A KB Mig decommissioned?
      1. 0
        26 May 2021
        This is one office ..... and the MiG would deal with the 35m
        1. 0
          26 May 2021
          Dry, of course, is an authoritative office and the association gives its advantages, but engineers are always the same as a move of speculation.
      2. 0
        28 May 2021
        and what prevents the instant also in a proactive manner, how does it dry to develop? they should have done it yesterday when the moment 35 didn’t find buyers
        1. 0
          31 May 2021
          And I don’t know, I have to ask them. And what is lslbo?
          1. 0
            31 May 2021
            "lslbo" is now and I don't know)))
            1. 0
              31 May 2021
              Cool
        2. 0
          31 May 2021
          Yes, and Yak could probably, there is probably a question of money.
    4. +3
      26 May 2021
      A ready-made MIG-35 for these purposes (tactical fighter) is not suitable? Very heavy?
      1. +17
        26 May 2021
        The finished MiG-35 has two engines. This is the problem. Since foreign customers want 1 engine like Gripen, F-16 or JF-17. Actually, this development is funded by Sukhoi's own money now, for export interest and videoconferencing along the way. If they do not find interest, then they will kill the development in a couple of years.
        1. +2
          26 May 2021
          There is no problem ...... The MiG is there ..... and will go to the troops ... and this is a new machine. While drawing, while doing. The good news is that there is a turbojet engine, as well as the main systems.
          1. +5
            26 May 2021
            There is a MiG, but there are no customers for it. Except for videoconferencing.
            The car is expensive and in general it is already unclear what the meaning is. If you can buy the Su-30SM is quite a bit more expensive. Moreover, the difference at a distance is completely leveled by standardization, unified logistics, a training system for technical personnel and pilots. Thinking about the cost, do not forget about it.

            There is now a great demand in the world for single-engine LMFIs, where Russia has nothing to offer at all. Moderate demand for heavy and medium advanced MFIs (a la Rafale / Shershen), with ++ after 4. Again, if some thread Nigeria prescribes 1 engine in the requirements, then Russia simply has nothing to declare with, as a result, the Chinese appear and take the client for themselves ...
            1. 0
              26 May 2021
              Yes, and the MiG35 would have been .... who is to blame that it lagged behind in development from the Su35S? And Su35S becomes obsolete, after 5 years you can't sell it without AFAR
            2. -3
              26 May 2021
              Quote: donavi49
              There is now a great demand in the world for single-engine LMFIs, where Russia has nothing to offer at all

              ===
              yes, the new task of the defense industry is to "offer", that is to say, to sell
            3. 0
              26 May 2021
              Again, if some thread of Nigeria prescribes 1 engine in the requirements, then Russia simply has nothing to declare with, as a result, the Chinese appear and take the client for themselves.

              Ordering all 4 aircraft? :)
              Mixed feelings. On the one hand, export success is clear. On the other hand, was it worth bothering at all for the sake of such a number of export deliveries?
              1. +4
                26 May 2021
                Well, in general, they have 32 more options in their options.

                You can take Myanmar there 16.

                And you can go quite on a grand scale - Brazil has 36 cars.

                Thais - 12


                Well, the Indians who choose F-16/21 - yes, they cannot choose in any way, now there is still a year of dancing and dancing and you see, they will sign it.
        2. +1
          26 May 2021
          Single-engine cars are good for peacetime, relatively cheap to operate. But when the war starts - this economy can "go sideways".
          1. +3
            26 May 2021
            Quote: TermNachTER
            Single-engine cars are good for peacetime, relatively cheap to operate. But when the war starts - this economy can "go sideways".


            The most howling in the last 40 years were single-engine F-16s ...
            1. 0
              26 May 2021
              And where did they fight? In Israel, under the cover of F - 15. I won't even write about the war in the Gulf, there was such an advantage in manpower and resources that it was possible to fly in a "sopwith - dad".
              1. 0
                26 May 2021
                Quote: TermNachTER
                And where did they fight? In Israel, under the cover of F - 15. I won't even write about the war in the Gulf, there was such an advantage in manpower and resources that it was possible to fly in a "sopwith - dad".


                Yes Yes...
                Again we begin to belittle someone else's role ...
                In Israel, by the way, they flew without the F-15 ...
                Although flights without the F-15 - I would, like the Israelis, have banned it.
                For undeveloped operations without quality cover are nonsense.
                Although for you and your logic - this is normal!

                In the Gulf, you mean "such an advantage".

                Only now they shot at them and shot them down as well.
                In the same Iraq
                January 18, 1991 - shot down.
                January 19, 1991 - 2 pieces were shot down.
                January 21, 1991 - shot down.
                January 22, 1991 - shot down.
                February 17, 1991 - shot down.
                February 26, 1991 - 2 pieces were shot down.
                February 27, 1991 - 2 pieces were shot down.
                Then, in the inactive phase, 2 pieces were shot down.
                In Yugoslavia, you will again be talking about the advantage.
                But they made thousands of sorties in real combat conditions.

                And they shot down and they shot down.
                And the whole world flies, they shoot down and they are shot down.
                Jordanians, Greeks, Pakistanis, Moroccans, NATO. the same Turks ..
                All took part in these aircraft in real combat operations.
                1. +1
                  26 May 2021
                  How many combat aircraft did Iraq have and how many did the coalition have?
          2. 0
            26 May 2021
            Quote: TermNachTER
            Single-engine cars are good for peacetime, relatively cheap to operate. But when the war starts - this economy can "go sideways".

            In our war with America, all aviation, except for the strategic one, will not play any role - it will not come to this due to the short-term exchange of missile strikes. Therefore, air battles with the participation of several hundred aircraft, as it was during the Second World War, will no longer be, which means that we will not get anything "sideways" if we have long-range aircraft on alert during the threatened period.
            The cheap cost and operation will attract the attention of poor countries, and this is a serious argument for our serial producers - this is a really promising direction for our military-industrial complex.
        3. +2
          26 May 2021
          . If they do not find interest, then they will kill the development in a couple of years.


          I don't think so. This development is the future. Moreover, the company has Su-57, S-70 Okhotnik technologies on hand. This already means that the development of the 5th generation light fighter will not be from scratch. Again, you can take the Product-30 as an engine. All this will significantly speed up the development process.
      2. +2
        26 May 2021
        Quote: sledak
        A ready-made MIG-35 for these purposes (tactical fighter) is not suitable?


