Military Review

New and easy: will Russia create "invisibility" as an appendage to the Su-57?

113

Big and small



This winter, the Russian Aerospace Forces received the first production fighter Su-57that opened a new chapter in their modern stories... This could have happened earlier, but the very first of the built production fighters crashed in December 2019 while passing tests. Be that as it may, the fate of the Su-57 seems to be decided. In a positive way. According to the current contract, the Aerospace Forces should receive 76 of these machines. In the future, the supply of additional aircraft is possible: most likely, in the future, the aircraft will go to the troops in a modernized form, with the so-called "second stage engine" or "Product 30" (now the aircraft is equipped with an AL-41F1 engine).


At the same time, the question remained about which machine will replace the "budgetary" MiG-29 in the troops, and whether the Soviet two-tier structure of fighter aviation, when the conditionally heavy Su-27 coexisted with the above-mentioned MiGs.

We can get the answer to this question soon. According to leading Russian media, citing a source in the aircraft industry, Sukhoi is developing Russia's first lightweight multi-role fifth-generation fighter with one engine.

TASS noted:

The Sukhoi Company is developing the first single-engine light tactical aircraft in the modern history of Russia with a takeoff weight of up to 18 tons. The aircraft will develop a maximum flight speed of more than Mach 2, and also has super-maneuverability and improved take-off and landing characteristics due to the deflected engine thrust vector, the aircraft thrust-to-weight ratio is not less than 1. "

RIA News, in turn, wrote:

"When creating the aircraft, it is planned to widely use the groundwork developed in the framework of the creation of the Su-57, including the newest product 30 engine, radio-absorbing coatings, avionics, and a complex of weapons."

Thus, the characteristics of a promising fifth-generation fighter will look something like this:

Crew: 1 person (?);
Maximum speed: more than M = 2;
Cruising speed: unknown;
Weight: less than 18 kilograms;
Flight range: unknown;
Engine type: turbojet engine based on Product 30.

According to the source, the aircraft will be equipped with a single ventral multi-mode air intake, similar to those seen on modern single-engine fighters. Speaking specifically about an experimental experimental vehicle, it can be equipped with an AL-31FN engine of series 3 and 4.

New and easy: will Russia create "invisibility" as an appendage to the Su-57?

Nothing is known about the armament of the promising aircraft, however, looking at the Su-57 and F-35, one can assume that there are two large internal-fuselage weapon compartments. In them (again, purely theoretically) it will be possible to place up to four medium-range air-to-air missiles of the RVV-AE type: the F-35, we recall, can carry up to four AIM-120 medium-range air-to-air missiles , and after modernization, the number of such products will increase to six.

The Su-57 is a much larger vehicle. It has four weapon bays and, in addition to four medium-range air-to-air missiles (sometimes referred to as six) in the main compartments, it can carry short-range air-to-air missiles in two side compartments. This option for the deployment of weapons for a promising Russian fighter, apparently, will not work, although the experience gained during the creation of the Su-57 is undoubtedly used for a new machine.

The creation of a modern fighter does not make practical sense if you do not initially build the aircraft with the expectation of versatility. Simply put, the new fighter, if it appears, will be able to carry a wide arsenal of guided bombs and air-to-surface missiles. It is too early to talk about the types and capabilities of aircraft weapons (AAS), but it is appropriate to recall that recently the promising Russian planning aircraft bomb "Drill" has been tested, confirming its combat effectiveness. The product has 15 combat elements, each of which is equipped with its own infrared and radar guidance systems.


This is just a part of modern Russian ASPs. The country has not been spared the trend of their "miniaturization", which means that in the future fifth generation fighters will be able to carry many bombs and missiles in their internal compartments (while maintaining the stealth mode).

Series or dead end?


It is important to say that talk about a fifth-generation light fighter in Russia is about as long as this very generation actually exists.

One of the latest statements in this regard was made in December 2020 by the head of Rostec, Sergei Chemezov, who said that Rostec (Sukhoi is part of it) is proactively working on the concept of a promising single-engine aircraft in light and medium classes. And at the 2017 IDEX exhibition, Minister of Industry and Trade of Russia Denis Manturov announced the signing of an agreement on military-industrial cooperation with the UAE. According to him, this will allow the development of a fifth-generation light fighter project, in which there will be a place for specialists from the Emirates.

De facto, none of these statements (including the last one) allows us to say with full confidence that Russia will create something similar in the foreseeable future. Now the military-industrial complex has too many serious programs for which funds are urgently needed.

The most striking example is the creation of a strategic stealth bomber under the PAK DA program. It is noteworthy that in the future Russia wants to get a new interceptor to replace the MiG-31. This year Rostec officially announced the development of the MiG-41 interceptor.

The message then said:

“Development of the next generation of interceptor fighters has already begun. The project of the Prospective Aviation Complex for Long-Range Interception (PAK DP) under the symbol "MiG-41" is at the stage of development work. "


In such conditions, the chances for the appearance of a new fighter are few, but this does not mean that there are none at all. Perhaps the intention of the US Air Force to abandon the twin-engine F-22 and keep the F-35 will play a role in the birth of a single-engine vehicle: the latter turned out to be significantly cheaper in operation. Moreover, the degree of their combat readiness is higher.

However, even taking this into account, it can be stated that the "victorious march" of single-engine fighters did not take place, despite all the advantages of such an arrangement. Recall: the newest South Korean KAI KF-21 Boramae received two engines. The same number, in all likelihood, will be in a promising new generation Japanese fighter, which has long left the category of "light". The twin-engine layout was chosen for the European sixth generation Tempest and NGF fighters (created under the FCAS / SCAF program), which will appear closer to 2040.


The Americans stand apart here, who want to get a replacement for the F-16 (we are not talking about the F-35). However, the United States is almost the only country in the world that can afford the simultaneous development of two new generation fighters.
Author:
113 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Thrifty
    Thrifty 31 May 2021 05: 12
    -2
    Actually, the plane is being developed IN an INITIATIVE manner, there was no order or contract for it, and probably everything will not be! This is not a production aircraft, it is a technological groundwork for the future. To make the design bureau work, they worked out new ideas and technological solutions. Su57 with its bunch of expensive and complex solutions, a maximum of 76 vehicles is not enough for the army, but this development is also based on the same ideas and technologies. Why should he be massive? Will there be no AFARA, or will they give up the stealth coating? Then why would he need it at all? A mass aircraft is not only one engine, which makes the aircraft much cheaper, but also the mass aircraft platform itself, such as the MiG29 / 35, or the Su 27 / 35S. Now, if on the basis of any of these aircraft and create a single-engine, it can be massively built for yourself, and sell well on the world arms market. And, on a very complex high-tech, but essentially experimental machine of the Su57 type, a budget for aviation is simply impossible, at least for the foreseeable future.
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 31 May 2021 05: 23
      +3
      Quote: Thrifty
      the plane is being developed in an INECIATIVE order, there was no order or contract for it, and probably everything will not happen!

      This is the main point. No aircraft manufacturer can create a modern fighter jet alone. We need a state program. Does the current government have the will for this?
      1. S. Smirnov
        S. Smirnov 31 May 2021 07: 53
        +19
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        We need a state program. Does the current government have the will for this?

        hi Since Chemezov is a member of the current government and announced the beginning of work in this direction, it means that she (in power) has this will and desire. I have no doubt that there will be no questions about financing either.
        1. yehat2
          yehat2 1 June 2021 14: 42
          +1
          Quote: S Smirnov
          Since Chemezov is a member of the current government and announced the beginning of work in this direction, it means that she (in power) has this will and desire. I have no doubt that there will be no questions about financing either.

          questions are actually full
          The Sukhoi company is developing the first single-engine light tactical aircraft in the modern history of Russia with a takeoff weight of up to 18 tons. The aircraft will develop a maximum flight speed of more than Mach 2, and also has super-maneuverability.

          here, as they say, either take off the cross, or put on panties
          super-maneuverability is achieved due to the thrust-to-weight ratio, thrust vector and deterioration of aerodynamics as a result of the development of control planes.
          speed - due to aerodynamics, increasing thrust and reducing "extra" planes and frontal section
          but there won't be much thrust with 1 engine. The 2M figure is achievable, but only with aerodynamics like the Mig-21 - no maneuverability.
          Personally, it seems to me that the concept of the F-16 in our country can be improved only through a controlled thrust vector and some tweaks with aerodynamics.
          Further, the plane does not fly empty - it needs fuel and weapons. And whatever one may say, you need to either make the carcass thick, or the external suspension will spoil the aerodynamics.
          Therefore, I am skeptical that everything will turn out together.
          In fact, it will be cool if we create an F-16 killer at a reasonable price.
          But there is one more question here - it does not matter whether the aircraft is large or small, it needs first-class filling. And we have a problem with that. Can we make our own and relatively inexpensive, like the Chinese?
          And there are also requirements for stealth, but fast commissioning of software for an aircraft and its capabilities, and other points.
      2. Orange bigg
        Orange bigg 31 May 2021 08: 17
        +6
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        Quote: Thrifty
        the plane is being developed in an INECIATIVE order, there was no order or contract for it, and probably everything will not happen!

        This is the main point. No aircraft manufacturer can create a modern fighter jet alone. We need a state program. Does the current government have the will for this?


        Do not forget that Rostec is a state corporation and the money allocated there is not allocated entirely on an initiative basis.
        1. Civil
          Civil 31 May 2021 10: 56
          -1
          Is there any money? To develop a new fighter.
          1. Orange bigg
            Orange bigg 31 May 2021 10: 58
            +1
            Quote: Civil
            Is there any money?


