Military Review

Soviet legacy: fifth generation turbojet engine based on Product 79

119
Soviet legacy: fifth generation turbojet engine based on Product 79

The creation of turbojet engines (turbojet engines) for modern combat aircraft is a technology that is not available to every country. Only the leading technological powers have the ability to design and manufacture turbojet engines, since this requires advanced design schools, high-tech materials and complex technological processes. During the Cold War, leading developers aviation The turbojet engines were the USA and the USSR, Great Britain and France breathed in the back of their heads.


Race of generations


One of the most complex and technologically advanced engines is for fighters, which must combine the requirements for high maximum thrust with and without afterburner, high fuel efficiency and relatively compact dimensions. For a long time the Soviet Union and the United States went practically "head to head", from time to time one country, then another pulled ahead. The shortcomings of Soviet aircraft engines were often attributed to a small resource - the technological capabilities of the United States were always higher, often it was possible to maintain parity only due to the ingenuity of Soviet engineers and designers. However, by the time the USSR collapsed, this problem had already been practically solved.


Soviet and American turbojet engines for fourth-generation aircraft (scale not met)


Technical characteristics of Soviet and American turbojet engines for fourth-generation aircraft

The collapse of the USSR pretty much crippled the country's aviation industry - personnel, technological competencies were lost, time wasted. It was at this moment that the development of the latest fifth-generation aircraft was underway, for which the appropriate engines were required.

As a consequence, the United States took the lead, first creating the F119-PW-100 engine for the fifth-generation F-22 heavy fighter, and then the F-135-PW-100/400/600 engine for the F-35 light single-engine fighter.


American turbojet engines for fifth generation fighters F-22 and F-35


Characteristics of the F119 and F-135 turbojet engines (detailed performance characteristics of the fifth-generation American turbojet engines are classified and may differ in different sources)

In Russia, the development of fifth generation fighters and engines for them dragged on. The design bureaus of Sukhoi and Mikoyan, in conditions of chronic underfunding, independently carried out work on the fifth generation fighters.

In 1997, the Sukhoi Design Bureau presented a design for the Su-47 forward-swept fighter (the S-37 theme). The D-30F6 turbojet engine from the MiG-31 fighter-interceptor was installed on the prototype, but it was planned to install a different engine on the serial machine - the P179-300. In turn, the Mikoyan Design Bureau was working on the project of the MiG-1.44 multifunctional front-line fighter, which made its first flight in 2000. The turbojet engine AL-41F, specially developed for the fifth generation aircraft with an expected afterburner thrust of 18 tons, was to be used as an engine.


Prototypes of Russian fifth generation fighters - Su-47 and MiG-1.44

Both projects were based on the solutions of the last century and no longer met modern requirements. Combined with chronic underfunding, this buried both projects. Presumably, the developments on the MiG-1.44 could be used by China in the development of its fifth-generation fighter J-20.


China is good at borrowing technology - something from the MiG-1.44, something from the F-22, something from the F-35

The closed projects of the Su-47 and MiG-1.44 were replaced by the project of a promising aviation complex of front-line aviation (PAK-FA), the tender for which was won by the Sukhoi Design Bureau, which ultimately created the Su-57 aircraft. It would seem that everything is fine? However, on the way to create this machine, many technical and technological problems arose. One of the most critical was the lack of a fifth-generation engine.


Su-57

It would seem that such an engine was created - this is the AL-41F turbojet engine, which was also flown by the MiG-1.44 in 2000. However, its dimensions did not allow it to be placed on the Su-57 fighter. On the basis of the AL-41F, the AL-41F1 turbojet engine of reduced dimensions was created, the thrust of which decreased from 18000 kgf to 15000 kgf, which is already considered insufficient for a fifth generation fighter.


Characteristics of turbojet engine AL-41F1 in comparison with engines of American fifth generation fighters

Ultimately, the AL-41F1 turbojet engine became the first stage engine for the Su-57, with which only a part of production vehicles will be produced. To replace it, an engine of the second stage is being developed under the designation "Product 30", there is not much information about it yet - the thrust on the afterburner is supposed to be 18000 kgf, which is less than that of the already mass-produced American F-135-PW-100/400 (19500 kgf). The development and testing of "Product 30" has already dragged on.

However, there was (and still exists) an alternative to the development of the AL-41F1 / AL-41F / AL-41F1 / Product 30 engine line. It was mentioned just above that the R-47-179 turbojet engine was considered as the alleged serial engine for the Su-300 - but what kind of engine is this?

Alternative solution


The R179-300 turbojet engine was developed on the basis of the R79V-300 engine (product 79) of the Yak-141 vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft.


VTOL Yak-141


Engine Р79В-300 VTVP Yak-141


The characteristics of the turbojet engine R79V-300 in comparison with its "classmates"

The parameters of thrust in maximum and afterburner modes of the Р79В-300 engine significantly exceed the parameters of other turbojet engines of the fourth generation. The weight of the Р79В-300 is slightly higher, but do not forget that it includes a rotary nozzle, which allows using the afterburner in both horizontal and vertical modes.

On the pages of specialized publications and on the Internet, the shortage in the Russian Air Force (Air Force) of a light single-engine fighter - an analogue of the American F-16 - is often discussed. But, in fact, such an aircraft was practically created - this is the Yak-141. Yes, the Yak-141 is a VTOL aircraft, but its characteristics are quite comparable to fighters of a similar weight dimension - the MiG-29 and F-16 aircraft.


Characteristics of the Yak-141, MiG-29 and F-16 - it should be noted that the characteristics of the F-16C Block 50/52, which were produced in the 90s, are given

It can be assumed that on the basis of the Yak-141, a light multifunctional single-engine fighter with flight characteristics exceeding those of the MiG-35 and F-16 of the latest versions could be created.

Accordingly, just as the Su-27 family of aircraft is being modernized, a light fighter based on the Yak-141 could be modernized, primarily in terms of onboard electronic equipment (avionics) and the integration of new weapons.


Concept VTOL Yak-201 - the successor of the Yak-141

Such an aircraft could be in demand both by the Russian Air Force and in foreign markets, where the same MiG-29 did not gain popularity.

In general, in this case, a certain "triumvirate" could have developed in the Russian industry, in which the Yakovlev Design Bureau would concentrate on light single-engine fighters and VTOL aircraft, the Sukhoi Design Bureau would build heavy Su-27 class fighters, and the MiG Design Bureau would develop a line of long-range heavy interceptor fighters (later multifunctional) of the MiG-31 type. Of course, the division of labor would not be compulsory, any design bureau could participate in competitions "on the topic", since competition is a blessing.


Yakovlev Design Bureau light fighter concept

But back to aircraft engines. According to unconfirmed reports, R-79-300 technologies "leaked" to China in the early 90s:

“At the Sinodefence Forum, one of the participants brought a machine translation of an article from a certain Chinese Internet resource, which allegedly said that China had received technical documentation from Russia and the R-79-300 engine itself, which was equipped with a Yak VTOL aircraft. -141.