        No, it won't do. Too expensive for this class. In procurement, it is about 30% cheaper than the Su-30, in operation it costs the same, if not more expensive, in all key characteristics it is inferior to it. Therefore, no one needs him.
        1. -1
          26 May 2021
          Quote: OgnennyiKotik
          Quote: sledak
          A ready-made MIG-35 for these purposes (tactical fighter) is not suitable?


          No, it won't do. Too expensive for this class. In procurement, it is about 30% cheaper than the Su-30, in operation it costs the same, if not more expensive, in all key characteristics it is inferior to it. Therefore, no one needs him.





          The MiG-35 is cheaper in operation. I don't understand why everyone drives the MiG-35. An excellent plane turned out.

          The expert emphasizes that the advantage of our MiG lies in the ratio of price and quality, as well as in its tactical and technical characteristics, which are not inferior to either the French Rafale, or the American F-18, or the European Eurofighter Typhoon.

          As part of its life cycle, the MiG-35 aircraft is 30–40% cheaper to operate than its foreign counterparts. In addition, one plane will cost about 20% less than competitors.

          However, a number of countries in Southeast Asia already have in their combat strength various modifications of Russian Su-brand fighters - Su-30MK2, Su-30MKM and Su-30MK. But Litovkin assures that it will not be difficult to retrain from the Sushki or any other Soviet / Russian fighters on the MiG-35.

          https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4360558
        2. -1
          27 May 2021
          Quote: OgnennyiKotik
          In procurement, it is about 30% cheaper than the Su-30, in operation it costs the same, if not more expensive, in all key characteristics it is inferior to it. Therefore, no one needs him.


          The MiG's radar appeared earlier, as a solution.
          The MiG is more maneuverable than the Su-30. In dogfight with the F-16, the heavy Su-27/30 have no advantages - a drawdown in a bend. The MiG-35 will be at least equal or superior to the F-16.
          According to American pilots in training battles with German and Polish MiG-29s, they were on an equal footing with the F-16
          1. -1
            27 May 2021
            Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
            According to American pilots in training battles with German and Polish MiG-29s, they were on an equal footing with the F-16

            These are all words. In reality, the MiG-29 is the most downed fighter of the 4th generation, with 0 aerial victories against the 4th generation. The MiG-35 is fundamentally no better, just an upgrade of the 2010 level.
            I recommend taking a look at the video of real training dogfights. The old FA-18D, with suspended PTBs, made the MiG-29 without a chance. Moreover, Mig did not have enough fuel for 1 full battle. With the Su-30MKM it is much more difficult, in the video Hornet defeated him 3 times, but this is already a pilot's experience. In terms of capabilities, the fighters are similar.

            1. 0
              28 May 2021
              One problem, the only time when the MiG-29 was at least quantitatively comparable to the enemy, and not a crowd for one, is the battles of the Ethiopian-Eritrean war, where, suddenly, the Su-27 and the MiG-29 collided. At the same time, they only remember that the Su-27 won 3: 0, but they forget that the MiG-29 was able to shoot down any outdated Ethiopian husk no worse than the F-15, which even met with the MiG-23, not to say that often ...

              The F / A-18, due to the deck structure, has a very large wing area, which gives very high horizontal maneuverability, at the cost of speed, in real combat this may mean that the F \ A-18 simply cannot intercept the MiG-29. So it's a little silly to speculate in the limited teachings of dog fights about who will win.
            2. +1
              28 May 2021
              Quote: OgnennyiKotik
              I recommend taking a look at the video of real training dogfights


              Video does nothing for analytics:
              a few pilot opinions are some statistics
              I have flown over 500 hours on the MiG-29 and 2000 hours on the F-16 (I also flew the F-15A / C and the F-5E). The article below is an excerpt from my master's thesis in aerospace engineering.

              http://mass-destruction-weapon.blogspot.com/2014/04/29-f-16.html

              Or one more opinion - the same Polish moments but after modernization in a training battle with the F-16 block 52m +
              Colonel Harry Collins. ml. USAF, F-16 pilot:
              “MiGs are not at all the planes we met five years ago (in the summer of 2014, editor's note), on another holiday. I don’t know how, but the Poles managed to change the old Soviet radars to the new Israeli ones. They did something with the missiles. In previous games, we were able to compensate for the shortcomings of the F-16 Block 52М + in close combat, with attacks from medium and long range, due to more advanced equipment. Now this trick does not work. "Fulcrum" is back in business. about potential rivalry with the F-35. There is still nothing for him here. "

              https://3mv.ru/159282-vse-bylo-ne-kak-v-instrukcijah-piloty-ssha-o-bojah-f-16-s-polskimi-mig-29-zachem-polsha-moderniziruet-fulcrum-4-j-raz.html
              1. -1
                28 May 2021
                Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
                Video does nothing for analytics:

                This is exactly what gives rise to analytics. It is objective and fixed. The results of real battles are also statistics. So far, the MiG-29 has not shot down a single 4th generation aircraft. Generally 0. At least how to explain it, it will remain a fact.
                Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
                a few pilot opinions are some statistics

                Opinion is an opinion, it has nothing to do with statistics. A minute-by-minute decoding of these events is required for analysis. Nobody will publish them naturally.
                The words of the person who have taken the oath must be approached with extreme caution. Where is misinformation, where is value judgment, where information cannot be disassembled.
            3. 0
              28 May 2021
              Quote: OgnennyiKotik
              Su-30MKM is much more complicated, in the Hornet video


              It strongly depends on the gasket between the catapult and the steering wheel.
              http://mass-destruction-weapon.blogspot.com/2015/09/fa-18ef-super-hornet-27.html
              The superhornet is very much inferior in thrust-weight ratio.
              1. 0
                28 May 2021
                This is not a Super Hornet, in the video is an old two-seat training Hornet FA-18D with suspended PTBs, modernized in the early 90s. His opponent was the Su-30MKM with OVT and full minced meat at the time of 2007-2008.
                If the question is only in the "gasket", then I have bad news.
                1. 0
                  31 May 2021
                  Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                  This is not a Super Hornet, in the video there is an old two-seat training Hornet FA-18D with suspended PTBs



                  I know. The maneuverability of the F-18D and the Super - not in favor of the latter - is massive.
                  In the frame, I see several discrepancies with head-on courses and one run under 90 degrees - the cannon will never reach, with short-range missiles - 1 time and that's not a fact - there the angular velocity of displacement and the distance to the Su-30 are not enough for guaranteed interception, Sidewinder is in a bend may not be enough - do not forget that starting the sidewinder in a bend is not possible, you need to briefly straighten the trajectory.
                  This is where the endurance of the pilot takes place, who is harder and will last longer with an overload of 9, and not


                  Here on the screen there is a stalemate - an oncoming divergence - both would have been shot down by URBB.
                  I do not know where the pilot counted 3 when I saw three oncoming ones - when the F-18 would have been shot down by URBB and one at 90 degrees for 1-2 seconds and the oncoming divergence.
                  That is, 3 stalemates and one in question, how many times the od got under the launch of URBB - of course it is not visible.
                  By the way, I'm not minus you - we have a discussion.
                2. 0
                  1 2021 June
                  Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                  This is not a Super Hornet, in the video is an old two-seat training Hornet FA-18D with suspended PTBs, modernized in the early 90s. His opponent was the Su-30MKM with OVT and full minced meat at the time of 2007-2008.
                  If the question is only in the "gasket", then I have bad news.