            Do you want to borrow from Rostec?
            1. sevryuk
              sevryuk 31 May 2021 11: 26
              0
              Rostec to borrow.
            2. Alex777
              Alex777 31 May 2021 15: 16
              +4
              No aircraft manufacturer can create a modern fighter jet alone. We need a state program. Does the current government have the will for this?

              There is undoubtedly the will, as you put it "in the current government".
              None of those related to the army doubts this.
              As for the single-engine aircraft, there is a problem.
              To build this plane, you need to have a good engine.
              Such an engine must be sufficiently reliable and powerful.
              Those who do not have the necessary engine have to build with two.
              We finally have a suitable engine - "product 30".
              So we talked about the development of a single-engine aircraft.
              At the same time, the statement of Yuri Borisov in 2018 is overlooked.
              A prototype of a completely new vertical takeoff aircraft is being developed in Russia on behalf of the President
              https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5475420

              The most that neither is the "manifestation of will of the" current government ". hi
              1. bayard
                bayard 31 May 2021 17: 53
                +4
                Judging by the descriptions (rather scanty), it does not seem that these are the same aircraft. The air intake (one) under the fuselage is not optimal for VTOL aircraft. In addition, the study of VTOL aircraft was conducted at the Yakovlev Design Bureau, and this LMFI is being developed at the Sukhoi Design Bureau. In addition, if we repeat the US experience of a single glider for LFMI and VTOL aircraft, we will get the same F-35 with all its disadvantages.
                The Sukhoi Design Bureau has a backlog of S-53 \ 54 \ 55 - LFMI on one AL-31F. If the experience and the very principle of designing LFMI based on the backlog of the Su-57 are used, then it is possible to obtain a light fighter with flight characteristics higher than that of the MiG-35, with on-board radar / airborne radar systems from the Su-57 and at a price 1,5 times lower than Su-57. Such an LFMI would be a godsend both for the domestic aerospace forces and for the external arms market.
                But trying to shove as much weaponry into the inner bays as possible can kill a good idea and waste performance. We need a balance.
                1. Alex777
                  Alex777 31 May 2021 18: 32
                  +3
                  I agree with you. yes
                  On the basis of "product 30" it is possible to pile correctly both LFMI and SUVVP.
                  The more series we get, the cheaper the engines will be for us.
                  The "big battalions" are winning the war. We need a lot of planes.
                  From this point of view, single-engine aircraft are important and necessary. hi
                  1. Zaurbek
                    Zaurbek 30 June 2021 12: 47
                    +1
                    For VTOL aircraft there is a reserve from the Yak141 with a powerful taxiway ... and a sapl. But unification will harm the simple version.
                    1. Alex777
                      Alex777 30 June 2021 12: 48
                      0
                      On the basis of "product 30" you can correctly and LFMI and SUVVP to pile.

                      With unification, everything is clear - a rake. wink
            3. Alex777
              Alex777 31 May 2021 19: 13
              0
              Sorry, I misled the addressee. hi
      3. Viktor Sergeev
        Viktor Sergeev 31 May 2021 08: 46
        -4
        Not the will of the current government, but the need of the army in general for a 5th generation fighter. Why is it needed? This is the question that needs to be answered, like: with whom is Russia going to really fight in the next 30 years? And it is from the answer to these questions that it is necessary to dance.
        In the presence of nuclear weapons, a serious war between Russia and someone strong (USA, China) is excluded, since even a local conflict will develop into a global destruction of everyone and everything. The war with the barmaley requires not the 5th generation, but the 4th, if not the modernized first, or even the zero (piston attack aircraft). For a war with a rather weak (Ukraine, Georgia, etc.), but still a sufficiently armed enemy, to ensure the suppression of enemy air defense and aviation, again, 4 generations and several dozen Su57 are enough.
        Rather, they will focus on the new generation and UAV robots (complete, without control from the ground) with the expectation of a fairly distant future. We have no money to throw it away, it is not clear where and why, let the Americans do this.
        1. Orange bigg
          Orange bigg 31 May 2021 09: 47
          +15
          .In the presence of nuclear weapons, a serious war between Russia and someone strong (USA, China) is excluded, since even a local conflict will develop into a global destruction of everyone and everything.

          This is a very dangerous illusion. If a nuclear war does start, it will not immediately, but at first there will be a nuclear-free war, and in order not to start a nuclear war, strong armed forces are needed, including the Aerospace Forces with Su-57 fighters.
          1. the most important
            the most important 31 May 2021 13: 19
            +2
            Quote: OrangeBigg
            This is a very dangerous illusion. If a nuclear war does start, it will not immediately, but at first there will be a nuclear-free war, and in order not to start a nuclear war, strong armed forces are needed, including the Aerospace Forces with Su-57 fighters.

            That's for sure. But it is better to place the air intake at the top - radars from the ground will not see it, and there will be more space for missiles inside the aircraft.
            1. psiho117
              psiho117 31 May 2021 19: 49
              0
              Quote: the most important
              But it is better to place the air intake at the top - radars from the ground will not see it,

              But they will see AWACS planes and other fighters.
              1. the most important
                the most important 31 May 2021 20: 53
                +1
                Quote: psiho117

                0
                Quote: the most important
                But it is better to place the air intake at the top - radars from the ground will not see it,

                But they will see AWACS planes and other fighters.

                And here you can argue. If the air intake is made not primitively rectangular, but with a certain angle, so that it would seem to block the entrance, then it will be much more difficult to detect it. And the AWACS plane is actually a flying elephant or a Christmas tree. It's much easier to see him himself, and therefore to shoot him down. A small plane does not always mean that it is bad.
              2. Grits
                Grits 1 June 2021 09: 08
                0
                Quote: psiho117
                But they will see AWACS planes and other fighters.

                But the pilot behind him will not see anything except the air intake.
            2. Viktor Sergeev
              Viktor Sergeev 1 June 2021 08: 13
              +1
              Air intakes at the top are needed only for aircraft that fly very high, have a minimum RCS, and have no purpose to fight enemy aircraft, flat nozzles, that is, for subsonic bombers and UAVs. Such air intakes have a lot of disadvantages, but this is for aerodynamics specialists.
          2. Viktor Sergeev
            Viktor Sergeev 1 June 2021 08: 01
            0
            Yes, first there will be local collisions, which, according to the Pentagon's analysis, in any case develop into nuclear mutual destruction. The RF Armed Forces are weaker than the NATO Armed Forces, no matter what we develop, this is a fact and this is normal. Now tell me why spend a lot of money on the creation of weapons that will not have any impact on the outcome of the war? We are not the United States, our military budget is not a bottomless barrel. The USSR at one time and self-liquidated, all the time trying to catch up and overtake, the economy could not stand it. Several types of aircraft are difficulties with logistics, maintenance, armament, rise in price. To create something, you first need to think for what? Why do you need a 5th generation light fighter? For what war?
            1. Orange bigg
              Orange bigg 1 June 2021 08: 27
              +1
              Now tell me why spend a lot of money on the creation of weapons that will not have any impact on the outcome of the war?

              Tell me why the US and NATO are spending huge money on the creation of weapons that will not have any effect on the outcome of the war, if from your own words
              ... first, there will be local collisions, which, according to the Pentagon's analysis, in any case develop into nuclear mutual annihilation.
              Then why is all this if you spend something, what not, and from your words, and so, and so mutual destruction?
              How do you propose to defend the country's interests in operations like the Syrian, Georgian-South Ossetian conflict? With the help of nuclear weapons or what? It is on such conflicts as local and regional that the stake is now being made in the redivision of the world, and not on a global apocalypse.

              ... The USSR at one time and self-liquidated, all the time trying to catch up and overtake, the economy could not stand it.

              The USSR was liquidated in Belovezhskaya Pushcha by all known persons by conspiracy, but what you named as the reason is a myth. The USSR contained half of the world at one time. And the reason for the collapse of the USSR was not the economy, but the leadership and its actions. The scarcity of goods was created artificially, and more than one book has been written about it.
              .Several types of aircraft are difficulties with logistics, maintenance, armament, rise in price.

              We still have it all. Su-35, Su-30SM, Su-34, Mig-29, Mig-31, Su-25, Su-24. Everyone has different engines and other components. But the approach to creating a 5th generation light fighter based on the Product 30 engine from the Su-57 and other technologies and components from the Su-57 will just allow the unification of components, reduce the cost of maintenance, and simplify logistics. Rational decision.
              To create something, you first need to think for what? Why do you need a 5th generation light fighter? For what war?