In 1992, Russia, experiencing a deep economic crisis, decided to stop developing the Yak-141 fighter. This decision was made at the demonstration of aviation technology in Machulishchi (near Minsk, Belarus). The R-79-300 engine developed by AMNTK Soyuz was not planned to be installed on any of the aircraft. In August 1996, Russia signed an act of transferring the engine to the Chinese side, and also provided a complete set of drawings and technical documentation (the engine was transferred without a thrust vectoring nozzle). But later, in 1998, when the Asian financial crisis caused economic difficulties in Russia, China was able to obtain the R-79-300V engine nozzle with its technology.

On the basis of the R-79, the Chinese Research Institute of Gas Turbine Engines (Xi'an) began developing its own version of the WS-15. The engine is being developed in several modifications:
- WS-15-10 for the export version of the J-10M fighter;
- WS-15-13 for the promising light stealth fighter J-13;
- WS-15-CJ for a promising fighter with a short takeoff and vertical landing;
- WS-15X for the promising twin-engine heavy stealth fighter J-20.

With the successful development of the WS-15 engine, China is said to be practically closing the gap with the United States, Europe and Russia in developing advanced military jet engines. "

Despite all the negativeness of this information, it can be concluded from it that the R79V-300 turbojet engine can be used as a basis for promising aircraft engines.

The promising turbojet engine R79-300 developed on the basis of the R179V-300 engine had characteristics that corresponded to the requirements of that time for the fifth generation engines. Along with the AL-41F, it was considered as the basis for a promising fifth generation fighter, but the military chose the AL-41F, since it was believed that it could be brought to airworthiness faster.


Characteristics of the R179-300 in comparison with the turbojet engine AL-41F1


Parameters Р179-300 from the site of AMNTK "Soyuz"

Was the choice justified or were other factors intervening? Whether the military was right or wrong is an open question. The choice in favor of the AL-41F was made back in the 80s, but the "Product 30" for the Su-57 fighter, based on the AL-41F developments, has not yet been brought to the stage of readiness.

What conclusion can be drawn from this??

The engine is the basis of any combat vehicle - an airplane, a ship, tank... It is the characteristics of the engine that determine which combat vehicle will have a range and speed, combat load, armor protection, etc.

When creating complex technology, there is always a risk that the developer will come to a standstill - go down the wrong path, as a result of which there may be a delay of years, or even decades. Considering the importance of combat aircraft in general, and fighter aircraft in particular, "putting eggs in one basket" is absolutely unacceptable. The state could well afford to entrust the development of fifth generation aircraft engines to two design bureaus. In addition, as we said above, healthy competition has a very positive effect on the quality and cost of the final product.

However, it is not too late, the situation with the turbojet engine can still be corrected. AMNTK “Soyuz” has retained its technical competencies and is proactively developing engines for fifth-generation aircraft. For example, a promising turbojet engine P2020-579 was presented at the Army-300 forum, the declared characteristics of which are quite consistent with the requirements for aircraft engines for fifth-generation aircraft.


Characteristics of the R579-300 in comparison with the AL-41F1 turbojet engine and the American fifth-generation aircraft engines


Parameters Р579-300 from the site of AMNTK "Soyuz"


TRD R579-300, presented at the forum "Army-2020"

It is far from the fact that the R579-300 turbojet engine or another aircraft engine based on it will be able to be integrated into the Su-57 airframe due to the size discrepancy, although this is not certain, perhaps the Soyuz AMNTK can adapt the R579-300 turbojet engine for the Su- 57.

But even if the P57-579 turbojet engine is not suitable for the Su-300, then a light multifunctional fighter can be built on it, including in the VTOL version, promising long-range interception aircraft complex, or other aircraft for the needs of the Russian Air Force or for export supplies.

For example, in the news on the site of the AMNTK Soyuz it is said about the possibility of creating a promising engine based on the R579-300 turbojet engine for a strategic UAV with a flight speed of more than 3-4 M, which can also be used to launch small spacecraft.

More engines, good and different - this should be the motto of our industry. The resources of the state make it possible to finance several developments in parallel, to reduce the technical and temporary risks of creating promising products.
Author:
119 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 19 July 2021 04: 49
    +13
    MAKS-21 will show a prototype or mock-up of a fighter, judging by the frames, a single-engine, so the article is very timely.

    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4352747.html
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 19 July 2021 07: 26
      +3
      It will be, but without unification of the main components with the Su57, and ideally with the Hunter S-70, the idea loses its meaning.
      1. Shopping Mall
        19 July 2021 07: 42
        +12
        Quote: Zaurbek
        It will be, but without unification of the main components with the Su57, and ideally with the Hunter S-70, the idea loses its meaning.


        Unification does not have to be absolute. Ideally, when there is a set of requirements within which products can be supplied by several companies - for example, radar, OLS, engines.

        The specifically considered turbojet engine cannot be installed in the Su-57, but a parallel line of engines is needed so that, due to some miscalculation, not to be left without a turbojet engine at all.
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 19 July 2021 08: 42
          0
          Ideally, yes, you need to consider two turbojet engines initially, but the Su57 was made in "poor" conditions. The same competencies can then be used when updating the RD-33 line .... You can unify both the cabin and the compartment for weapons, some kind of systems.
      2. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 19 July 2021 08: 19
        +1
        Quote: Zaurbek
        components with the Su57, and ideally with the Hunter S-70

        They write that the C-70 has the same engine as the Su, but without the afterburner.
        1. SovAr238A
          SovAr238A 19 July 2021 17: 05
          +2
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Quote: Zaurbek
          components with the Su57, and ideally with the Hunter S-70

          They write that the C-70 has the same engine as the Su, but without the afterburner.

          41st there ...
          From the 35th ...
    2. Shopping Mall
      19 July 2021 07: 38
      +12
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      MAKS-21 will show a prototype or mock-up of a fighter, judging by the frames, a single-engine, so the article is very timely.

      https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4352747.html


      Coincidence. I began to write the article just a day before the first information about the show of a promising aircraft at MAKS)
      1. lucul
        lucul 19 July 2021 12: 34
        +5
        The engine is the basis of any combat vehicle - aircraft, ship, tank. It is the characteristics of the engine that determine which combat vehicle will have a range and speed, combat load, armor protection, etc.

        An absolutely correct description of the situation.
        The Second World War was called the War of Engines for a reason - the winner was the one with the best engine. Therefore, motor building is the basis of the foundations, and there should not be underfunding here.
        I would like everyone to clearly understand this.
        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 19 July 2021 16: 06
          -1
          Quote: lucul
          Therefore, motor building is the basis of the foundations, and there should not be underfunding here.

          In addition to financing, there should be strict control over the spending of funds, otherwise it will turn out to be another Rospil, similar to Roscosmos.
        2. TANKISTONE
          TANKISTONE 19 July 2021 19: 39
          +3
          lucul (Vitaliy) Therefore, motor building is the basis of the foundations, and there should not be underfunding here.
          And where should there be underfunding: in science, education, medicine?
          1. lucul
            lucul 19 July 2021 19: 56
            +7
            And where should there be underfunding: in science, education, medicine?