                  By the way - if you also delve into the weapons, ignoring the glider and thrust
                  F-18D - armed with AIM-9X melee missiles - carrier overload maximum 7G - i.e. Far from all positions in the video, where the pilot noted the guidance on the SU-30, he could have used URBB AIM-9X missiles.
                  At the same time, the Su-30 pilot could use not even the newest super-maneuverable R-73 (the angle of capture of the seeker 120 degrees on the carrier and up to 180 degrees in flight, the carrier overload, like up to 12G).
                  The P-73, due to its shorter hull, is deployed with greater efficiency than the AIM-9X-2 Block II (here the US Navy became hostage to the well-tried sidewinder scheme).
          2. +1
            28 May 2021
            For single-engine engines, the roll rate is only higher for obvious reasons, otherwise do not write nonsense, the thrust-to-weight ratio of a heavy machine will always be higher. Maybe not much, but higher. And the heavy weights are not built for total superiority in dog-fight, but for the range, on which, among other things, the need for air defense in aircraft directly depends, which kills all the savings from a single machine at the root.
      3. +1
        26 May 2021
        In fact of the matter . It is neither light nor heavy, but somewhere in the middle. As a single one for a small country it would be quite suitable, but when there is already a heavy one (including the next generation), then you need a light one.
        1. -2
          26 May 2021
          There was hope for the market, for the modification of the Yak-130 as a light fighter ... They did not grow together and there the Italians and the Chinese surpassed.
    5. +8
      26 May 2021
      Well, since single-engine engines are popular in the world, why not bite off a piece of the pie.
    6. +2
      26 May 2021
      It would be worthwhile to contract the MIG Design Bureau for this.
      1. +2
        26 May 2021
        they themselves should have contracted this for a long time
      2. +6
        26 May 2021
        It would be worthwhile to contract the MIG Design Bureau for this.
        40 years ago
    7. -5
      26 May 2021
      The thrust-to-weight ratio, as many write, is too small. Or put an engine there, which goes to the Su-57 2 stages, or you don't need a single-engine one - we have a large country. We need powerful and heavy long-range aircraft!
      1. +1
        26 May 2021
        The thrust-to-weight ratio, as many write, is too small.

        And what is it compared to? For whom is it small?
    8. +5
      26 May 2021
      Quote: Ka-52
      18tn normal is already a lot for a light fighter with one SU.

      According to the text "Will not exceed 18 tons" and not "18 tons" And second: "Developed at the expense of the company." Therefore, we can say that let them develop, they will not like it, do not float, we will not take it.
    9. 0
      26 May 2021
      It is planned that the thrust-to-weight ratio of the aircraft will be at least 1.

      Do you already have an 18 ton engine?
      The AL-41 has a thrust of only 14 tons.
      1. +6
        26 May 2021
        Product30, write that 18.5tn
    10. +2
      26 May 2021
      5th generation single-engine fighter design concepts.
      1. 0
        26 May 2021
        Trends in the direction of tailless ... but with 1 trd, it's probably difficult to do
      2. +3
        26 May 2021
        Perhaps the air intakes will be lateral, like on the Su-57 - a worked-out scheme with integrated control elements and it is easier to implement the S contour of the air intake at the request of stealth.
        In the drawings, "concepts" - in which the location of the front control organs contradicts the principles of stealth, Amateurs drew.
        1. Eug
          +1
          26 May 2021
          Always surprised by the lack of understanding that PGO, "bucket"
          and other types of ventral air intakes are very far from stealth.
    11. +3
      26 May 2021
      in vain Migovtsy left the single-engine scheme in due time, very in vain
      1. +4
        26 May 2021
        The MIG 21 would be redesigned for a new engine and would be cheap and cheerful.
        1. 0
          26 May 2021
          The MIG 21 would be redesigned for a new engine and would be cheap and cheerful.
          ... a sensible suggestion ... it's a pity the developers don't read us on VO ... the "flying pipe" of the Su-7B is still plowing the ground regularly all over the world, why can't the 21st be taught to work on the ground ... ratsuha good
          1. +3
            26 May 2021
            It was - the MiG-27 was called. At 21, the wing will not allow flying low and at low speeds and the air intake.
            1. 0
              26 May 2021
              He was - MiG-27
              ....... well, the MiG-27 is an assault version of the MiG-23. on the way abroad it was not delivered but was noted in Afghanistan and not very well, ... the Su-7B was much more efficient and then the Su-25 arrived ... as for the 21st, increase the wing area by reducing the wing load and cram the Luke engine 41 increasing the thrust-to-weight ratio, the rest is a matter of modern technology ...
              1. +2
                26 May 2021
                .... and get Mig27
                1. 0
                  26 May 2021
                  .... and get Mig27
                  ...... no, it won't work ... the 21st is a cocked hat and it is no problem to increase the wing area, in 27 there is a change in sweep and this led 1-to an increase in dead weight in the form of mechanisms for changing sweep and systems for optimizing the pylons of planes 2 .. narrow the track of the chassis does not allow the use of unpaved airfields ... so that 21 will be finalized and there will be rules for an attack aircraft ... although in this way the Su-7B arrow can be modified so that it would fly for another hundred years
              2. 0
                26 May 2021
                India has just decommissioned the MiG-27. They fought very well in Ceylon. In Afghanistan, he fought only at the end, but was noted just fine. Don't write lies.