              If you want peace, prepare for war. We do not want war and everyone should know that we are under the protection of our efficient army. Who does not want to feed his army will feed someone else's. To defend the country and to replace all combatant MiG-29s, a 57th generation, cheaper than the Su-5, light fighter is being created. For what, in principle, combat aviation is needed, you probably guess. Now, without her, nowhere in our world. All countries of the world are buying new fighters, regardless of whether they are NATO members or not. Why are we worse? It is she who is much more often used than nuclear weapons, which are more a deterrent than a real instrument of war.
        2. Eug
          Eug 31 May 2021 15: 18
          +1
          Export remains. And the aircraft adopted by the developing country are selling much better, especially if they have balanced performance characteristics.
          and the cost of their life cycle is not too high.
      4. Barberry25
        Barberry25 31 May 2021 16: 00
        0
        single engine is an export car ..
      5. yehat2
        yehat2 22 June 2021 13: 50
        0
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        Does the current government have the will for this?

        and this is a harder question than it seems.
        in the United States recently announced that they plan to change the entire fleet of f-22 for f-15ex.
        What does it mean? Stealth technology, as a way of gaining air supremacy, was abandoned, steel was used only for shock machines, and this is after 35 years of operation of various options.
        And the question arises - what do we need? Maybe there are really enough purchases of the Su-35?
    2. Volga073
      Volga073 31 May 2021 05: 53
      +7
      INITIATIVE...
      1. Volga073
        Volga073 31 May 2021 05: 55
        +4
        DEVELOPING ..
        1. Winnie76
          Winnie76 31 May 2021 08: 41
          +1
          Quote: Thrifty
          practiced

          Quote: Thrifty
          Actually

          Quote: Thrifty
          bosed

          Quote: Thrifty
          experimental

          But in fact I agree
  2. fa2998
    fa2998 31 May 2021 05: 25
    +5
    What is the rhetorical question in the title of the article? Of course it will! BUT-very long and painful, and NOT INITIATIVE ORDER!
    The question is very dogogo. Even you do not need a deck and VTOL aircraft, in front of you is a simple F-35. There even an international consortium was created. We need a STATE PROGRAM. And if so, then we need a competition. And state funding.
    And this is a completely different question. It seems that the Su-57 is well funded, but in 10 years, ONE aircraft is in service, let's add an analogue of the F-35-we will sew. hi
    1. Lech from Android.
      Lech from Android. 31 May 2021 06: 43
      -1
      for 10 years, ONE aircraft in service, let's add more to the analogue of the F-35-we will sew.

      It has been in development for 35 years.
      1. Orange bigg
        Orange bigg 31 May 2021 08: 11
        +2
        Where is 35 years old? Since 1999, the Su-57 has been developed. Rather, it has already been in development for 20 years.
        ... In the late 1990s, the Sukhoi Experimental Design Bureau ( now - a branch of PJSC "Sukhoi Company") The design of the aircraft, which received the T-5 index (I-50 aviation complex), has been developed since 21. The draft model was ready by the fall of 1999.

        The site for the construction of aircraft was determined by the Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aviation Plant named after Yu. A. Gagarin, which is part of Sukhoi. By 2009, two prototypes were made for ground testing.

        The first flight copy of the T-50 took off on January 29, 2010, piloted by test pilot Sergei Bogdan.

        https://tass.ru/info/7411105
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 31 May 2021 08: 43
        -3
        The development of the Su-57 began in 2001, stop writing nonsense.
        1. Herman 4223
          Herman 4223 31 May 2021 22: 13
          0
          Since 1999, it has been developed on the initiative of the Sukhoi Design Bureau. And in 2002, the state program PAK FA was launched. In the late nineties, and indeed, there was no competition for the PAK FA program.
  3. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 31 May 2021 05: 36
    +5
    "Oh-ho-ho! Our grave sins!" The news about the development of a "light" single-engine "hawk" of the 5th generation is presented as "fresh"! Of course, I am an "age" person, but I cannot "boast" of 100% sclerosis! As the saying goes: "I don't remember mulberries; but here I remember!" And I remember that the message about the independent development of the 5th generation light fighter by MiG is already several years old! Since this is an "initiative", the "development" was carried out neither shaky nor roll! Now the idea of ​​a "5th generation light fighter" is being engaged by "Sukhoi"! But we have already heard that Sukhoi has been appointed "the master of the Russian aviaharem"! This means that we were "kind of announced" that the same MiG "kind of started" the notorious development! It doesn't work that the news is fresh ... as if "overdue"? what request
    1. bayard
      bayard 31 May 2021 18: 14
      +1
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      And I remember that the message about the independent development of the 5th generation light fighter by MiG is already several years old!

      The MiGs offered the same Emirates to develop for them a 5th generation LFMI in the MiG-29 dimension on two new engines (in the RD-33 dimension) with a thrust of about 11 kg.p. - a kind of reduced copy of the Su-000 or F-57 ... Apparently they did not agree. Maybe there was a lot of money - apart from the aircraft itself and the engines it was necessary to develop from scratch, maybe there were no guarantees for the terms (due to the same non-existent engine) ... And then it drew up with the initiative of the Sukhoi Design Bureau - "we already have a heavy aircraft 22th generation and the engine to it. Here on one such engine and pile you LFMI 5th generation. " And the Sukhoi Design Bureau has a much greater chance of getting a contract.
      And the talk went to the press, apparently because the "Product-30" looks like it is already on its way ... and we can talk about the prospects.
      To organize the production of an engine, it is desirable to have the largest possible prospective order. The Su-57 will not build much ... it may be exported, but apparently also in limited quantities. And the industry needs a stable order for a large batch.
      That is why the idea to make LFMI on one such engine appeared (and announced) very timely - because the serial production of this engine begins.
      And if "Biznesjet" is also bungled on a couple of such "Products-30", then the new production will have a certain prospect.
      1. Osipov9391
        Osipov9391 31 May 2021 18: 37
        0
        There was also a MiG 1.44 MFI. I never went anywhere. Although he flew well on tests. It still stands at LII.
        1. Cympak
          Cympak 1 June 2021 11: 38
          +1
          Well, how has the MiG 1.44 MFI gone nowhere? Take a look at the Chinese J-20. Obviously, the Chinese comrades spied something from the MiG 1.44
      2. Osipov9391
        Osipov9391 31 May 2021 18: 38
        +1
        There was also a MiG 1.44 MFI. I never went anywhere. Although he flew well on tests. It still stands at LII.
  4. Ros 56
    Ros 56 31 May 2021 05: 42
    -9
    If there is a need, they will create it, this is our mentality. The fried rooster will bite and everything will turn.
    1. Thrifty
      Thrifty 31 May 2021 06: 08
      +5
      Ros56 - there is a need for such a long time ago, because this is a priori a cheaper aircraft that will well occupy its niche of weapons in the country, and the export version will be in demand on the world arms market. But, no one itches, Russia does not have a light single-engine aircraft in service! !!
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 31 May 2021 12: 31
        +1
        And it's good that they don't, but there are great heavy machines that are cheaper and more efficient as a result.
  5. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 31 May 2021 06: 55
    +2
    The MiG41 is a utopia and a cut of money .... Ideally, a light fighter should be mass-produced and exported. You can even follow the path of the Americans and localize some kind of wings, tails in third countries such as Turkey or India or the United Arab Emirates. (Not everyone will get a 5th generation project). You don't have to make an "icon"! from stealth capabilities to the detriment of everything else.
    1. Orange bigg
      Orange bigg 31 May 2021 08: 14
      -1
      MiG-41 is the future that begins today. A new generation car. Or do you think all that is new is all cut and unnecessary?
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 31 May 2021 09: 16
        +4
        This is not the future ... this is a niche machine for specialized purposes ... Like the MiG31.
        1. Orange bigg
          Orange bigg 31 May 2021 09: 37
          -2
          Quote: Zaurbek
          This is not the future ... this is a niche machine for specialized purposes ... Like the MiG31.


          No, this is exactly the future. In fact, an airplane with a speed close to hypersonic.
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 31 May 2021 09: 53
            +3
            This has already been - the MiG-25 ..... and its development the Mi-31.
          2. bayard
            bayard 31 May 2021 18: 32
            +3
            Quote: OrangeBigg
            No, this is exactly the future. In fact, an airplane with a speed close to hypersonic.

            Why do you need such a speed for an interceptor?
            What combat radius will it reach such a speed?
            How can he use his weapons at such speeds?
            What to do with aerodynamic heating, with a heat sink, with thermal deformation of the fuselage elements, if this problem was very acute on the MiG-25 and the limitation of 3000 km / h was not due to engine thrust, but due to thermal limitations. And not only the glazing of the lantern.
            Didn't the stealth game play teach you anything?
            And not only in terms of the heat resistance of this very coating, but in terms of attempts to jump over the laws of physics and natural limitations?
            At hypersonic speed, CDs and explosives are barely starting to fly.
            But these are missiles - means of interception and destruction. Such speed is only a plus for them.
            The plane is WHY ?!
            Why are the same Su-57 and Su-35 not interceptors for you?
            The advantage of the MiG-25 and MiG-31 was that they could fly supersonic for a LONG TIME. I myself have repeatedly observed such flights for 22 - 25 minutes at 2500 km / h.
            But the same Su-57 (and the Su-35) are capable of supersonic flight without including the afterburner.
            This means a greater distance.
            And all this means that the available air interceptors are ENOUGH, and no MiG-41 and other VKS wunderwaals are needed and, moreover, are harmful.
            First of all, they are harmful as a ragtag, an airplane zoo.
            And no less - by spraying the funds so necessary for the development of something necessary.
            1. dranthqu
              dranthqu 31 May 2021 20: 20
              0
              I support. Instead of continuing with the MiG-25/31, it is worth finally investing in more versatile means, such as AWACS aircraft (A-100 or conditional A-150), refueling aircraft (Il-78), and, possibly, in a denser coverage of over-the-horizon radars and long-range air defense systems (S-400 / S-500). And, of course, in heavy UAVs with a long range and time in the air.
    2. Winnie76
      Winnie76 31 May 2021 08: 59
      -4
      The MiG-41 is probably near space. But what the light fifth generation can do, what the hard one cannot - the question. The money will have to be spent on R&D, and not on the purchase of real aircraft. And this despite the fact that LPI will not be much cheaper. Real savings only on the engine. Well, it will not cost 100, but 90 million. And who will need him like that
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 31 May 2021 09: 16
        0
        The question is - how many are needed?
        1. Winnie76
          Winnie76 31 May 2021 09: 31
          +4
          It depends on why. Breaking through the US air defense is one number, teasing Europe is another, the third is to defend the border, and the fourth is to reset the APU. It is necessary to dance from tasks.
          A more relevant question is: what can we save on in the hypothetical implementation of LPI. If only the engine is too little
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 31 May 2021 09: 53
            +2
            He is unlikely to break through the air defense ...
      2. Orange bigg
        Orange bigg 31 May 2021 09: 36
        +5
        Quote: Winnie76
        The MiG-41 is probably near space. But what the light fifth generation can do, what the hard one cannot - the question. The money will have to be spent on R&D, and not on the purchase of real aircraft. And this despite the fact that LPI will not be much cheaper. Real savings only on the engine. Well, it will not cost 100, but 90 million. And who will need him like that


        A lot of people need a light fighter, and even with buns such as stealth. The light fighter is the most demanded on the arms market and the most popular product with regards to aviation. So it is not necessary to frankly lie that supposedly light fighters are not needed by anyone.
      3. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 31 May 2021 10: 51
        +4
        Quote: Winnie76
        The MiG-41 is probably near space.