            In American government bonds)))
        3. paul3390
          paul3390 19 July 2021 21: 24
          +3
          the winner was the one with the better engine

          Controversial thesis. Our engines, the same M-105, were certainly no better than the German aviation ones. And to be honest - much worse .. However, we won the war.
          1. Mikail
            Mikail 20 July 2021 03: 31
            -4
            However, from memory, 2/3 of the German planes were also shot down by us.
            1. lucul
              lucul 20 July 2021 10: 52
              -2
              However, from memory, 2/3 of the German planes were also shot down by us.

              Soon it will reach the point (misinterpretation of history) that it turns out that we did not fight with the Germans at all, at the first battle we fled in horror, and the Germans were looking for us in the forests for the remaining 4 years))))
              And so, your memory was replaced with Western propaganda.
              1. Mikail
                Mikail 20 July 2021 17: 40
                0
                All data is in the public domain, you just have to google the phrase "Luftwaffe losses on the fronts." I understand that it is unpleasant for jingoistic patriots to get acquainted with numbers that destroy their worldview. But try it.
                1. lucul
                  lucul 20 July 2021 18: 21
                  0
                  All data is in the public domain, you just have to google the phrase "Luftwaffe losses on the fronts."

                  Indeed)))
                  1. Mikail
                    Mikail 20 July 2021 18: 39
                    -3
                    Oh, how everything is running. You at least look for a normal source in which the data of the German and our side would be compared, and not the GRU certificate ... to make it clearer why I virtually roll my eyes, the same GRU gave the following assessment on tanks:

                    [...] by 22.06.1941, Germany had 21 tanks and self-propelled guns, of which 000 were on the Soviet-German front and 9000 inside the country and in other theaters of military operations. The losses of German armored vehicles on the Soviet-German front in 12, according to the GRU, amounted to 000 thousand units, production - 1941 thousand units

                    TsAMO RF, f. 38 (GABTU), op. 11353 (command headquarters of the commander of the armored and mechanized troops of the Red Army), no. 808 ("Information and information reports of the GRU spacecraft, the headquarters of the BT and MV spacecraft and fronts on the state of the tank industry, the presence and condition of tanks and the use of tank weapons in Germany"), ... 79.
                    1. lucul
                      lucul 20 July 2021 18: 53
                      -4
                      Oh, how everything is running

                      Indeed)))))
                      In a straight line, from Leningrad to Crimea, about 2000 km, and 200 fought on this segment !!! German divisions - a total of 1 division for 10 km of the front.
                      And on the Western Front, 65 German divisions fought, and this is along the entire coastline of Europe from Calais to Cyprus - this is offhand more than 10 km.
                      The allies could land anywhere on the Western Front without any problems, at any time, because 65 divisions simply cannot physically defend such territory, but they did not do this either in 1942 or in 1943.
                      And the allies landed only in 1944 and only in order to be in Berlin before the Russians.
                      So you don’t have to tell me tales about the Western Front.
                      1. Mikail
                        Mikail 20 July 2021 19: 20
                        -1
                        If you think that the number of aircraft has something to do with the number of infantry and tank divisions, I will disappoint you. The number of aviation in a certain theater of operations is associated with the resistance of the enemy in the air and the nature of the tasks being solved. Therefore, your argument has no logical grain. Again, that you are so lazy and afraid to spoil your beautiful picture of the world: well, spend an hour or two searching for articles, browse forums and stumble upon normal historical research. Instead, you pulled out the unfortunate GRU certificate from the entire array, which contradicts the huge array of modern data ... I'm not a historian either, but I was interested in the topic at one time and spent a lot of time on it. The conclusions of historians do not exactly coincide in everything, but the overall picture is always the same - the Germans lost much more in the battle with the Anglo-American Air Force than in the battle with the USSR Air Force, and this imbalance began in the first quarter of 43.

                        For example, here is a well-known table from the documents of the Quartermaster General of the Luftwaffe (I apologize in advance for the lack of exact references, but you can search for yourself by keywords). https://vikond65.livejournal.com/493077.html


                        if I am not mistaken, then in the program about the Battle of Kursk, Timin announced the figure that (during the battle) the Germans used only 25% of their aircraft. The Germans defended their industry from air attacks by Anglo-American aviation and since 43, the vast majority of losses have been borne in this direction (this also includes Norway and North Africa

                        PS

                        By the way, listen to Timin on the same account (minutes from 18 to 27 approximately): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEb_Uq9c3jY&t=1963s. I’ll just give you one quote about 43 years old: "here we had 9 fighter groups, and there we had 60 fighter groups"
                2. Fedor M
                  Fedor M 21 July 2021 03: 55
                  0
                  So they tell you that you are Google propaganda
            2. max702
              max702 20 July 2021 12: 16
              0
              But 70% of the Wehrmacht are we ...
            3. Artem76
              Artem76 20 July 2021 14: 49
              +1
              from 70 to 80% of all troops (including equipment) were on the eastern front !!! The Nazis and their equipment were shot down and burned by Soviet soldiers. LEARN THE MATCH !!!!
              1. Mikail
                Mikail 20 July 2021 17: 41
                0
                No, not "along with technology." So, Germany spent almost as much on the submarine fleet alone as on the production of tanks. But there was even more powerful air defense, etc.
      2. bayard
        bayard 19 July 2021 16: 25
        +4
        Thanks for the article, it really came out in a timely manner. And especially for the aforementioned alternative engine, in the light of the demonstration of a promising LFMI. For if for LFMI the declared maximum take-off weight of 18 tons, the power of the "Product-30" is quite enough (there is just 11 \ 18 tf and up to 19,5 tf in the overrated temperature on the blades, mode), then for VTOL aircraft based on it (which the layout scheme quite allows) an engine with a thrust of 14 \ 21 tf. will be much more preferable and promising. True, this will lead to a slight increase in the fuselage cross-section, but a takeoff and landing thrust of 28 tons (14 + 2 x 7 tons), will make it possible to create a VTOL aircraft not even in the light, but in the middle class, with better characteristics than the F-35B.
        Where else could this engine be used?
        In a promising attack aircraft MRA, which is urgently needed to reliably stop threats from the sea, to replace the already crumbling Tu-22M3. As a base airframe, you can take either the Su-34 with an increase in the size of the airframe, or (since it is stated that the Sukhoi Design Bureau will deal with new target modifications of the Su-57) the Su-57 airframe.
        As I see the MRA aircraft based on the Su-34 airframe, I have already described more than once, now I will try to describe what can be obtained for the MRA based on the Su-57 airframe.
        First, a new cockpit is needed, like that of the Su-34 with a "car" landing. This will lead to a logical and harmonious expansion of the weapon compartment both in width (1,5-2 times) and in length, as well as in height / depth. As a result, the armament compartment will increase very seriously and it can easily accommodate two missiles of the dimensions of "Zircon" \ "Onyx", a pair of drums for missiles of the X-35, X-31 class. Plus at least a couple of explosives for self-defense. All this in an extended scaled fuselage from the T-50. In the same way as it was done with the receipt of the Su-34 from the base airframe of the Su-27.
        The maximum take-off weight of such an MRA strike aircraft can be 75 - 80 tons, and the powerful P579-300 engines will be able to give it a high supersonic speed even in non-afterburner mode. At the same time, the combat radius can be at least 2500 km.
        This is, of course, an extrapolation, but sufficiently justified on the basis of the equation of relations.
        I think this is the use of this engine (VTOL and MRA strike aircraft) is much more preferable than it is not clear what the required PAK DP is for ... After all, the enemy does not have and does not foresee supersonic long-range bombers, which would require such a specific tool to intercept. and the Su-35 and Su-57 are quite capable of dealing with existing and prospective targets. Why fence a zoo? Nobody in the world does that, and we shouldn't do such nonsense.
        And it is very gratifying that we still have the opportunity to obtain an alternative engine for the 5th generation aircraft.
        And by the way, if desired, this engine can be used for a promising business jet supersonic ... If we ever get serious about this.
        hi
      3. NIKN
        NIKN 19 July 2021 16: 40
        +6
        Quote: AVM
        Coincidence