                Su-7B is not funny.
                1. 0
                  26 May 2021
                  In Afghanistan, he fought only at the end, but was noted just fine. Don't write lies.
                  ... so it’s not me lying, but Rutskoi .... that with regards to the Indian Air Force, they have such a vinaigrette (or Olivier) there that it’s amazing how they fly in general
                  1. 0
                    26 May 2021
                    Flying on the Su-25. Here is a specialist on the MiG-27, what the world has never seen.
                    1. -1
                      26 May 2021
                      Flying on the Su-25.
                      ....... there was a case..two times it was shot down ... evil tongues say that for the first time it was flying the Su-7 from MANPADS, and the second time it happened with navigation and flew into Iran on the Su-25
                      1. +1
                        26 May 2021
                        Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                        Flying on the Su-25.
                        ....... there was a case..two times it was shot down ... evil tongues say that for the first time it was flying the Su-7 from MANPADS, and the second time it happened with navigation and flew into Iran on the Su-25

                        He flew into Pakistan.
                        For a reason of its own. Where it was shot down.
      2. 0
        26 May 2021
        Quote: Avior
        in vain Migovtsy left the single-engine scheme in due time, very in vain

        So the Air Force in the early 90s decided to abandon single-engine vehicles.
    12. 0
      26 May 2021
      Yes, no one there seriously does anything, because there is no demand, otherwise the MiG-35 would have been riveted in one series or another for a long time, in the scale of possible needs for the next 30-40 years, it would be easier than designing a new aircraft.

      Students-trainees, go, planted, let them train. It is quite normal for the design bureau to carry out some kind of preliminary studies, which, if necessary, can be taken into circulation, but without a direct order, a prototype is unlikely to be built. Moreover, on a Russian scale, the cheapness of light fighters is imaginary, since they can be effectively used only in the European part of the country, they need more airfields, more pilots, which, by the way, are in short supply, and more service personnel, more tankers. And if a war happens, it will be more difficult for them to organize their work.
      1. 0
        26 May 2021
        Angry lion. The point is, even if it's just a study, it's already good. The main thing is that there would be no stagnation. And there was coordination and control. That the money would go to product development and not to scammers.
      2. +1
        26 May 2021
        Yes, no one there seriously does anything, because there is no demand, otherwise the MiG-35 would have been riveted in one series or another for a long time, in the scale of possible needs for the next 30-40 years, it would be easier than designing a new aircraft.


        You were holding a candle, that you are so sure that no one is doing anything? The MiG-35 is just completing state tests, after which they will begin to rivet it. And it's not that it's harder or easier. We must keep up with the times and change generations of fighters to new ones. On the Su-57, many technologies were tested, which will form the basis for the creation of a 5th generation light fighter. It took a lot of time to master new technologies. Composites, engine, AFAR and more.
        1. 0
          26 May 2021
          The MiG-35 has one big advantage - it is a modification of the well-mastered MiG-29, which in the form of the MiG-29M / M2, as well as the deck ships, has some success in the foreign market.

          And a new plane, even if assembled from everything ready, will have to be tested for a very long time.

          The second obvious problem, which for some reason they don't think about, is that a full-fledged stealth aircraft should have internal placement of weapons, and as large a percentage of fuel as possible in order to take PTBs as rarely as possible. And all this can be fully realized in a car with an empty weight of 18-20 tons. Maybe a little smaller, but the dimensions of the F-22 and Su-57 are not taken from the ceiling. The lighter F-35 already has problems in this regard, although it currently has the most advanced engine in the world. The Chinese generally managed to do this very sparsely, making a short compartment on the J-20 into which only small air-to-air missiles fit. And where to put weapons on the plane with an empty weight of 9-10 tons, and even if it fits, what kind of weapons it will be is a big mystery. Placing even a KAB-250 may not be possible, or only it will fit. A highly specialized aircraft with a capacity of 4 air-to-air missiles, our Defense Ministry will definitely not take
          1. +1
            26 May 2021
            .A new aircraft, even if assembled from everything ready, will have to be tested for a very long time.


            So what? We are in a hurry somewhere? The European fighter of the new generation (5 or 6) is going to be put into service by the mid-30s.
            With regards to the placement of weapons inside the fuselage on a lightweight fighter of the 5th generation, they can easily copy from the Su-57 one to one in-fuselage compartments for weapons. I think this is not a problem. Reshat.
            1. 0
              26 May 2021
              Now we look at the Su-57 and see that its compartments are long and located between the engines. That is, there is simply no such space for a single engine, on the F-35 in front of the engine, and only bombs that can be made pot-bellied, and air-to-air missiles climb there, it is impossible to place a long rocket of 500-700 kg there. Putting a compartment in front of the engine, as on the Su-57, will not work, since it is very long, which means the plane will be too long.

              And in general, if the Su-57 is reduced by 2 times, this does not mean that the available mass and volumes also decrease by 2 times, the same cabin will not become smaller, which means that the percentage of the payload will decrease more. And it will be more difficult to arrange its placement, since there will not be continuous large volumes, and everything will have to be somehow shoved in the corners.
              1. 0
                27 May 2021
                Probably, he can carry weapons only on an external sling, it is possible in a special "stealth container"
    13. +3
      26 May 2021
      The main systems already exist, like the Idelie30 Trunk ... the main challenge is the fuselage with the maximum% of composites ... The TrDs declare a maximum thrust of 18 tons, just.
    14. +2
      26 May 2021
      Mdaaaa ...! This will significantly reduce the chances of the MiG-35 for a "bright future"! And there are not too many of them! recourse
      1. +2
        26 May 2021
        The cycle of creating a fighter is 10-15 years .... if the MiG35 does not have time to be mass-produced during this time (if at the rate of 15 pieces per year = 150-200 pieces), then in the 2040s who will need it? British, Korean, Japanese, Franco-German counterparts (in size) will definitely fit on the wing
    15. +2
      26 May 2021
      This topic in the Sukhoi Design Bureau has been going on since the 90s of the last century. At first, C54 / 55/56 weighing up to 10 tons, now "grew" up to 18 tons (the appearance naturally changed)
      1. Eug
        0
        26 May 2021
        Also S-32 (37) - with PGO.
    16. -1
      26 May 2021
      Ett well ..... I think the MiG will work on it. They have good groundwork and good experience in working with light single-engine aircraft.
      1. +1
        26 May 2021
        What's the touch?
        They haven't done this for forty years.
        1. The comment was deleted.
      2. 0
        28 May 2021
        the most important thing in the article is dry, it does it "at its own expense", if the moment was ready to spend "its own funds" it would have been working out long ago.
    17. +4
      26 May 2021
      Russian "F-35" - congratulations!
      It's time. good drinks
      1. +1
        26 May 2021
        This is if VTOL aircraft will be made at the same base
        Which, by the way, is quite likely, there is a fundamental decision on its creation.
        1. +1
          26 May 2021
          Not only a decision of principle.
          It seems like they have even been creating it since 2018.
          For aircraft carriers - quite a theme.
      2. 0
        26 May 2021
        The Russian F-35 under the designation Su-37 (not to be confused with the Su-27M variant) was designed in the Soviet Union.
      3. +2
        26 May 2021
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Russian "F-35" - congratulations!
        It's time. good drinks


        God forbid us "Russian F-35", there are too many bad things about the F-35 in terms of reviews about the plane.
      4. 0
        26 May 2021
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Russian "F-35" - congratulations!
        With nothing. We don't need the F-35. We have the most likely enemy - the US Air Force, we need a fighter to fight the F-35.
      5. +2
        26 May 2021
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Russian "F-35" - congratulations!