        Well, an aircraft created on the basis of the MiG-31 cannot become an "aerospace" aircraft! Well, there is no need to attribute to the future (?) Interceptor what he will not have!
      4. bayard
        bayard 31 May 2021 18: 45
        +2
        Quote: Winnie76
        And this despite the fact that LPI will not be much cheaper. Real savings only on the engine. Well, it will not cost 100, but 90 million. And who will need him like that

        And the fact that the takeoff weight of the LFMI will be 2 times lower than that of the heavy one does not bother you?
        The price of LFMI will be 1,5 times lower than that of a heavy MFI. This was true for the F-16 in relation to the F-15. And in our case it will be the same.
        At the same time, the cost of operation, the cost of the life cycle, the time for inter-flight maintenance are also important (a very important factor in the intensive use of aviation in the database).
        And if for the first contract the cost of the Su-57 was estimated at $ 37 million. for the RF Aerospace Forces (I really think it will be about 50), then for the LFMI this figure will be (for the RF Aerospace Forces) about 25 - 32 million dollars.
        For export it is twice as expensive.
        1. Winnie76
          Winnie76 31 May 2021 21: 38
          0
          Quote: bayard
          And the fact that the takeoff weight of the LFMI will be 2 times lower than that of the heavy one does not bother you?

          If it is smaller, why should it bother me?
          Quote: bayard
          The price of LFMI will be 1,5 times lower than that of a heavy MFI. This was true for the F-16 in relation to the F-15. And in our case it will be the same.

          Did Shoigu whisper this in your ear? Why suddenly such an economy, educate. The export value of the engine is about $ 4 million. (China's order for 2004 is 250 units for 900 million). For the Aerospace Forces, apparently 1-2 million. If you consider the real figure of 50 million for the Su-57, the cost of the engine will be 2-4%. Something doesn't beat with your one and a half ratio, don't you think?
          Quote: bayard
          At the same time, the cost of operation, the cost of the life cycle, the time for inter-flight maintenance are also important (a very important factor in the intensive use of aviation in the database).

          So Yes. I see savings in lower costs for kerosene and a little less spare parts. The rest of the costs are the same. Only here on LFI still have to spend a bunch of yards on R&D now with an unpredictable result in twenty years.
          1. bayard
            bayard 31 May 2021 22: 29
            +1
            Quote: Winnie76
            ... The export value of the engine is about $ 4 million.

            Which engine do you mean?
            AL-31F? lol
            So even today they cost $ 5 million. in the prices of the last / the year before last.
            But the AL-41F is already more expensive. smile
            And the "Product-30", which is generally revolutionary? And not only the absolutely wild specific thrust, the maximum thrust at the afterburner of 18 - 19,5 tf. , but it still has a variable contour, a revolutionary temperature on the turbine blades, which uses new materials and new technologies ... Such an engine will cost much more.
            Quote: Winnie76
            If you consider the real figure of 50 million for the Su-57, the cost of the engine will be 2-4%.

            Don't tell anyone else that kind of game.
            Quote: Winnie76
            ... I see savings in lower costs for kerosene and a little less spare parts.

            The life cycle cost is not only the amount of kerosene burned, but also the COST OF MAINTENANCE. The number of man-hours to service one aircraft. To service two engines is TWO times more man-hours, money, much more time between flight preparation. That is why those armies who wish to have a large aircraft fleet or seek to save money choose single-engine aircraft.
            For clarity, compare these indicators for the F-15 and F-16.
            And it is much easier and faster to develop an LFMI on the basis of an already existing heavy twin-engine MFI, because it already has everything that matters:
            -engine ,
            - avionics, including radar (they planned to install the same radar on their S53 \ 54 \ 55 Sukhoi design bureau as on the Su-27),
            - a cabin,
            - many components and assemblies.
            The wing of the Su-57, the air intake can also be taken as a basis ...
            Such an aircraft may well appear at the end of this decade, and from the beginning of the future go into series.
            And the size does matter.
            1. Winnie76
              Winnie76 31 May 2021 23: 21
              +1
              Quote: bayard
              Which engine do you mean?
              AL-31F?
              So even today they cost $ 5 million. in the prices of the last / the year before last.
              But the AL-41F is already more expensive.
              And the "Product-30", which is revolutionary in general?

              Let's first decide at what prices to count, export or domestic. The easiest way is for export for the fourth generation. As you have already noticed, the Al-31 costs $ 5 million, while the total price of the Su-35 easily goes for a hundred, depending on the configuration. Here's 5% of the cost of a twin-engined aircraft. Let's double the margin of error - 10%. Where are your `` 1.5 times lower ''?
              The Al-41F is more expensive, and the Su-57 is apparently much more expensive than the Su-35.
              Quote: bayard
              The life cycle cost is not only the amount of kerosene burned, but also the COST OF MAINTENANCE. The number of man-hours to service one aircraft. To service two engines is TWO times more man-hours, money, much more time between flight preparation.

              So yes, but besides the engines in the aircraft, there are a large number of systems that also require maintenance. Therefore, simply multiplying by two the number of man-hours of training will not work.
              Quote: bayard
              That is why those armies who wish to have a large aircraft fleet or seek to save money choose single-engine aircraft.

              And this economy can easily go badly for them.
              Quote: bayard
              And it is much easier and faster to develop an LFMI on the basis of an already existing heavy twin-engine MFI, because it already has everything that matters:
              -engine ,
              - avionics, including radar (they planned to install the same radar on their S53 \ 54 \ 55 Sukhoi design bureau as on the Su-27),
              - a cabin,
              - many components and assemblies.

              And what is the savings? If the same nodes, avionics, etc. will make the LFI cheaper by `` 1.5 times ''?
              Quote: bayard
              And the size does matter.

              I will not argue. Only the cost of the `` hardware '' in the prime cost of the aircraft is minimal
              1. bayard
                bayard 1 June 2021 01: 27
                +1
                Quote: Winnie76
                Let's first decide at what prices to count, export or domestic. The easiest way is for export for the fourth generation.

                Come on, it's really more convenient.
                Quote: Winnie76
                As you have already noticed, the Al-31 costs $ 5 million, while the total price of the Su-35 easily goes for a hundred, depending on the configuration.

                Stop stop. stop
                If the AL-31F engine, then what does the Su-35 have to do with it? On it, there are AL-41F-1C, which will be both more powerful and more expensive. For lack of exact figures, we estimate it at 6 million dollars.
                Do you agree?
                Really can be more expensive.
                The Su-35 has 2 (two!) Such engines.
                Only 2 LL-41F-1C will cost about $ 12 million.
                Quote: Winnie76
                at the same time, the total price of the Su-35 easily goes for one hundredth, depending on the configuration

                let's talk about the complete set in more detail. If you are talking about the "sotochka" that China paid, then it paid for a double (!) Set of spare engines, a complete spare parts kit, the cost of training flight and technical personnel, and a reinforced set of weapons.
                But Egypt bought from the Russian Federation Su-35 75 ml each. USD smile
                And at the same time, also taking into account the training of flight technical personnel, spare parts and a set of weapons. Only now the volume of this spare parts and BK was somewhat more modest. And most likely there was no double reserve of engines. Spare engines, perhaps, did not run at all, or at a minimum - as a replacement fund during operation. So many take it, because it is best to change the engines at the manufacturer's plant - with a guarantee.
                And how much is the export price of a naked Su-35 then? After all, it is she who interests us?
                Right ?
                And this price varies in the range of 50-60 million dollars. Moreover, the first figure is closer to the real one.
                And what part of the 50 million dollars. will amount to $ 12 million. for the pressures?
                That's it - 20 - 25% will be.
                Quote: Winnie76
                Where are your `` 1.5 times lower ''?

                Take your time, look further. Each engine has its own fuel system. This is a tricky thing. These are not only fuel pumps, control and regulation devices, but also ... fuel lines.
                Do you think about the fuel lines I just noted?
                Not at all. Especially thin-walled stainless steel pipes of a special design are used for fuel lines and hydraulics. And these pipes are worth (even in Soviet times they cost that), if we estimate their weight, they are more expensive than gold.
                Yes Yes . Do not doubt . I was familiar with such production, and even with some developers of these not simple technologies.
                And there are a lot of fuel lines and hydraulics on an airplane (a large airplane - a heavy twin-engine fighter).
                And on a light single-engine one - two times less!
                And pipes, and devices, and all fuel and hydraulic fittings ...
                Titanium. Aviation titanium power fuselage kit.
                Also two times less.
                Dural, composites and other construction materials - half as much.
                The chassis of the light MFI is also lighter. And they are also made of titanium.
                But have you noticed that the avionics, the cabin and part of the energy can be from a difficult relative?
                This is true .
                But!
                It DOESN'T NEED TO BE DEVELOPED FROM ZERO, especially for this aircraft. It has ALREADY been developed and produced in series. Therefore, we save a lot on the cost of developing all this, and (more importantly) on time.
                It's just that all this equipment needs to be integrated into a new glider.
                Therefore, if work on such an LFMI has already begun and will be continued and financed, then by the end of this decade we will be able to receive this aircraft in a finished form. And from the beginning of the next decade - in the series.
                And if you REALLY want it, then serial cars can be obtained at the very end of this decade.
                This is real .