        It doesn't matter, the topic is interesting because there are alternative developments on engines, with which I sincerely wish all the best !!!
  2. The comment was deleted.
    1. Ros 56
      Ros 56 19 July 2021 07: 14
      +7
      Did you mix up the topic, poor fellow? And then soon they will put up to the wall. fool
      1. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 19 July 2021 09: 11
        +7
        Quote: Ros 56
        Did you mix up the topic, poor fellow? And then soon they will put up to the wall.

        And they have that the theme is about the engine, that about a cow with six nipples, all the same "Beria, Gulag, oprichina, St. Bartholomew's night." Descendants of Novodvorskaya and Sheransky.
        1. Old electrician
          Old electrician 19 July 2021 11: 39
          0
          I see a sense of humor is not available to you :-)))) Seriously, looking at what the associates of Novodvorskaya and Shcheransky are turning the system of higher and secondary education into, the time is not far off when the yachts of Russian businessmen will remain the only achievement of Russia. How would not have to talk about Russian aviation and space in the past tense. There is no guarantee.
          1. Ros 56
            Ros 56 19 July 2021 12: 08
            -6
            Seriously, the west of the yachts of our oligarchs is not afraid of something, but more and more shakes from our Vanguards, from the S-400,500 and other new developments. hi
            1. Mustached Kok
              Mustached Kok 19 July 2021 14: 37
              0
              Who said they were shaking? So far, they are only engaged in the creation of an air defense system for complex complexes, after all, hypersound is a promising direction. And they are not afraid of us, because they understand that half of our leadership has their citizenship or the citizenship of their direct allies in Europe
              1. Ros 56
                Ros 56 19 July 2021 14: 40
                -3
                Well, enough crap already, they are afraid and how.
                1. Ingvar 72
                  Ingvar 72 19 July 2021 16: 08
                  +3
                  Quote: Ros 56
                  afraid and how.

                  Have you personally verified their pants? wink
                  1. Ros 56
                    Ros 56 19 July 2021 18: 33
                    -5
                    Dumb? fool
                    1. Ingvar 72
                      Ingvar 72 19 July 2021 18: 46
                      +4
                      It means that you are performing the unfounded shrieks, but I am stupid. wassat Conclusions at the level, burn further! good
                      1. Ros 56
                        Ros 56 19 July 2021 18: 47
                        -5
                        Meli Emelya, your week.
            2. The comment was deleted.
            3. Old electrician
              Old electrician 19 July 2021 14: 47
              +11
              Is the West terrified of our Vanguards, the S-400,500 and other new developments? And how is this expressed? Is it that the small British are brazenly violating our maritime boundaries? You are confusing the West's real perception of the threat from Russia with the screams in the Western media about the insidiousness of the Russian barbarians who need to be punished approximately.
              In order for the Vanguards and Ash trees to fly to the West, at least in retaliation, the will of the leadership is needed. 0.8.08.2008/99,99/XNUMX Georgia, which will not be found on the map XNUMX% of Amirikakians attacked the nuclear power Russia. And what? Our troops entered Tbilisi victoriously? Where is the will of the leadership?
              The will of the leadership was expressed in the fact that after the war on 0.8.08.08/865/1950, all military aviation schools were liquidated. No, formally the Yu.A. Gagarin and the Air Force Engineering Academy. prof. NOT. Zhukovsky (XNUMX Heroes of the Soviet Union graduated jointly) became a branch of the Voronezh Logistics School, which was created in XNUMX. It goes without saying that among the graduates of the Voronezh School there is not a single Hero of the Soviet Union or Russia. In general, this is a unique case when logisticians stole two Air Force academies and all aviation schools in the country.
              A military school or academy cannot be transferred to a new location in peacetime. They can only be eliminated and started from scratch in a new location. It cannot be called anything other than revenge for the more or less successful actions of military aviation in the 08.08.08 war.
              In the United States, a recommendation from a Senator or Congressman is required to enter a military academy. The prestige is the highest! Can you imagine the sons of the Abramovichs and Vikselbergs in a military school? In the 90s, a public opinion poll was conducted among Muscovites. 40% of those polled were in favor of sending American troops to Moscow to defend the gains of democracy. Do you think that something has changed radically now?
              On the other hand, in general, the entire system of higher education in Russia is degrading the further, the more. The engineering profession has been eliminated. A bachelor's degree is not an engineer. In civilian universities, by order of the Ministry of Education, it is forbidden to take bachelors even as assistants. This is not education. They go to the masters only in order to legally deny the army. The number of masters is 3-4 times less than the number of bachelors. Those. the basis for the selection of future designers - geniuses has been radically reduced. In addition, the content of a master's program is a profanation of education. Who will design super-duper aircraft engines and other military equipment in 30 years?
              1. Ingenegr
                Ingenegr 19 July 2021 15: 18
                +6
                Quote: Old electrician
                Who will design super-duper aircraft engines and other military equipment in 30 years?

                This is an open-ended and rather creepy question.
              2. Eug
                Eug 20 July 2021 17: 54
                0
                At one time (I graduated from KhAI in 1987), in the undergraduate course, we were told that we will become engineers when we go through the cycle of "design-development-design-production (development of technologies, replacements, changes) - operation - analysis (comparison - what was planned and what happened in the end) ". I suspect that only two people from our group have gone through such cycles .. Further - even more deplorable ...
          2. tihonmarine
            tihonmarine 19 July 2021 15: 03
            +4
            Quote: Old electrician
            the time is not far off when the yachts of Russian businessmen will remain the only achievement of Russia.

            A little confused about the "achievements of Russia". Firstly, the yachts were built "over the hill" and the home port with the flag, also "over the hill". Even teams are taken from over the hill.
            1. Ingvar 72
              Ingvar 72 19 July 2021 16: 09
              +5
              Quote: tihonmarine
              Even teams are taken from over the hill.