        Do not let Gd step on the same rake!
    18. 0
      26 May 2021
      It looks like the concept of the MiG-29 is not relevant now.
      1. -1
        26 May 2021
        Ancient, as he believes, need "single-engine" or not? I tend to trust the experts.
      2. 0
        26 May 2021
        Rafal, Typhoon, F18 ... all promising aircraft
        1. Eug
          0
          26 May 2021
          It is in this weight niche that LMFS should be made for two non-afterburning editions. 30. They will be smaller in size than edition 30 with afterburner. And the Su-57 should be made two-seater to replace the Su-30, 34.
    19. -4
      26 May 2021
      Thank God that M. A. Poghosyan was removed from his post. Miracle plane Superjet 100 under his leadership cost dearly. 208 released in accidents SSJ-100 hit at least 25 times. SSJ-100 has not yet become commercially successful, because it was not very successful from a technical point of view. I hope that import substitution has already come and the new aircraft will be 100% Russian. Ilya Sergeevich Tarasenko has been elected General Director of CJSC Sukhoi Company since February 7, 2020.
      1. +4
        26 May 2021
        Sszh100 is the most successful project for now ..... 200pcs ...
        1. -2
          26 May 2021
          See reasons and sources.
          1. +1
            26 May 2021
            Go to the Aviaport ru ...
            https://www.aviaport.ru/conferences/12197/

            There with details from all sides and pros and cons and slander ...
            .. and so:
            1. Modern liner
            2. The most massive of the Russian
            3. His direct competitors such as the Japanese and Chinese are generally stuck at the start.
            4. The niche of the regionals is highly dependent on flights between regions. And unambiguously loses on flights Moscow-Region to aircraft such as A320 or MC21 or B737. And the Region-Region lines have just begun to develop.
            5. Childhood illnesses and Sanctions in some countries have not been canceled.
            6. The very niche of the Regionals is not the largest in% and is monopolistically occupied by Brazil and Canada.
        2. -4
          26 May 2021
          "Superjet" is 10 years old: the difficult fate of a Russian airliner. The BBC is a serious international publication. It is fully legally responsible for what is printed.
          1. 0
            28 May 2021
            air force still those small british propahandons
      2. +1
        26 May 2021
        Quote: Alex Widerkehr
        SSJ-100 so far did not become commercially successfulbecause it turned out to be not very successful from a technical point of view

        ===
        maybe so, but the pilots are praising. ) and here are passenger reviews https://www.airlines-inform.ru/aircraft-reviews/superjet-100/
        1. +2
          26 May 2021
          I flew around the country throughout the pandemic .... some SSZ and flew. For comfort, this is 1: 1 Airbus 319-320, only there are 3 + 2 seats. A cut taller and quieter in comfort than the An148.
        2. -3
          26 May 2021
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnZ0cYjv5dY .Герой России Магомед Толбоев: «В Ростехе главный сейчас – Сердюков!» . Там заслуженный лётчик России объясняет всё Если он врёт то какая цена звания герой России ? Я думаю он врать не будет .
      3. 0
        26 May 2021
        No need to lie.
    20. 0
      26 May 2021
      Finally woke up
      1. +2
        26 May 2021
        Well, they were waiting for the appearance of the "Product 30" with a thrust of 18.5 tons. With such an engine, he will make an F-16, in that case, 18 tons.
        And with an engine of 14 tons - obviously worse in performance characteristics than the F-16. Such a Sukhoi cannot afford. )
      2. +1
        26 May 2021
        Quote: dgonni
        Finally woke up


        Most likely, before that, all forces were concentrated on the creation of the Su-57.
    21. 0
      26 May 2021
      It's high time, and the more pieces, the better, all the money from SP-2 should go to the Russian defense industry.
      1. 0
        26 May 2021
        Quote: Yaro Polk
        It's high time, and the more pieces, the better, all the money from SP-2 should go to the Russian defense industry.


        Have you seen the list of Western shareholders with shares in the capital?
    22. 0
      26 May 2021
      Garbage, with one engine does not dance. Just like the loss of a car. The twin-engine has at least some chance of returning to the airfield or landing on an emergency. With one "motor", the loss of a car is unambiguous.
      Yes and no we have an engine with a thrust of 18+ tons. There will be a sick cuttlefish across the sky skerry.
      1. +3
        26 May 2021
        Grippen, for example, has a civilian safety certificate ... ... not a single twin-engine fighter has it
        1. +1
          26 May 2021
          So what? As practice shows, one washes one's own hand in terms of certification as well. It is much easier for European crafts to obtain various European and international certificates of conformity than the best Russian ones. How many people are talking about
          in the EU, Russian vaccines against covid never give them certificates of conformity.
          1. 0
            26 May 2021
            Practice shows, for example, that 4-engine vehicles gave way to two engines on intercontinental flights ... due to the fact that the reliability of the turbojet engine has become higher. And one turbojet engine is always more economical than two, with the same thrust.
      2. 0
        26 May 2021
        Garbage, with one engine does not dance. Just like the loss of a car. Twin-engine has at least some chance to return to the airfield

        do you have any statistics? you can lead.
        The speculative conclusions are a slippery thing, facts and statistics are needed.
        1. +1
          26 May 2021
          It is enough to look at sales and statistics of F16 and already F35. If the emphasis is on one model of a fighter, then the MiG1 scheme works beautifully .... if the scheme is Heavy and light, then why Medium? in the USA F29 is a deck-boat ...... RF is a great maritime power. For the AUG, it is enough to modernize the MiG18 and equip it with avionics from the Su35 ... and weapons and new turbojet engines.
          1. 0
            26 May 2021
            look at sales and statistics of F16 and already F35. If emphasis is placed on 1 fighter model, then the MiG29 scheme works great.