                Quote: Winnie76
                but apart from the engines in the aircraft there are a large number of systems that also require maintenance. Therefore, simply multiplying by two the number of man-hours of preparation will not work.

                The main thing in aircraft maintenance is its engines. And this is the most responsible and time consuming process.
                Our fuel system (as you already understood) is also half as much.
                Hydraulics - one and a half times.
                A large aircraft has more hardpoints, and weapon systems also need to be maintained and tested.
                And all this will have to be done with one calculation of the technical staff. Therefore, according to the regulations (and in practice), the time (man-hours) for a twin-engine heavy fighter is approximately twice as long (F15 and F-16 as an example).
                And in our case it will be exactly the same.
                On this incidentally, the operators of the MiG-29 were burned. The light twin-engine fighter turned out to be more difficult to maintain and even more expensive than the heavy Su-27. Not much more expensive, but definitely more difficult - because of the denser line-up, and as a result - the greater complexity and laboriousness of maintenance and repair.
                Quote: Winnie76
                Quote: bayard
                That is why those armies who wish to have a large aircraft fleet or seek to save money choose single-engine aircraft.

                And this economy can easily go badly for them.

                Remind me, how did the operation of the MiG-21, Su-17, F-16 turn out sideways? These aircraft are still actively operated all over the world and the operators are very pleased with them.
                That is why many countries of the world still do not write off the MiG-21.
                And China wrote them off only a few years ago.
                Vietnam wants to exchange its MiG-21s ONLY for single-engine fighters. And I am very upset that Russia does not have such a fighter.
                And many want the same.
                1. Winnie76
                  Winnie76 1 June 2021 09: 56
                  +1
                  Quote: bayard
                  And what part of the 50 million dollars. will amount to $ 12 million. for the pressures?
                  That's it - 20 - 25% will be.

                  In LPI, we minus only one engine i.e. 10-12%. Plus your gold tubes with a fuel pump (it is unlikely that it is more expensive than the engine) 5 percent. For duralumin / composites 10 percent. Well, ok. At the cost of a titanic effort, you have achieved 25% savings and a corresponding reduction in carrying capacity, the number of suspensions, and flight characteristics.
                  Quote: bayard
                  And there are a lot of fuel lines and hydraulics on an airplane (a large airplane - a heavy twin-engine fighter).
                  And on a light single-engine one - two times less!

                  Fuel lines, perhaps hydraulics, why all of a sudden?
                  Quote: bayard
                  A large aircraft has more hardpoints, and weapon systems also need to be maintained and tested.

                  This is the payload. You need as many rockets as you need. What do you think is easier and faster: to service two planes or three with the same number of suspensions? And what will be cheaper?
                  Quote: bayard
                  But!
                  It DOESN'T NEED TO BE DEVELOPED FROM ZERO, especially for this aircraft. It has ALREADY been developed and produced in series. Therefore, we save a lot on the cost of developing all this, and (more importantly) on time.
                  It's just that all this equipment needs to be integrated into a new glider.

                  Of course, sheer trifles. I would like to remind you of the Indian FGFA program. In which the Indians wanted to get an aircraft based on the already existing PAK FA. To do this, it was proposed in 2016 to throw off 4 yards. This is neither more nor less at domestic prices 8000/50 = 160 full-weight Su-35. I don't think the LFI program will be simpler and cheaper than FGFA.
                  In essence, you are proposing to throw out now resources in the amount of 160 Su-35, for the sake of the appearance in 15 years of a low-budget version of the Su-57
                  1. bayard
                    bayard 1 June 2021 16: 02
                    +1
                    Quote: Winnie76
                    Fuel lines, perhaps hydraulics, why all of a sudden?

                    Size matters . Length of pipelines on large and small aircraft. Namely, the hydraulic pipes (for the same Su-27) are the most difficult and expensive thing to perform (there is very high pressure), the loads on the systems are different, the number of drives ...
                    And to assemble / rivet the fuselage of a large aircraft and a small one - different labor costs, and not just consumables. Cost is labor expended.
                    Quote: Winnie76
                    In LPI, we minus only one engine i.e. 10-12%. Plus your gold tubes with a fuel pump (it is unlikely that it is more expensive than the engine) 5 percent. For duralumin / composites 10 percent. Well, ok. At the cost of a titanic effort, you have achieved 25% savings and a corresponding reduction in carrying capacity, the number of suspensions, and flight characteristics.

                    Well, already 25 - 27% have been identified. Plus, less labor costs during assembly and little things that you have not yet considered. And we reach the required 30 - 35%, which is a 1,5 times CHEAPER. yes
                    Quote: Winnie76
                    This is the payload. You need as many rockets as you need. What do you think is easier and faster: to service two planes or three with the same number of suspensions? And what will be cheaper?

                    If only suspensions, then maybe more on three LPIs, especially if you consider that the payload of the single-engine S-53 \ 54 \ 55 at Sukhoi was slightly inferior to the Su-27, despite one engine. Compared to the F-16, the F15 has about the same ratio, and even slightly worse.
                    But it will hardly be possible to save on engine maintenance, because three LFIs will have 3 engines, and 2 heavy fighters - 4 units.
                    And the flight preparation time (from the moment of landing to the readiness for a new flight) at LFMI will be almost two times less. This means that such fighters will be able to create much greater operational stress in the theater of operations during real combat operations (more sorties per day) and will bring more benefits as a result.
                    Quote: Winnie76
                    I would like to remind you of the Indian FGFA program. In which the Indians wanted to get an aircraft based on the already existing PAK FA. To do this, it was proposed in 2016 to throw off 4 yards. This is neither more nor less at domestic prices 8000/50 = 160 full-weight Su-35. I do not think that the LFI program will be simpler and cheaper than FGFA.

                    This was the original joint of the Sukhoi Design Bureau. It was necessary to immediately develop the T-50 fuselage in the version of a 2-seater cockpit - as on the MiG-35, and everything would have turned out in the best possible way. And it so happened that for the Indians it would be necessary to redesign
                    the whole plane, practically to develop a new glider, a new cockpit ... the weight distribution changed ... So the Indians were offered to do everything at their expense.
                    And they refused.
                    It is easier for an existing Su-57 glider to attach a cockpit a la Su-34 than a tandem one, like that of the Su-30 ... But now they thought that a two-seater Su-57 would not hurt themselves - for controlling "swarms of unmanned aerial vehicles" and for control of weapons in shock performance.
                    Quote: Winnie76
                    In essence, you are proposing to throw out now resources in the amount of 160 Su-35, for the sake of the appearance in 15 years of a low-budget version of the Su-57

                    It is not I who propose this, but the Ministry of Industry and Trade and the Sukhoi Design Bureau. And while they do it for their money.
                    1. Winnie76
                      Winnie76 2 June 2021 13: 29
                      0
                      ))))) This is an endless conversation
                      Quote: bayard
                      Size matters . Length of pipelines on large and small aircraft. Namely, the hydraulic tubes (for the same Su-27) are the most difficult and expensive thing to perform.

                      Counterquestion. Where is the greater the length of the pipelines on three small planes or two large ones?
                      Quote: bayard
                      Well, already 25 - 27% have been identified. Plus, less labor costs during assembly and little things that you have not yet considered. And we reach the required 30 - 35%, which is a 1,5 times CHEAPER.

                      How about making the most expensive part of a fighter jet, the pilot, cheaper? Which is cheaper, to train / feed / heal / dress / pay salary / retrain pilots for three small planes or for two large ones?
                      Quote: bayard
                      And the flight preparation time (from the moment of landing to the readiness for a new flight) at LFMI will be almost two times less. This means that such fighters will be able to create much greater operational stress in the theater of operations during real combat operations (more sorties per day) and will bring more benefits as a result.

                      They will be more useful on one small condition that they can fight heavy machines on an equal footing. If we are talking about the exterminating component. But we decided to get on the slippery slope of cheaper prices. This means that there will be no radar with all-round visibility, five gratings and L-band. And it will also be possible to save on OLS, on engines with UHT. Smaller missiles will fit into the belly. Yes, and trouble with the radius and fuel supply.
                      And regarding the shock component, it is generally irrelevant for the LFI.
                      Quote: bayard
                      It is not I who propose this, but the Ministry of Industry and Trade and the Sukhoi Design Bureau. And while they do it for their money.

                      For their money, they can sketch a couple of sketches. But to master five - another billion - for a sweet soul. It's another matter that we don't have extra billions
                      1. bayard
                        bayard 2 June 2021 16: 49
                        0
                        Quote: Winnie76
                        )) This is an endless conversation

                        Oh yes, this music can be eternal. But we have heavy rains for the third day and I can afford a few more phrases.
                        Quote: Winnie76
                        Counterquestion. Where is the greater the length of the pipelines on three small planes or two large ones?