              Vlad, the problem is that they take the money for this here, from us.
              1. tihonmarine
                tihonmarine 19 July 2021 17: 46
                +4
                Quote: Ingvar 72
                Vlad, the problem is that they take the money for this here, from us.

                And they are being transferred to the west. Even if they spend on yachts or leave them in banks, they still won't return everything that they stole.
                1. Ingvar 72
                  Ingvar 72 19 July 2021 18: 01
                  +3
                  Quote: tihonmarine
                  all the same, they will not return everything that they have stolen.

                  It depends on how you approach the question! laughing
                  1. tihonmarine
                    tihonmarine 19 July 2021 18: 55
                    +3
                    Quote: Ingvar 72
                    It depends on how you approach the question!

                    But for now this question is a closed topic.
  3. Sonmaster
    Sonmaster 19 July 2021 05: 00
    +7
    An interesting article, I read it with interest.
    Thank you.
  4. Nikolay293
    Nikolay293 19 July 2021 05: 06
    0
    The engine may be good, only because of its large dimensions it will not fit into the SU57. And the development of a new engine with reduced dimensions, even in Soviet times, was 5 years old, and now it is more.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 19 July 2021 07: 29
      +1
      And the resource question is not clearly shown. Al41 is already quite at the level of Western turbojet engines in terms of resource.
      1. Shopping Mall
        19 July 2021 07: 34
        +5
        Quote: Zaurbek
        And the resource question is not clearly shown. Al41 is already quite at the level of Western turbojet engines in terms of resource.


        There is no data on the resource. But this is a profitable thing, it depends more on the development of technical processes.
        1. Filxnumx
          Filxnumx 19 July 2021 08: 49
          0
          There is no data on the resource. But this is a profitable thing,

          rather "not for open press" bully in this case. It's good if there are 400 hours sad
    2. Shopping Mall
      19 July 2021 07: 33
      +7
      Quote: Nikolay293
      The engine may be good, only because of its large dimensions it will not fit into the SU57. And the development of a new engine with reduced dimensions, even in Soviet times, was 5 years old, and now it is more.


      This is what the article says about it. But there may be other topics LFI, PAK DP, VTOL.

      Engines are too important and too critical a technology to bet on Product 30 alone.
  5. mvg
    mvg 19 July 2021 05: 15
    +5
    Why are there so many repeating tables? For volume? And yes, does the author really believe that Rolls-Royce and Snekma lagged behind the USSR in engines?
    1. Shopping Mall
      19 July 2021 08: 15
      -1
      Quote: mvg
      Why are there so many repeating tables? For volume? And yes, does the author really believe that Rolls-Royce and Snekma lagged behind the USSR in engines?


      According to the tables - so as not to spin the article back and forth, as the topic progresses through different engines.

      On Rolls-Royce and Snekma - at first they were ahead, but then the USSR came forward.
      1. mvg
        mvg 19 July 2021 08: 27
        +5
        but then the USSR came forward

        Tell me, at what point do you think it? D-30, Al-21, Al-31. Well, at least on what plane? For completeness, it was necessary at least to mention Typhoons and Rafale. I somehow looked at the characteristics of the M88 and the British Eurojet, while from the first versions .. never lagged behind ... Jet engine technology, if I remember, was just bought from the British. They have been leaders since the Second World War. I also remember that even in civil aviation at the time of its power, there were problems with certification in Europe. Look at the resource of Snekma and the same Al-31 .. twice as high, specific power, consumption .. Temperature. There are other technologies, much higher. hi
        1. bayard
          bayard 19 July 2021 16: 43
          +2
          Quote: mvg
          Tell me, at what point do you think it? D-30, Al-21, Al-31.

          The article is still talking about engines for combat aircraft. And if in the resource we always lagged behind, then in the specific and absolute thrust we always went head to head. And they still do not have an engine similar to the NK-32.
          But in the engines for civil aviation in the USSR it was sad - they were not specially designed for a very long time at all and they installed fenced military engines, which did not differ in efficiency.
          PD-14 gives a chance to catch up.
          If again something does not interfere.
          1. mvg
            mvg 19 July 2021 17: 31
            +1
            They still do not have NK-32.

            And what is on the B-2, what is on the B-1B? Comparable take-off masses. And, if the B-2 is without an afterburner, then the B-1B has a comparable range and combat load.
            We also do not have our own F-135, there are no engines with a resource of 8000 hours, like France. And in general, in 30 years, the first new engine appeared (civilian)
            PS: It will be necessary, they will quickly "draw" the NK-32, the technology is all there, there are simply no such bombers - they are not needed. They are needed for the new Raider, for the H-20, for the PAK DA, and the restoration of Swan production is a necessary measure. I consider it useless. CRs fly 5000 km, it is more important to fly up more imperceptibly than faster.
            1. bayard
              bayard 19 July 2021 18: 30
              +4
              Well, what are you comparing the incomparable? Look what engines are on the B-1B, these are the relatives of those on the F-16. NK-32, even without afterburner, produces more.
              Quote: mvg
              We also do not have our own F-135, there are no engines with a resource of 8000 hours, as in France.

              I immediately mentioned the resource - this has always been our weak point. But, as it suddenly turned out, the F-135 was not at all the hero that was expected of him. Already, an extremely overestimated resource of this product has been revealed, and up to 15% of the engines on the F-35 require urgent replacement and repair. request It just so happened historically that the United States has always greatly overestimated the characteristics of its aircraft. Remember the example of the F-111 and its declared speed !!! 2650 km \ h !!!
              But in fact, he barely gave 2000 km / h.
              The real data was published ONLY after they were removed from service!
              The AL-41F-1S has a resource of 4000 hours. This is already quite a decent indicator.
              Approximately the same resource is declared for the MiG-35 engines.
              But 10 hours for the F-000 turned out to be an outright bluff. request It just has a VERY hot engine.
              As far as I know, no one has flown 8000 hours from the French either, this is a declared resource.
              It may be true.
              Or maybe PR.
              All for the sake of good sales.
              Quote: mvg
              : It will be necessary, they will quickly "draw" the NK-32, the technology is all there, there are simply no such bombers - they are not needed.

              I agree with this, if they bake it, they will do it.
              But so far only we have done it.
              After all, we talked about the achievements in military aircraft engines.
              And at the time before the collapse of the USSR.
              We have now made (finished already in the 90s) a unique NK-93 ... In terms of power, specific thrust, fuel efficiency and NOISE, it still has no equal.
              But by order from the United States (and the EU), the work was ordered to stop, the topic was closed, the production line (which was ready to produce 100 engines per year) was dismantled ...