            did not see the connection, to be honest
        2. 0
          26 May 2021
          Quote: Avior
          do you have any statistics? you can lead.
          The USSR had statistics, very sad. Therefore, when they began to make the MiG-29, they laid down the requirements for it to be twin-engine.
          1. +2
            26 May 2021
            I didn’t hear that there were sad statistics on the MiG-21. 5% of 65 thousand lost in 11,5 years is a very reliable aircraft.
            But this clearly cannot be said about the twin-engine Su-24.
            The Su-24 is considered a rather difficult aircraft to fly and has a high accident rate. Only during flight tests 14 Su-24 and Su-24M were lost [1]. After the aircraft was put into service, 5-6 accidents and disasters occurred annually, in particular, during the period 1988-1992, 27 aircraft crashed [2]. According to the testimony of the Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the RF Air Force Viktor Kot, in 1998 the Su-24 was the most emergency aircraft in the Russian military aviation [3]

            That is why it is interesting to see the statistics - how much and how was lost on different aircraft and is there really a clear connection between the accident rate and the number of engines?
            1. 0
              26 May 2021
              Quote: Avior
              that's why it's interesting to see the statistics
              http://forum.evvaul.com/index.php?topic=248.0
              http://www.airdisaster.ru/
              1. 0
                26 May 2021
                This is interesting information, but unfortunately, these are not statistics.
                There is a need for statistics on the number of accidents, including those separately related to the failure of the engine (s), if this led to a fall.
                Then it will be possible to say, for example, in terms of flight hour, a single-jet aircraft has a higher probability of falling by so many percent.
                In the meantime, it looks like a dependence not so much on how many engines, but on a specific aircraft model
                1. Eug
                  0
                  26 May 2021
                  At one time, having the statistics of a single-engine Su-17 and a double-engine Su-24 with one type of engine (AL-21F), the Sukhoi Design Bureau rather stubbornly defended the concept of a single-engine fighter, the result was the C-32 (C-37).
                  1. -1
                    26 May 2021
                    But this is already an indicator.
    23. 0
      26 May 2021
      One question arises - why?
      1. 0
        26 May 2021
        replace the Su-25 and MiG-29 in one bottle (and maybe, unlike these two, the new fighter will carry nuclear weapons - such as the F-16) ... And in terms of commerce, a single-engine one is easier to attach abroad ...
      2. Eug
        0
        26 May 2021
        It was in the late 80s - early 90s, the question was not like that. And there was the prospect of replacing the MiG-23, 27, Su-17.
    24. 0
      26 May 2021
      Quote: Zaurbek
      Rafal, Typhoon, F18 .... all promising


      All aircraft are of the 4th generation, as well as the MiG-29. The F-18 of the latest modifications is closer to the Su-27. Two engines increase reliability and survivability, but not much, and the price rises noticeably.
    25. 0
      26 May 2021
      - Already 50 years, as they were going, finally got together ... smile
    26. -2
      26 May 2021
      - Laurels of Gripen NG do not give rest ... lol
    27. -1
      26 May 2021
      Quote: tralflot1832
      At the numerous requests of the workers at the VO, the UAC finally drew attention to the single-engine fighter, it will definitely be steeper than the F16, otherwise we cannot !!! good

      - Definitely it will be cooler than the F-16, released 47 years ago!
      First flight: 20 January 1974 laughing
    28. 0
      26 May 2021
      Quote: TermNachTER
      I am afraid that the creation of a new heavy deck-based aircraft, such as the F - 14, is a long, complicated and expensive business. Although, I read an article by a retired mattress commander, they believe that F - 14 was written off early. In terms of a number of characteristics, the Hornet is much inferior to the Cat. Through a series of successive upgrades, it could be upgraded to the level of the modern F - 15.

      - The F-14D surpassed the F-15C in its flight characteristics and combat capabilities. So that, bringing it "to the level of F-15" is absurd, and no one needs... It was just very expensive to manufacture and operate.
    29. 0
      26 May 2021
      Quote: lucul
      Yes, it will be cooler than fu-16, and even cooler than ... (Well, think of it yourself, cooler than anything else) .. It will be the coolest, coolest, it just doesn't happen. The key word here is "will" ..

      How is the weather in Haifa? Have you stopped the shelling?

      - "A cloudless sky over all Israel!" wink
    30. -1
      26 May 2021
      - There is someone to reach out for - for the great Chinese brother:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-10#Specifications_(J-10C)
      It won't be better anyway ... crying feel
    31. 0
      26 May 2021
      There will be a product 30 engine, and there will be a light single-engine fighter.
      A lot of things can be used from the SU-57.
    32. 0
      26 May 2021
      Great news for everyone but Mig, for Mig this is the final nail in the coffin of their "light" twin-engine Frankenstein.
    33. 0
      26 May 2021
      Hehe ... Of course, what is now called "front-line aviation" is completely unsuitable for war) Too small overhaul interval. Too high technology requires the production of almost any spare part. The speeds are too high. Too ... These record-breaking monsters will not stand the wars for anything.
      A lightning-fast operation, after which the entire (necessarily undamaged, not affected by the war at all) aviation industry of the state has been frantically repairing its "combat" aircraft for many years? It is so. Moreover, it is also necessary to take into account that a significant part of the components must somehow be obtained from the enemy ... In general, this aircraft is only suitable for sawing money and bashing show-offs. What a real war here ...
      So yes, we need to make planes for REAL warfare. But whether jet fighters are generally suitable for this is not yet clear. Considering the level of articles of "military science" that sometimes appear plaintively here on the site, there is a clear impression that there is simply no one to really understand the strategy and tactics of using modern weapons. The maximum is that the rabid lobbyists of the owners of military production are frantically trying to pull the owl onto the globe, spitting on elementary logic, in furious attempts to justify the utilization of these capacities. This approach, to put it mildly, is unsuitable for military use ...
    34. 0
      26 May 2021
      A question of the distant future.
      1. Will they be able to make AFAR for it. for a moment 35, which, as I understand it, is larger in size than the BEET-A fighter being developed (which was never launched into production) has a maximum detection range of 200 km (for the f-35, 300 km), but here it is more likely that it will have to decrease in size, and therefore, reduce the number of receivers that directly affect the detection range
      2. There is no engine, such a sharp increase in productivity cannot be pulled out of the AL-41, the development of a fundamentally new engine ~ 15 years (product 30 has been brought up for 10 years)

      Like I read in 2017 we signed a contract with the UAE for development.