                        If we are talking about hydraulics, then perhaps there will be parity in length.
                        If we are talking about fuel systems, then there may be less on 3 light single-engine ones. Still, 3 engines against 4.
                        Quote: Winnie76
                        How about making the most expensive part of a fighter jet, the pilot, cheaper? Which is cheaper, to train / feed / heal / dress / pay salary / retrain pilots for three small planes or for two large ones?

                        Well, here we already ran into Serdyukovism. And Serdyukov was neither a military man nor an engineer. lol And his reforms led, naturally, to an acute shortage of both junior officers in general and young pilots in particular. And the problem arose as a disaster. So much so that Putin had to personally ask the "old" pilots to stay on flight work for another 5 years ... until they prepare new young ones ... This is a VERY vicious path. And the experience of WWII is a witness to this - when most of the experienced pilots were knocked out of the Luftwaffe and the dominance in the sky was completely lost. And in the USSR they relied on the MASSIVE training of flight personnel. For this there were DOSAF, and flight schools, and numerous flight schools. And during the war, the number of well-trained pilots only grew. And many wonderful pilots (from the young at the beginning of the war) fully revealed themselves only during the Korean War.
                        Remember the experience of the war in the Pacific, when Japan, having lost most of its pre-war pilots, completely gave up air supremacy to the Americans. The forces and numbers of which grew continuously during the war.
                        For the United States (like the USSR) relied precisely on the mass training of pilots.
                        They had someone to put on their planes.
                        And massiveness on some heavy machines will not work. And it was at the turn of the 70s - 80s that the rule was established - the ratio of heavy and light fighters should be as much as 1 to 2. In the United States, the rule was generally established: 30% - heavy fighters, 70% - light fighters. And we have come to about the same.
                        The bet on heavy ones in the Russian Federation was forced - the MiG-29, due to 2 engines, did not justify themselves in operation, there was no new light single-engine one, and only Soviet-built aircraft were operated. So we have a forced bias. When they began to build new aircraft, only heavy ones were also available (Su-30SM, Su-35, Su-34), so they were adopted for service. In addition, at that time the question of the shortage of pilots was already raised - the flight schools stopped recruiting for 5 years under Serdyukov.

                        Quote: Winnie76
                        They will do more good with one small condition that they can fight heavy machines on equal terms.

                        We have ENOUGH heavy machines, and how to fight light versus heavy is not our problem.
                        In addition, if the Sukhoi design bureau follows the same path as when working on the S-53 \ 54 \ 55, then the light airborne radar will be taken from the quite heavy Su-57. Most likely not all - there will not be a stern antenna for sure. And it is unlikely that something will be pushed into the slats. But even if there are only three antenna canvases, the LFMI's radar visibility will be about 240 - 270 g.
                        Do you think this is not enough?
                        And who has more in the world?
                        Or even the same amount?
                        Quote: Winnie76
                        ... And it will also be possible to save on OLS

                        You don't need to save - a useful thing in battle.
                        Quote: Winnie76
                        on engines with UVT.

                        But this is unlikely. Recently, the Chinese showed the latest version of their "J-10" with an UHT engine - very impressive aerobatics. Why give up what is, if it is not just good, but the best?
                        Quote: Winnie76
                        Yes, and with the radius and fuel supply trouble.
                        And regarding the shock component, it is generally irrelevant for the LFI.

                        Let's count again ... Extrapolate ...
                        Our hypothetical LFMI will be in the scales of the same MiG-35.
                        Right ?
                        And the total thrust of the MiG-35 engines is about the same 11/18 tf. That's just the weight of TWO RD-33 engines will be much more than one "Product-30" - over two tons, versus 1,3 tons. Add to this the weight of two fuel systems against one, a power and fastening set of an airframe for two engines and one ... And everywhere we see weight savings (dry weight of the glider) in a single-engine aircraft versus a twin-engine one.
                        And how can we dispose of such savings?
                        That's right - we increase the fuel supply.
                        This means we are increasing the combat radius.
                        For the MiG-35, it is 1000 km. (At 3000 km. Maximum range).
                        So how much will LFMI have? Which engine is more economical and has more fuel?
                        And who else in the world can have such indicators for LFMI?
                        With a range and a combat radius like the Su-27 and Su-30SM? yes
                        And all this is really possible to get on such an engine and with such a layout.
                        In addition, the declared ONE air intake under the fuselage excludes large in-fuselage compartments for weapons. If this is so, then it is quite gratifying, because attempts to hide as much inside as possible will only lead to inflation of the fuselage to the size of a "Penguin" and a drawdown of the flight characteristics. We need balance and reasonable moderation in such things.
                        And one more aspect of comparing the effectiveness of heavy and light fighters - in the ability to create / withstand operational stress in the theater of operations.
                        Let's compare the combat effectiveness of TWO conventional heavy twin-engine MFIs and THREE LFMIs with one engine.
                        If (this is conditional) a pair of heavy ones is capable of carrying out 3 (three) sorties per day, then the three LFMI, due to the less time of inter-flight preparation, will make 5 (five) sorties.
                        What will it give us.
                        During the day, 6 heavy or 15 light aircraft will be lifted into the sky.
                        If we consider the shock functions (it’s easier to compare efficiency) and assume that the heavy one takes on average 6 tons of payload (50% of the maximum), and the light 4 tons. ... It turns out that the heavy ones will use 36 tons of ammunition per day, and light 60 tons. Moreover, the light ones will use their ammunition for MUCH more targets.
                        If we are talking about air battles, then (again, conditionally):
                        - heavy ones will be able to carry out 6 air battles / interceptions per day,
                        - the lungs will conduct 15 air battles or interceptions.
                        And in the case of air battles / interceptions, the advantages of LFMI in theater of operations are even more prominent and expressive.
                        But heavy ones can operate on a larger radius and patrol the area for a longer time. So it’s like in the old Soviet rhyme: "Different mothers are needed, different mothers are important."
                        Nobody can reduce the number of heavy fighters in the RF Aerospace Forces, but increase the number of these aerospace forces by deploying (in the future) an additional number of air regiments on light single-engine fighters is a very sensible and useful thing.
                        Quote: Winnie76
                        For their money, they can sketch a couple of sketches. But to master five - another billion - for a sweet soul.

                        Everyone loves money, such is their nature. Another thing is that a light fighter is really needed for the Aerospace Forces, and this fighter is not a MiG-35 at all.
                        Quote: Winnie76
                        It's another matter that we don't have extra billions

                        A very deep mistake. Money in the Russian Federation is simply heaps of money. But for social needs and retirement they will not be spent for sure. But they may well be in service. Moreover, this new fighter promises not only orders from the Aerospace Forces, but also considerable orders from foreign operators of our technology. For the sake of such a gesheft, any marketer will "sell his mother."
        2. Eug
          Eug 14 August 2021 16: 02
          +1
          And the cost of a flight hour, and, consequently, the entire operational life cycle will be cheaper, and the preparation time for a second flight will be significantly reduced.
          1. bayard
            bayard 15 August 2021 01: 29
            +1
            Quite right. Yes, I also mentioned this in sufficient detail in the above dialogue.
            And this despite the fact that the appearance and declared characteristics of the "Chess Player" were not yet known at that time. It was pure extrapolation and ... sophistry.
            hi
  6. Doccor18
    Doccor18 31 May 2021 06: 58
    +1
    New and easy: will Russia create "invisibility" as an appendage to the Su-57?

    Do our videoconferencing systems need it?
    For me, it's better to throw all the forces and means into three programs: Su-57 (bringing and mass production in an amount of at least 150-200 vehicles), revision of the strike UAV (S-70 Okhotnik), development (and mass production by 30 year) of a new stealthy strategic bomber.
    1. Thrifty
      Thrifty 31 May 2021 07: 19
      +5
      Doccor18 'everything that you have contradicted is expensive for the mass scale, we are not the United States, we cannot technologically pull it off, and even more so, massively build these "charms"! A single-engine aircraft. ..take for example f16, one of the best-selling in the world, and here's the answer to your question. I will not say anything about the good sales of other single-engine aircraft, such as Raphael, Grippen, and for some reason we stubbornly ignore this niche, see the rich too. ..
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 31 May 2021 07: 34
        +2
        I didn't mean that a light fighter is not needed. But scattering the forces and means - in the end, it will not be enough for the full implementation of any of the programs ... After all, it is easy and "cheap" only in words, but in reality this development will come out at such a "pretty penny" and will take a lot of time, which is not much will be different from each of the three pogram described above. And you can't call American and European single-engine engines "cheap" either ...
        And we, I think, first of all need to think about our own security, anticipating possible threats for decades to come, and not "yearn" about export contracts ...
        1. Orange bigg
          Orange bigg 31 May 2021 08: 22
          +4
          .Because it is light and "cheap" only in words, but in reality this development will come out at such a "pretty penny" and take a lot of time, which will not differ much from each of the three pogram described above.


          It is not created from scratch, but based on Su-57 technologies, which is much cheaper and faster.
          .RIA Novosti, in turn, wrote:

          "When creating the aircraft, it is planned to widely use the groundwork developed in the framework of the creation of the Su-57, including the newest product 30 engine, radio-absorbing coatings, avionics, and a complex of weapons."
          1. Doccor18
            Doccor18 31 May 2021 08: 33
            +3
            Quote: OrangeBigg
            It is not created from scratch, but based on Su-57 technologies, which is much cheaper and faster.

            The main question is: how much cheaper and faster?
          2. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 31 May 2021 08: 37
            +3
            Quote: OrangeBigg
            based on Su-57 technologies, which is much cheaper and faster.