              And I agree with you about the need to restore production of the Tu-160.
              1. mvg
                mvg 19 July 2021 18: 59
                0
                So you are comparing the same thing. Do these engines cope (what's on the B-1B) with the task? Quite, so why do they need NK-32? And the British did not have bombers after Vulcan. And the French too, they had enough Mirage-4. Too lazy to look for what is on the two-glider giant that carries the suborbital ship ..
                On Snekma, I went to the official site, there are the same data.
                And what, for example, is on the SR-71 Blackbird ... unique engines. Much more complex than NDT, a separate book can be drawn.
                Our engines are the D-30 level with different letters, that of the MiG-31, that of the Il-76, and all sorts of Al-41F1 and RD-33 (93) also with different letters .. How many products are they already making? 30 years?
                PS: In reality, if you look at the comparative (declared) table, then the F-135 stands out a lot. By the way, the Indians are also unhappy with our engines in terms of resource and reliability, their curvature is greatly exaggerated.
                Who will reveal the real data, you have to be an experienced aircraft technician, statistics. hi
                1. bayard
                  bayard 19 July 2021 21: 49
                  +2
                  Quote: mvg
                  So you are comparing the same thing. Do these engines cope (what's on the B-1B) with the task?

                  Well, this is golimy laughter! Look at the history of how on the basis of the B-1A (which really was supersonic, almost 2M gave ... but had an insufficient radius and a very high probability of being intercepted by our MiG-25, after all, it was made for a high-altitude supersonic breakthrough) the B-1B was made. .. They installed an unregulated air intake adapted for subsonic flight, which reduced the engine power ... added takeoff weight ... transferred to a low-profile flight (breakthrough at low altitude) ... armed with aeroballistic missiles that did not reach the declared characteristics ... and the range - a little more than 10 km, it was possible to get it only with an additional load in the second bomb bay. fuel tank for 000 - 10 tons of kerosene. Therefore, he was critically dependent on refueling. And his maximum speed became (and that was achieved with great difficulty) 12 km / h.
                  So what did they do there?
                  Reagan just urgently needed a new bomber to fuel the arms race. There was no new one, so they took out the old one from the store (rejected back in the mid-70s), as best they could, adapted it to a low-altitude breakthrough ... and drove it into the series.
                  And our response is a full-fledged Tu-160. Which is all right with both range and speed. And in service with the CD with a range of over 3000 km.
                  American pilots frankly envied us - they really liked the Tu-160.
                  And they also really liked the Tu-22M3, not even at first they called him "Pretty Woman" ... then they really renamed it "Oncoming Fell" (we translated it as "Backfire").
                  Quote: mvg
                  Quite, so why do they need NK-32?

                  And from these engines, they just went crazy ...
                  Honestly - at meetings (and in the 90s they often complained to us), they frankly admired our Tu-160s. And that is why Ukraine was ordered to destroy all Tu-160s on its territory. The Russian Federation then wanted to redeem them at the expense of gas debts ... only a few succeeded.
                  Several years ago I spoke with one general ... they wanted to buy out at least components and spare parts when disposing of the Tu-160 in Ukraine ... but the Americans insisted on the most barbaric destruction. And personally supervised.
                  Quote: mvg
                  And what, for example, is on the SR-71 Blackbird ... unique engines.

                  yes Unique.
                  Quote: mvg
                  Our engines are D-30 level with different letters,

                  HERE! It was the D-30 with letters, the ones that were on the MiG-31 - no less unique.
                  Only more practical.
                  Our MiG-31s ​​took off at readiness and inter-flight training could not even be compared with the SR-71.
                  What is unique about the Drozd engines?
                  Compressed air bypass from the compressor to the afterburner!
                  So it was with the D-30 with letters, in the same way the bypass was organized. That is why it is so ... long ... and heavy ... As it should be.
                  And the power - our D-30 with letters 15 kgf, and the "Drozd" about 500 kgf.
                  Long supersonic flight?
                  So we even have our MiG-25 with Nasosnaya, when they went to supersonic, at 20 km. and the speed of 2500 km / h was kept for at least 22 minutes. So this is along the standard route and without PTB.
                  And the MiG-31 will have a longer range. The engines quite allowed themselves.
                  It all depends on the mission facing the combat vehicle.
                  Our MiG-25 \ 31 - fighters, missiles, guns were carried, and not equipment in the internal compartments. And BM reconnaissance flew quite normally.
                  Quote: mvg
                  Al-41F1 and RD-33 (93) also with different letters

                  Quite good engines, no worse than those currently on the F-15EX and Super Hornets.
                  Quote: mvg
                  : In reality, if you look at the comparative (declared) table, then the F-135 stands out a lot.

                  If we finish the "Product-30" - we will surpass (specific thrust, dry weight, three-circuit).
                  And if the P579-300 does see the light (if they find it used on promising aircraft), then even more so. 14 \ 21 tf is serious. And taking into account the fact that the declared temperature on the blades does not seem transcendental, then it should be good with a resource.
                  Quote: mvg
                  ... By the way, the Indians are also unhappy with our engines in terms of resource and reliability,

                  The AL-31F has a service life of 2500 hours, which is really not much, and you have to change as many as two engines per aircraft. This is where the concept of life cycle cost comes in.
                  Apparently that is why they wanted to upgrade their entire Su-30MKI aircraft fleet to the "Su-35 level" - so that the AL-41F-1S with a resource of 4000 hours, the Irbis, electronic warfare and other avionics.
                  1. mvg
                    mvg 19 July 2021 22: 33
                    +1
                    A little bit wrong. From the B-1A, which really gave 2300 km / h, they made the B-1B, since they realized that an air defense breakthrough at high altitude was not promising. They fly slower near the ground, so it turned out to be 1300, but they added a terrain enveloping mode, like on the F-111.
                    In Ukraine and Tu-160. We didn’t cut everything, we bought out 8 boards for gas, the rest were really cut. Then a lot was cut and ICBMs too. Times were like that.
                    The thrush flew at speeds of 3300-3400, almost all the way. A detailed article on him was on VO. These speeds are not available for the MiG-25/31 Someone from the air defense wrote how they intercepted Drozd with two sides. Undoubtedly a more complex aircraft, there were 12 of them in service. Space technologies, which is why the preparation is so long.
                    MiG-31 riveted 500+ pieces. I flew for 10-15 minutes at speeds close to maximum. There was a case over Israel, when the MiG-25 left missiles at maximum speed and the board no longer flew, melted. The MiG-31 was banned from flying over 2500 ..
                    If they finish it, then yes .. only the question is when? And if they come out on those numbers.
                    I doubt about the Indians, it seems like they were targeting Israel .. AFAR, avionics, software. And is it possible to modernize 300 boards .. how much dough Especially since 40 pieces have been converted into a Brahmos carrier. Buy 100 + Rafale and wait for Su-57
                    PS: Maybe not everything is true, but I read it that way. And you overestimate the Tu-160, there are few of them, if anything, they will immediately be destroyed. How many? 18 pieces, plus one "new" there is also preparation for departure 220-250 people / hour
                    The Tu-22M3 also flew 3000 km without additional guidance, and with 3 X-22 units, its speed was also subsonic.
                    1. Lozovik
                      Lozovik 20 July 2021 06: 43
                      +3
                      Quote: mvg
                      There was a case over Israel, when the MiG-25 left missiles at maximum speed and the board no longer flew, melted.