      In any case, we need such an aircraft and we must do it.
    35. 0
      26 May 2021
      Design Bureau "Sukhoi" has no experience in designing a light single-engine fighter. The last time they dealt with this topic was in the 60s. I do not think that this experience has survived now ... In my opinion, there is a relapse of Pogosyanism - the pathological desire of the Sukhoi Design Bureau to crush the entire domestic aircraft industry. At the same time, KB MiG will be systematically and progressively killed by the "no order" method ...
      1. Eug
        +1
        26 May 2021
        The Sukhoi Design Bureau had very interesting designs S-54, S-56, S-32 (aka S-37) with PGO and the R-79M-300 engine. So, as for me, it's not worth talking about the lack of experience and best practices.
        1. -1
          28 May 2021
          Quote: Eug
          The Sukhoi Design Bureau had very interesting designs S-54, S-56, S-32 (aka S-37) with PGO and the R-79M-300 engine. So, as for me, it's not worth talking about the lack of experience and best practices.

          Wait C-37, aka Su-47, this is a "Berkut" with a forward sweep. It is never single-engine. And it certainly isn't easy. It is heavier than the Su-27.
          S-52, S-54, S-56, as I understand it, I did not go further than drawings and exhibition models. Therefore, to say that this is an experience is optimistic. Even a well-developed project with a model blown in a pipe is far from even half the battle. One question with a small-sized radar and that can put a stake in the project. Sukhoi has a cooperation designed for heavy vehicles.
          1. Eug
            +2
            28 May 2021
            At the end of the 80s, there was a project with a PGO and one RD-79M-300 engine to replace the Su-17, MiG-23,27. Mostly I met the name C-32, but the C-37 also flashed. In the discussions, there are projections in two colors. And the Berkut was a dozen years later, perhaps, they assigned the index of the aircraft that did not take place in the series. Regarding the experience and my optimism, I am sure that a lot of things are stored in the "bins" of the designers and I hope that the developments have gone much further than demonstrating large-scale models. I know for sure that when discussing the UBS project for replacing the L-39, the Sukhoi design bureau with figures for the operation of the twin-engine Su-24 and the single-engine Su-17 insisted on a single-engine aircraft, what can we say about the lack of thrust for "heavy" ones. But I do not know. The problem, as for me, is in the dimensions, weight, energy consumption of the onboard equipment. With reasonable requirements, in my opinion, success is possible.
      2. 0
        26 May 2021
        MiG single-engine was also engaged in forty years ago.
    36. +1
      26 May 2021
      The question is not the mass, but the price. If the price is more than half the price of the Su-35, then such a light fighter is not needed. If its radar is worse than that of the Su-35, then such a light fighter is not needed.
    37. The comment was deleted.
      1. +2
        26 May 2021
        Quote: Experienced_
        Although, for a single-engine fighter - there is no reliable engine now.

        Then why did they start developing for their money? Believe me, it’s one thing to cut the customer’s money, but our industry will never go for it at our own expense with an unclear perspective.
        In general, as I suppose, the aircraft has already been practically documented in the course of previous developments, from where they got everything suitable. Now they will create prototypes and test, so that the wolves are fed and the sheep are safe. Our industry played such a trick in Soviet times, we did it in other types of military equipment and weapons.
    38. 0
      26 May 2021
      smile wow, just yesterday I remembered the project of the 90s Su-37 (fighter-attack aircraft) and how you miss it! Remembered!
    39. Eug
      0
      26 May 2021
      You have to understand that the quality of the SU will be "ed.30". As for me, the integrated circuit will make it possible to "miss" the rather large diameter of the motor. Many of the developments will probably be taken from the C-56. Personally, I am very interested in the choice and type of air intake (s) - is it similar to the Su-57 or an under-fuselage "bucket" like the F-16? And yet - is the task of working from compacted soil set or not?
    40. +2
      26 May 2021
      Great news. Single-engine fighters (and attack aircraft) have proven themselves very well. And so that there is no "if one engine fails on another," you just need to do normal engines. For example, like the French. Even the crooked-handed Indians and Arabs did not lose a single Mirage due to engine failure. EMNIP F-16 losses due to engine failures were also minimal.
      A-7 (with one engine), has proven itself very well. As well as the Su-17 and Mig23 and Mig-21.
      F-2 (nee F-16 Agile Falcon), not only has excellent maneuverability, but also sickly electronic equipment and weapons.
      The lungs of the Grippens were torn apart by the Chinese Sushki during the exercises. Two engines didn't help.
      Yes, the main money on modern fighters goes to electronic equipment and electronic warfare, but the engines are also not cheap, and most importantly their SERVICE (and not only their fuel systems, too). One hour of F18 flight is much more expensive than an hour of F16 flight, while the F16V has a more powerful AFAR, a version of the AFAR with the F-22. The cost of an HOUR of flight F16 (WITH AFAR) 8500 bucks. The cost of an F18 flight hour (also with AFAR) is $ 12500. And the cost of a flight of an hour is Ф15, 23200 bucks. That is, for the same money, you can maintain a F16x fleet two to three times more than an F15x fleet.
      Yes, a twin-engine aircraft can carry more weapons on it and further. But .. is it always necessary.
      Let's say you have long duration boundaries that need to be covered. You can cover with Heavy Fighters, something like F15 or Dryers. It takes longer to prepare them for departure, Faster than F16 or Mirage 2000 or Grippen without Fast and Furious, they will not reach the offender. Fuel (also not cheap) will spend more. What do you need to cover the air borders of the border? 8000kg bombs? ILI can only 8-10 air-to-air missiles (4 AMRAAM and 6 AIM-9X, for example)? That the heavy car itself consumes more fuel than the light one is not a question. Fuel also costs money.
      REO? Well, on the F-2, the Japanese pushed the AFAR before the Americans pushed it into the F15. Now F16 fly with AFAR, as well as F15, as well as Grippens. J-10 is also single-engine, also flies with AFAR. By the way, the radar signature is lower in both F16 and Grippen and J-10 than Sushki or F15
      I don’t know if in modern combat where they start to steer “The first shot, the first won” super-maneuverability. Rockets are getting smarter and withstand more and more overloads (Unlike pilots). Maybe everything will return again in the 70s-80s when super-maneuverability became relevant.
      By the way, the postulate "If one engine is demolished, it will fly on the second" does not stand up to much criticism. The engines on the F15, on the Rafal, on the Typhoon are located close enough. And if something larger than the R-60 flies into them, then BOTH engines are guaranteed to be hit with fragments. There was a case when an R-15 flew into the engine of the Israeli F60 and the plane calmly flew to the base. BUT this does not mean ANYTHING. The R-60 has a warhead of 4.5 KG. For comparison, ASRAAM has a warhead of 10kg, and a Python has 11kg. AMRAAM, naturally, has even more. So it will smash both engines for a sweet soul. With the same success, you can put the second cockpit, saying "If one pilot kills, then the second will bring the car, and so that two are not killed at the same time, make two cockpits at the maximum distance from each other" the same principle is brought to the point of absurdity.
      I read somewhere a document that an ideal air combat fighter is something small, into which only AFAR, an engine, passive IR and electro-optical detection stations, electronic warfare equipment and installations of IR and radar interference, and 8-12 Air and Air missiles and a gun. The whole payload is 2-3 tons. ALL. And what is being done all over the world is just milking the military budget. If I find a link, I'll put it.
      1. -1
        26 May 2021
        The whole payload is 2-3 tons. ALL. And what is being done all over the world is just milking the military budget.