            Pratt & Whitney F119 went to the stand in 92, on the plane in 97. And how is Product 30?
            1. Orange bigg
              Orange bigg 31 May 2021 08: 50
              -2
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Quote: OrangeBigg
              based on Su-57 technologies, which is much cheaper and faster.

              Pratt & Whitney F119 went to the stand in 92, on the plane in 97. And how is Product 30?


              Like that. In 2022, they promise to supply production Su-57s.
              ... The Ministry of Defense will receive the first serial Su-57 in December this year during a single day of acceptance of military products. In the future, the rate of delivery of the fifth generation fighter to the military department will grow to 15 aircraft per year. This is reported by TASS with reference to a source in the military-industrial complex.

              "In December of this year, during a single day of acceptance of military products, the military department will receive the first serial Su-57 with a standard engine of the first stage, in 2021 - four more such aircraft," the source said.

              According to him, in the future, the rate of delivery of the Su-57 to the military department will increase up to 15 vehicles per year. "As a result, the contract signed in 2019 for 76 Su-57s until 2028 will definitely be fulfilled on time," the source said.

              The interlocutor of the agency specified that deliveries of fighters with a second stage engine are planned to begin in 2022.

              So far, all produced vehicles are equipped with the AL-41F1 engine, a modification used on the Su-35S fighter.

              https://aviation21.ru/su-57-poluchil-dvigatel-vtorogo-etapa-izdelie-30/
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 31 May 2021 09: 20
                -1
                Not the first year, it seems, they promise?
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 31 May 2021 08: 45
        -9
        Let's start with the fact that the Rafale is a twin-engine, and the "gripena" has not fallen into a stump to almost anyone in the world, besides the native Swedish Air Force, which acquired most of the 200+ produced cars.

        The F-16 is from the 1970s, now it is in the backyard, despite the fact that it is there, and rolling out its new version is not a new plane to make from scratch.
  7. garri-lin
    garri-lin 31 May 2021 07: 29
    -6
    The 5th generation aircraft by default cannot be light. Too much filling is needed. And no matter how many engines. The range is not important. Clever stuffing is weight. And without her in any way.
    1. Orange bigg
      Orange bigg 31 May 2021 08: 38
      +1
      Quote: garri-lin
      The 5th generation aircraft by default cannot be light. Too much filling is needed. And no matter how many engines. The range is not important. Clever stuffing is weight. And without her in any way.


      Do you think this filling will weigh tons? lolThe empty weight of the F-35 refutes your statement. After all, the stuffing means AFAR and other electronics.
      .With regard to the technical characteristics of the F-35, they differ slightly for each of the modifications. There are three models of this family:

      F-35A - standard fighter;
      F-35B - vertical landing and fast takeoff;
      F-35C - catapult takeoff from an aircraft carrier.
      F-35A


      From a technological point of view, the simplest model is the first of them - 35A. This is a lightweight and inexpensive model, which will become the main one for export. The aircraft is 15,57 m long and 4,38 m high. The wingspan is 10,67 m and the wing area is 42,7 m².

      F-35A.
      The empty weight of the F-35A is 13 kg, and the maximum take-off weight reaches 290 kg.


      F-35V.
      Its dimensions are the same as those of the F-35A. The weight of the empty fighter is 14 650 kg, and the maximum weight is 27 215 kg.

      F-35S.
      It weighs 15 785 kg when empty. The maximum weight reaches 30 320 kg.
      Source: https://nasamoletah.ru/samolety/xarakteristiki-f-35.html
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 31 May 2021 09: 11
        -6
        Since when did Fu 35 become the 5th generation? Honest 4+. And you yourself brought the weight.
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 31 May 2021 08: 49
      0
      Will you fly with PTB without range? It will not be stealth at all.
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 31 May 2021 09: 13
        +1
        I can read. I can't understand! ???
      2. Orange bigg
        Orange bigg 31 May 2021 09: 14
        +1
        And what has the PTB to do with it? ”It was a response to the statements.
        Too much filling is needed. And no matter how many engines. The range is not important. Clever stuffing is weight. And without her in any way.

        It doesn't weigh that much if you look at the weight of the empty F-35.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 31 May 2021 09: 16
          +1
          Despite the fact that it makes no sense to make an aircraft of the 5th generation, if it will fly on a mission like an F-16, weighed down with crumpled PTBs.
          1. Orange bigg
            Orange bigg 31 May 2021 09: 26
            -3
            How does it make no sense? Aircraft of the 5th generation are developing:
            1USA,
            2South Korea and Indonesia,
            3 China,
            4 France, Germany, Spain,
            5United Kingdom, Italy, Sweden,
            6Turkey in cooperation with South Korea,
            7 Japan.
            8 India.
            If we allow ourselves to think like you, then we can turn into laggards, and the weak, as you know, are beaten. So there is no need to broadcast your defeatist theses that we, unlike the others, do not need 5th generation fighters, otherwise we will lag behind and threaten the country's security.
            1. EvilLion
              EvilLion 31 May 2021 09: 49
              -1
              Can you read? The question is whether it is advisable to manufacture a 5th generation fighter, if all its invisibility goes to a known place due to the need to hang up PTB.
              1. Orange bigg
                Orange bigg 31 May 2021 10: 01
                +2
                And why PTB if the radius of combat is still quite large without them?


                The J-20 has more than 11 tons of fuel, about the same as that of the Su-57. And all this without PTB.
                .The mass of fuel that is placed on board the aircraft is more than eleven tons. This is approximately the same figure as that of the "T-50", but at the same time it is a couple of hundred kilograms higher.

                https://gunsfriend.ru/samolet-f-35-ssa-tehniceskie-harakteristiki-skolko-stoit/
                1. EvilLion
                  EvilLion 31 May 2021 12: 33
                  +1
                  The radius is great for large cars. And the class has about 10 tons, distillation without PTB thousand 2. Because the specific mass fraction of fuel they inevitably have less. For the F-16 or even the F-15E, flying with a PTB is the norm.
              2. garri-lin
                garri-lin 31 May 2021 17: 51
                +1
                Google what conformal PTBs are. As well as koformny bays of weapons.
  8. Esaul
    Esaul 31 May 2021 09: 24
    -3
    I am confident that Russia can and will create a new light stealth fighter. The money will be allocated, mastered, but no one will see the plane. Here you will be invisible.
    1. Orange bigg
      Orange bigg 31 May 2021 09: 31
      -1
      .Money will be allocated, mastered, but no one will see the plane. Here you will be invisible.


      What is the basis of your statement? Wishful thinking? And why do you so do not want Russia to have a 5th generation light fighter? Probably you are not from Russia and there are complexes, envy, maybe even fear in you. I'm wrong?
  9. 123456789
    123456789 31 May 2021 09: 32
    +3
    Quote: Winnie76
    Quote: Thrifty
    practiced

    Quote: Thrifty
    Actually

    Quote: Thrifty
    bosed

    Quote: Thrifty
    experimental

    But in fact I agree

    I hasten to remind all aviation experts: "After the summer holidays are over, back to school!" laughing
  10. AAK
    AAK 31 May 2021 09: 55
    +3
    Until the mid-1980s, most of the fighter / fighter-bomber fleet of the USSR Air Force were just single-engine vehicles (MiG-21, 23, 27, Su-7B, Su-17) and this was perceived as the norm.
    At present, the Russian Air Force has about 250 MiG-29s of various types, but about 120-140 of them are actively operated, so the need for a promising 29-tonne front-line fighter is quite obvious. Taking into account the larger estimated volume of CM and ultralight alloys in the design of such an aircraft and the much lower weight of modern electronic equipment compared to what is installed on the 1000th, the combat radius of such an aircraft in the format of a front-line fighter with comparable weapons will reach or exceed 29 km (for the MiG -4,2 with 1500 thousand liters of internal fuel reserve - the total flight range is less than 2 km, and with 2100 PTB only 2150-XNUMX km).
    Plus, such a fighter can become the basis of an aircraft carrier fleet of aircraft (developments on the C-54 - C-56) in the version with a conventional wing or with a KOS, which makes it possible, with a constant hangar volume, to increase the aircraft capacity by about 1,5-1,6 times. With a dry weight of 9-10 tons, the normal take-off weight of such an aircraft is 16-17 tons (thrust-to-weight ratio with a product-30 engine is more than 1), and at the maximum - 20-21 tons (thrust-to-weight ratio at the start is slightly less than 1, when working out in flight approximately half of the fuel it will already be equal to or slightly more than 1). The presence of a catapult launch will increase the payload (fuel, weapons) by another 1,5-2,5 tons
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 31 May 2021 12: 36
      0
      All Soviet MiG-29s have long been withdrawn from combat units, except for the airbase in Armenia, alley garage, for several years now.

      And there will be no more than 2000 km of ferry range. No materials will help radically here, and the mass of electronics decreases only in relation to its performance.
  11. Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 31 May 2021 10: 02
    +1
    Lightweight is not cheap.
    Electronics - AFAR, optics, brains, other sensors, display system, communication ... etc. - account for the lion's share of the aircraft's price. etc.
    So an airplane can be cheap if there is already a mastered equipment that does not need to be developed from scratch.
    But judging by the state of affairs with AFAR, they are not. And those that are, are "like an airplane."
    It is possible that the situation is the same with other avionics. So the price of a "cheap" car is just one engine less than an "expensive" one.
    During operation, there can be savings on kerosene, yes. But these are such pennies.
    1. Orange bigg
      Orange bigg 31 May 2021 10: 20
      -1
      .But judging by the state of affairs with AFAR, they are not.


      How is it not? But what about the Su-57 with AFAR Belka passed state tests?