                      Do you know the braking temperature at M = 2,83? What about the melting point of OT4-1? Fiberglass?

                      Quote: mvg
                      The MiG-31 was banned from flying over 2500 ..

                      Who banned it? Voices in your head?


                      Quote: mvg
                      And you overestimate the Tu-160, there are few of them, if anything, they will immediately be destroyed. How many? 18 pieces, plus one "new" there is also preparation for departure 220-250 people / hour

                      Where does the data come from? Do you have access to VVIA literature? Do you know the staff of the Tu-160?

                      Quote: mvg
                      Tu-22M3 also flew 3000 km without dose adjustment

                      Why waste time on trifles, I barely had enough to reach my neighbor wassat
                      1. mvg
                        mvg 20 July 2021 17: 11
                        +1
                        Where does the data come from? Do you have access to VVIA literature? Do you know the staff of the Tu-160?

                        For example, from here, plus an article that Kazan assembled one new Tu-160M, partly from the old backlog ...
                        https://aviation21.ru/sostav-boevogo-aviaparka-vks-rossii-na-2020-god/
                        All the data in 3 minutes for questions ... I just have a little memory, I read the numbers. I remember the serial numbers of the programs, telephones .. part codes. Patronymic names are bad.
                        Why waste time on trifles, it was hardly enough for the neighbor wassat

                        From here, for example .. Part of the flight is subsonic, attack is supersonic .. We take the average value,
                        https://ria.ru/20180621/1523088386.html

                        Do you know the braking temperature at M = 2,83? What about the melting point of OT4-1? Fiberglass?

                        Also find this case when the MiG-25R was flying by Israel .. or can you master it yourself? The plane never flew again .. for cancellation.
                      2. Lozovik
                        Lozovik 20 July 2021 18: 16
                        +1
                        Quote: mvg
                        For example, from here, plus an article that Kazan assembled one new Tu-160M, partly from the old backlog ...
                        https://aviation21.ru/sostav-boevogo-aviaparka-vks-rossii-na-2020-god/

                        And where are the numbers 220-250?

                        Quote: mvg
                        From here, for example .. Part of the flight is subsonic, attack is supersonic .. We take the average value,
                        https://ria.ru/20180621/1523088386.html

                        So the source is a news agency? And also an article about plane 105? Is this a joke?


                        Quote: mvg
                        Also find this case when the MiG-25R was flying by Israel .. or can you master it yourself?

                        Respect too, just do not need fiction or memoirs.
                      3. mvg
                        mvg 20 July 2021 18: 50
                        +1
                        For an hour service - my apologies ... No. but I stopudoff saw this figure.
                        And you answer for the picture .. where is it higher? 2500? After 14 accidents in a row, there was a ban.
                        For Israel now I will find ... Leon will finish .. I am already on the final stage.
                        For Tu-22M3 and 5500 this figure is everywhere. But in reality he flew like this with 3xX-22. This was when the sinking of the AUG was discussed. If there are combat pilots, let them fix it.
                      4. Lozovik
                        Lozovik 20 July 2021 21: 49
                        +1
                        Quote: mvg
                        And you answer for the picture .. where is it higher? 2500? After 14 accidents in a row, there was a ban.

                        Attention to USIM, thin arrow - true speed, 2920 km / h.

                        Quote: mvg
                        For Tu-22M3 and 5500 this figure is everywhere.

                        According to RLE 6800 km practical range.

                        Quote: mvg
                        But in reality he flew like this with 3xX-22.

                        Three missiles only in the transport version, in combat no more than two.
              2. bayard
                bayard 20 July 2021 07: 51
                +4
                Quote: mvg
                They fly slower near the ground, so it turned out 1300

                It will no longer give out at altitude - the air intake is unregulated, adapted for flight at transonic speeds. And every attempt to get out frail supersonic is worth a lot for them - they cannot quickly pass through the (sound) barrier, so they are shaken very much and the glider skin then goes in waves (accordion). Therefore, as a rule, they do not make attempts to go beyond the sound.
                Engines are weak. In fact, 4 pieces. from F-16. No power reserve, any maneuvering - turn on the afterburner.

                Quote: mvg
                but they added a terrain enveloping mode, like on the F-111.

                They have a block of such equipment from the F-16 - for rounding the terrain.
                Quote: mvg
                We didn’t cut everything, we bought out 8 boards for gas, the rest were really cut.

                This together with the Tu-95 8 pcs. The rest are a remake of the post-Soviet era from the Soviet backlog. Oddly enough, Yeltsin agreed to the completion and financing of the Tu-160, because a lot of groundwork remained in Kazan - a series of 100 pieces was being prepared for release. such aircraft.

                Quote: mvg
                The thrush flew at speeds of 3300-3400, almost all the way.

                Well, not quite all the way. It approached the line of the combat route at 2500 - 2700 km / h. Where I served, "Drozdy" did not fly, but comrades who served in the GDR and the Far East told me how it happened. From England they approached the Baltic at 2500 km / h, but our OSNAZ always warned ahead of time. As a rule, in 20 - 30 minutes. So it was time to prepare, play readiness, lift the MiG-31 into the air and place it in the waiting area. More often a couple. when the Drozd appeared, they took the MiG-31s ​​to a parallel course and took them for escort. "Thrush" began to accelerate, ours too, having reached 3000 km / h, "Thrush" began to come off and leave at speed. But for several minutes he remained at the distance of a rocket attack, this was enough to ensure their destruction.
                Above 3000 km / h, it was forbidden to fly on the MiG-25 and MiG-31 due to temperature restrictions on the resistance of the glazing of the lantern. Now the modernized MiG-31 has changed the glazing material and the restrictions have been lifted up to 3200 km / h.
                Quote: mvg
                Undoubtedly a more complex aircraft, there were 12 of them in service. Space technologies, which is why the preparation is so long.

                That's for sure, neither the MiG-25 nor the 31st had tanks leaking during refueling and our interceptors had no such problems. While each flight of the "Drozd" turned into a uniform circus: only the fuselage tanks were refueled on the ground - takeoff - climb - acceleration to 2500 - warming up the fuselage - so that the cracks were shut up - speed reduction - refueling from a tanker - again acceleration and entering the route ...
                all this took a lot of time and was accompanied by vigorous radio exchange ... That is why our eared people from OSNAZ warned the air defense command posts about the hooligan's takeoff. And they were already waiting for him and took him to escort by all means.
                Quote: mvg
                I flew for 10-15 minutes at speeds close to maximum.

                Not true, I personally detected and read from the tablet. Repeatedly. I repeat - our skyscrapers went out weekly to practice high-altitude long-range interception or reconnaissance missions at an echelon of 20 m, at 000 km / h, and the flight continued at this speed for at least 2500 minutes. If desired and the presence of a PTB (as on the MiG-22RB), a flight in this mode and at such a speed could be much longer.
                Quote: mvg
                ... There was a case over Israel, when the MiG-25 left missiles at maximum speed and the board no longer flew, melted.