        Aircraft have become too expensive due to electronics, and few people can afford to have specialized ones. Everyone wants to get universal.
      2. +2
        27 May 2021
        Do you generally understand that heavy fighters have a higher mass fraction of fuel and power plant, and hence higher flight characteristics?

        It takes longer to prepare them for departure,


        There is such a thing - a link on duty.

        The whole payload is 2-3 tons. ALL


        One thing is bad, when it is close to the limit, the resource wears out faster.

        Rockets are getting smarter and withstand more and more overloads


        Only their fuel is limited and maneuvering makes the rocket lose energy faster.

        And when your engine stalls on a single-engine aircraft over some Sea of ​​Okhotsk, then you will curse the one who invented such an aircraft, because on two, even if it is dangerous to land, but at least you will reach the ground, and there you will be catapulted ...
        1. 0
          27 May 2021
          Is the performance characteristics of a twin-engine higher? Where did you get this data? Excuse me, but F16 in all parameters except the speed AT FORCE and the maximum range of action taxies in the minus and F15, and F18. Influenza on ONE engine in all LTH (except for the ammunition load) surpasses the Super Hornet on two of the same engines. And 8 tons of warheads are not always needed. Even if you fly on F15 to intercept with only 4 sidewinds, this will cost you an hour of flight, and the service time for TWO engines + all systems + REO will not change. Two engines are installed when there is no one powerful enough and economical. The French tested the Mirage 4000, remember? And they came to the conclusion that the increase in the cost and increase in the cost of service does not justify the indicators. By the way, according to LTH Mirage 2000 was not inferior to Mirage 4000.


          About "Catapult over the Sea of ​​Okhotsk". How many cases like this happened to F-2? And with the F-16? And with the Corsairs or the same Skyhawks? And with Mirages (France, for a second, sea power). What about the Harriers? And with the Crusaders? And with the Kfirs? Corsairs and Mirages 3 operated for a very, very long time. F16, by the way, too. Just look at what I wrote above - normal engines need to be done. Well, at the same time, normal computer systems that monitor the state of the engine. As in F16, as in Mitsubishi F2.


          I am not saying that heavy fighters are NOT needed. I am saying that the American heavy / light system in proportions of 1: 3 or 1: 4 works great. Well, it is not necessary to drive a Ferrari to the market for potatoes, you can also go to Fiat ... Two F16s can be sent to intercept the border violator (which is what the US Air Force is doing), not two F15s. Cheaper and easier. And they will overwhelm the border violator, if anything, just as easily. And if earlier it was possible to put a more powerful radar on a twin-engine aircraft (F15, for example) than on a single-engine one (F16, Mirage F1, Kfir, MiG-23). Then the Japanese solved this problem a long time ago, having stuffed AFAR into their F2 (nee F16 Agile Falcon).
          This F4 was made two motive so that it could carry a heavy radar. And now it is no longer relevant. Radar on F16 Viper is not inferior to Radar on F15 or F18 Super Hornet.

          Where a heavy fighter has an advantage is in the payload it can carry. But in AIRCRAFT this is not particularly relevant. F15 can carry 7200 tons of ammunition, This is 36 Meteor missiles if anything
          He can carry them off by weight. Where will you hang them? Yes, only 8 can be suspended for interception, but as I said, the fuel will still eat more than F16, the cost of an hour of flight will still be 2.5 times higher.
          And even with 8 URs, F15 will be inferior in terms of LTH (except for speed with afterburner and flight range) F16mu with the same 8 URs.

          Therefore, if you are a country with a money printing press and still accept your unsecured (except for AUG) money, then rivet yourself an F15 or SU-35 there. Well, if you do not have this, then you need to turn out.

          You can do both the Japanese and the Israelis, took both F15 and F16. It can be done like some Arab countries - realizing that you want a lot of planes, but you don't want to spend a lot of money, you bought only F16mi

          You can try to find a compromise. Create something in the middle. More F16 but less F15. France (Rafale) and the European Union (Typhoon) followed this path. Our naval units followed the same path by creating F18. All three of these aircraft are still inferior to the F15 in terms of maximum range and ammunition load. At the same time, both the Rafale and the typhoon are MORE EXPENSIVE than the F15C, and when compared with the F15D (Strike Eagle), they are even more inferior to him in terms of ammunition and range. At the same time, both Rafale and Typhoon do not have superiority over the F16Viper in the REO.

          What turns out that in terms of maneuverability, ammunition load and range of action Rafal surpasses F16.
          The cost of an operation per hour of flight is approximately the same.
          At the cost of the aircraft itself - more expensive

          In terms of range, maximum speed with afterburner and ammunition load, Rafal OUTSIDE F15
          It is superior in maneuverability.
          At the cost of the operation per hour of flight, Rafale is cheaper than F15
          At the cost of purchasing rafal is EXPENSIVE to F15S

          There are no miracles. Therefore, my personal opinion is that the maximum ammunition load can be sacrificed for the sake of cheapness and performance characteristics. 36 Meteors under F15 (or SU35) still cannot be hung - there is nowhere, despite the fact that, purely by weight, it can drag them away. And in modern combat, the main thing is to gain air superiority. And then, well, then, you can equip the same light fighter instead of 12 air-to-air missiles with 6 air-to-air missiles and 6 air-to-ground missiles ... Mavericks, for example, or HARMs ...
          And it is best to have both fighters, like the US Air Force and the F15 and F16. If, of course, there is tanga for both.
    41. +1
      28 May 2021
      An interesting plane is planned, maybe we will live to see its release in the series.
    42. 0
      28 May 2021
      what I like about Sukhoi's design bureau is that, unlike other impotent bureaus, he is ready to work with the market and offer what the customer needs, sometimes for the customer's money, as it was with the Indians, sometimes risking his own, although not always successfully as was the case with su -80 there were already flight samples, but apparently they made a mistake with the market situation and decided not to develop the project further, but it was a pity for a beautiful plane. Maybe even here there will be only a flight model and there will be no customer, but in any case it will be a huge experience for the design bureau

    "Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

    “Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"