      ... The main characteristics of the Russian fifth-generation multifunctional fighter are listed, which allow it "to be ready for war against anyone."
      American expert Peter Suciu in his material for 19FortyFive identified four of the best features of the Su-57. These include stealth, speed, advanced weaponry, and the latest electronics. According to the expert, these characteristics make the Russian fighter a dangerous adversary in the sky and allow it, as the text says, "to be ready for war against anyone."




      By using composite materials, it was possible to reduce the number of parts and the weight of the fighter. The use of innovative technologies and aerodynamic configuration ensured low visibility.

      In addition, the fifth generation fighter was equipped with the most modern avionics, including a powerful on-board computer. The expert notes that the car has an improved radar system and other innovations.

      https://hi-tech.mail.ru/news/53307-amerikancy-raskryli-preimuschestva-su-57/

      And those that are, are "like an airplane."
      It is possible that the situation is the same with other avionics. So the price of a "cheap" car is just one engine less than an "expensive" one.
      During operation, there can be savings on kerosene, yes. But these are such pennies.

      Do you propose to transfer to donkeys from fighters in order to save money, but it will be this savings, because whoever does not feed his army will feed someone else's.
      1. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock 31 May 2021 11: 01
        +2
        Quote: OrangeBigg
        But what about the Su-57 with AFAR Belka

        SU-57 is large and heavy. It fits a lot. It is possible that it is so big just so that this "a lot of things" could fit. And it is far from the fact that all this will fit into a "light" fighter. And then you either have to do the same thing in a new version, easier and more compact, or give up something, reducing the possibilities.
        The same AFAR seems to be lighter as it is, it was offered for the MIG-35. But it was a long time ago, which means it's time to redo it. And they didn't take it on the serial MiG, which means it's either bad, or well, very expensive, which means it needs to be redone. Those. neither fast nor cheap is no longer possible.
        And yes, the "Belka" was not even taken on the heavy SU-30 and SU-35, which means that something is wrong with it.
        1. Orange bigg
          Orange bigg 31 May 2021 11: 08
          0
          Aviation is expensive everywhere now. A compromise is needed between the price and the number of cars produced. The more planes we make, the cheaper they will cost, and not like we have a separate fighter for every occasion, so anyone will fly into the chimney. The bet should be placed on the Su-57, MiG-35, Su-34M, a lightweight fighter of the 5th generation with regards to fighters. Well, the MiG-41, but this is a long-term perspective.
        2. EvilLion
          EvilLion 31 May 2021 12: 41
          0
          You're Cap straight. Especially considering that the Su-57 must carry weapons inside and enough fuel to almost always do without PTB.

          The "Belka" has different dimensions, and there is exactly one serial copy now in operation, the one on the first adopted Su-57. And no one will remake the Su-30 and Su-35 for it in the coming years. Then it is possible, since the Su-30SM is still on the radar from the 90s, but I have a suspicion that they also work for sparks, which means that their resource may be knocked out by 2030, which can do modernization devoid of special meaning.
        3. garri-lin
          garri-lin 31 May 2021 17: 49
          +2
          Not a lot of things will go into it. The required minimum mixes into it. And it is unrealistic to fit all this into one and a half times smaller glider. Even with an unlimited budget. And you will start to cut the complete set and the 5th generation slides down to 4+ but dearly. It is a pity that many do not understand this.
    2. Eug
      Eug 31 May 2021 15: 30
      0
      But the cost of a flight hour will still be less .. and the preparation time for a re-flight too .. and the requirements for the runway .... are already a lot.
  12. Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 31 May 2021 11: 06
    +2
    Quote: OrangeBigg
    Do you offer to switch to donkeys from fighters in order to save money?

    No.
    I suggest not to fence the zoo, especially if it is not really needed.
    Although, everything must be considered.
    If a new light fighter can really be made cheaper than the existing one, then I'm all for it. I just have doubts.
    The same MiG-35 in the version of full-fledged equipment comparable to the Su-35, at the price, too, turns out to be practically equivalent, with the worst opportunities.
  13. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 31 May 2021 11: 32
    0
    Of course, the ideas are good, but by modern standards, the Su-57 goes in a microscopic batch, investing in and creating also a single-engine stealth for the sake of the same microscopic batches, isn't this a dubious task? Although, if you think about it, this product would have a good export potential, which would at least pay off the development ..
    1. Orange bigg
      Orange bigg 31 May 2021 12: 14
      -2
      Serial production of the Su-57 has just started and will gradually increase.
      ... Serial production of Su-57 fighters, which have been in development since the 1990s, has been underway since the summer of 2019. The Su-57 is currently in trial operation. Earlier, the military announced that the vehicle would be put into service by the end of 2019, but due to the incident with the Su-57 crash during a test flight in December last year, this deadline was moved to 2020. To date, the Russian Defense Ministry has ordered 76 new fighters.

      Basic information on the Su-57 project is classified. It is only known that the new aircraft will be able to carry missiles and bombs with a total mass of up to 4,2 tons in the internal compartments. In addition, the fighters will be equipped with eight external hardpoints for aircraft weapons. The Su-57 is planned to be put into service in two stages. At the first stage, the troops will begin to receive aircraft with AL-41F1 engines. At the second stage, the Su-57 will receive engines of the fifth generation - "product 30".

      The first serial Su-57 entered the army in January 2021.

      https://nplus1.ru/news/2021/03/25/su-57
      1. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock 31 May 2021 12: 34
        +3
        Quote: OrangeBigg
        Serial production of the Su-57 has just started and will gradually increase.

        Serial?
        76 pieces for how many years there?
        This is a piece production.
        A completely different technological level.
        And if for assembly it can still be called a series, then for electronics it is a scale for experienced workshops in research institutes. Given that, for example, for the manufacture of 76 sets of semiconductor chips, exactly the same equipment is required as for 176, or 1176, or for 1000076.
        This is a lot of money, a whole plant for each item. And all this is included in the price of the plane.

        By the way, that's why I'm surprised that the same "Belka" did not go for the modernization of the Su30 and Su35, in fact it would have cost almost free.
        1. Eug
          Eug 31 May 2021 15: 32
          0
          I suspect that there will be a two-seater Su-57 to replace the Su-30, 34. And there will be more than one-seater.
      2. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 31 May 2021 12: 44
        0
        According to state purchases of weapons, by the end of 2027, there will be 76 (maximum). Considering that all these plans are often written on the water with a pitchfork, this is probably the maximum.
        I will not say that this is bad considering our funds, but not great either.
        The same Americans already have 187 serial F-22s, the PRC already has 28+ serial or pre-production J-20s. I am not even bothered by the small size of the series (although by our standards it is not small), but the terrifyingly long time it takes for these plans to be realized as to how efficiently conditional "competitors" operate in these areas.
  14. bars1
    bars1 31 May 2021 12: 52
    +2
    Quote: Jacket in stock
    And yes, the "Belka" was not even taken on the heavy SU-30 and SU-35, which means that something is wrong with it.

    The skinny budget of the RF Ministry of Defense. The situation is similar to the T-72B3.
  15. Lt. Air Force stock
    Lt. Air Force stock 31 May 2021 13: 06
    0
    There is already a S-70, is it not a single-engine fighter?
  16. m.voron
    m.voron 31 May 2021 14: 21
    -1
    "will Russia create" invisibility "in addition to the Su-57" - it will not create, or rather it may create on paper, well, at best, in the form of a prototype, however, like the Su 57, which began to be developed back in 2001 and never mind can not bring.
  17. Eug
    Eug 31 May 2021 15: 08
    0
    It must be understood that KB MiG focused on the development of the PAK DA? For me, LMFS development just begs to be competitive.
    PS The image of PAK YES given in the article is almost the only one that I like.
  18. Starshina
    Starshina 31 May 2021 15: 50
    -1
    Again confusion and throwing from one to another, as well as the spraying of funds !!! In place of finally completing and releasing the S-57 in mass quantities, an incomprehensible fuss and throwing from one project to another begins !!! There is a deliberate sabotage, as a result of which the Air Force will be left without the latest fighters altogether. And then you don't have to do anything - just drag out the time and spray as much money as possible on various projects and, as a result, not bring a single modern aircraft to production !!!
  19. ivpe211
    ivpe211 31 May 2021 17: 48
    0
    someone remembered about the drawings moment 1.44.
  20. Denton
    Denton 1 June 2021 14: 51
    +1
    That's what everyone was so excited about about the light fighter, the concept of which is being worked out on its own initiative. Well, that is, the design bureau selects a group of specialists, who most likely do not have more important tasks at the moment, to dream up and play around. And they bring it out to the public in order to be noticed and maybe give money. Well, so that the brains do not rust.

    In fact, for our distances, a light fighter is simply useless. There is no need to cite the MiG 29 as an example, it was made for slightly different tasks. What is needed is not cheap and a lot, but it is necessary so that the tasks are performed.

    Moreover, the expensive 5th generation is mostly needed to counter the same 5th generation, or 4 ++. And for hacking a good air defense system, into which, as you know, not only everyone can. As soon as fighters and air defenses run out, all this stealth is basically unnecessary and you can work with a much cheaper 4th generation.

    As for the MiG-41. There is perhaps only one thing, detonation engines, the latest heat-resistant materials and spacewalk. But this already seems like the 6th generation (this is normal, and not about which journalists and blokhera write).
  21. AntiAleks
    AntiAleks 8 July 2021 11: 18
    0
    How many Su-47s are in service? not at all!
    How many Su-57s are in service? not at all!
    and now attention is the question - how many other stealth aircraft will it create?
    the answer is not at all!