                It is not true, the MiG-25RB flew well after that. And the flights over Israel took place at a speed of 3000 km / h. The time when the speed was exceeded (up to about 3400 km / h) there was a slight smoke (or rather a smell). This was a signal to the pilot and he slowed down somewhat. After landing, the cockpit had to be opened with a pry bar - the glazing sealant leaked from the temperature and glued the cockpit canopy. Everything was fixed and after a couple of days the plane took off again on a mission.
                And from missiles, during those missions, the MiG-25RB simply went at full afterburner to a height of 32 - 34 km. There they were not reached by any rockets. And 21 km too.
                Quote: mvg
                the board did not fly anymore, it melted.

                The case when the fighter in a gentle dive accelerated to 3300 - 3400 km / h and its skin after landing went in waves from temperature deformation, was with the MiG-23, which, during the night interception of the CD, chased the reflection of the Moon in the waters of the lake ... high altitude. Well warned in time and he went to the horizontal and landed safely. The guy just got carried away in pursuit of a "goal" that he could not catch up with and capture with a sight ... That plane was written off and it became a monument in the Voronezh Aviation School.
                Quote: mvg
                I doubt about the Indians, it seems like Israel is being targeted .. AFAR, avionics, software

                The Su-30MKI has an open architecture, you can change / install any equipment. But the engines in Israel will not change.
                Quote: mvg
                And is it possible to upgrade 300 boards .. how much dough

                Anything is possible - the contract has already been signed, for 12-17 billion (I did not remember the exact figure from memory). Some of them will be modernized in Russia, and the rest will be moderated in India itself. For money we have the same figures, for troubles - much less, and for Indians practice ... the truth turns out for them it is significantly more expensive than doing everything with us. But they have - "Doing in India". Let them do it.
                Quote: mvg
                Moreover, more than 40 pieces have been converted into a Brahmos carrier.

                yes And they will be cured - everyone needs new, more resourceful engines. And radar of such power and capabilities as "Irbis". And the means of electronic warfare, communications ... well, and Israeli for dubbing.
                Quote: mvg
                Buy 100 + Rafale and wait for Su-57

                This is unlikely. Disgraced "Rafali", and at the cost and many other things. And they are not suitable for high-altitude deployment. They are so unsuitable that the Indians had to URGENTLY buy MiG-29s in the Russian Federation from the availability (from storage), for good money, but for now, wait for them, the deck-based MiG-25K \ KUB were transferred to high-mountain airfields near Laddakh.
                Quote: mvg
                Tu-160, there are few of them, if anything, they will immediately destroy. How many? 18 pieces plus one "new"

                Well, that's why they are building another party. How many will have time to build before the launch of PAK YES, time will tell. plan 50 pcs. , contract and financing for 10 pcs. But the engines are already in the series.
                Quote: mvg
                Tu-22M3 also flew 3000 km without additional assistance,

                2500 km. and with limited bookmaker.
                Quote: mvg
                and with 3 pcs X-22 its speed

                3 pcs. on combat they never took, because they had to underfill fuel. Standard - 2 missiles.
                1. Lozovik
                  Lozovik 20 July 2021 18: 39
                  +3
                  Quote: bayard
                  Above 3000 km / h, it was forbidden to fly on the MiG-25 and MiG-31 due to temperature restrictions on the resistance of the glazing of the lantern. Now the modernized MiG-31 has changed the glazing material and the restrictions have been lifted up to 3200 km / h.

                  At high M numbers, a lot of things come out at once, and the heat resistance of the visor, and the margin of directional stability, and the shroud of the air intake. The time at M = 2,83 is limited by the limiting braking temperature, the board lit up - slow down.

                  Quote: bayard
                  And from missiles, during those missions, the MiG-25RB simply went at full afterburner to a height of 32 - 34 km. There they were not reached by any rockets. And 21 km too.

                  For Fedotov, the mass and trajectory were calculated for a long time in order to climb 37 km. And his car was heavily modified. An ordinary pilot will definitely not be able to do this.

                  Quote: bayard
                  The case when the fighter in a gentle dive accelerated to 3300 - 3400 km / h and its skin after landing went in waves from temperature deformation, was with the MiG-23, which, during the night interception of the CD, chased the reflection of the Moon in the waters of the lake ... high altitude. Well warned in time and he went to the horizontal and landed safely. The guy just got carried away in pursuit of a "goal" that he could not catch up with and capture with a sight ... That plane was written off and it became a monument in the Voronezh Aviation School.

                  A bike from start to finish. RLPK-23 will not see KR, permission does not allow. The excess traction is relatively small, so acceleration takes minutes, so much distraction is impossible. According to the device, the maximum speed of 1400 km / h on the wing is 72 °, according to the number of M = 2,35, if these limits are exceeded, the aircraft will collapse. So test pilot Mikhail Komarov died.
                2. bayard
                  bayard 20 July 2021 19: 13
                  +1
                  Quote: Lozovik

                  For Fedotov, the mass and trajectory were calculated for a long time in order to climb 37 km. And his car was heavily modified. An ordinary pilot will definitely not be able to do this.

                  So then in Egypt pilots were also not ordinary - testers. Then the MiG-25RB was not yet adopted for service. There is a film where a participant in those events talks about how his sealant flowed from speeding, and how they worked out the tactics of avoiding missiles to a height. The command then suspected that Tel Aviv was covering for the Nike-Hercules, which was secretly delivered there.
                  .
                  Quote: Lozovik
                  A bike from start to finish. RLPK-23 will not see the CD

                  Maybe . There was an article about this many years ago, on VO, as a military curiosity. And I heard that from the excess of the sheathing in waves as a child (older), but I thought it was about the MiG-25, then this article. It seemed to indicate that the speed was recorded by the radar, and the fact that the plane did not collapse was just a miracle ... the duralumin should, in theory, fly to shreds ... like a percale on a defective IL-2.
              3. mvg
                mvg 20 July 2021 22: 15
                +3
                Plus ... Big plus
            2. Lozovik
              Lozovik 20 July 2021 18: 17
              +3
              Quote: mvg
              made the B-1B, since they realized that an air defense breakthrough at high altitude was not promising. They fly slower near the ground, so it turned out 1300,

              The maximum indicated speed of the B-1B is about 1162 km / h, at the ground it is a subsonic aircraft.
    2. Firelake
      Firelake 20 July 2021 09: 29
      0
      I absolutely agree.
  • sp77ark
    sp77ark 19 July 2021 19: 31
    +2
    Meanwhile ...

    GE has completed prototype testing of its first XA3 100-loop adaptive cycle engine, ushering in a new era of combat propulsion. GE began testing at its high-altitude test facility in Awendale, Ohio on December 22, 2020. Engine performance and mechanical characteristics were in line with pre-test predictions and fully in line with the goals of the Air Force Adaptive Engine Transition (AETP) Program. This successful test confirms the ability of the GE XA100 engine to provide a transforming power plant for fighters.

    “We were extremely pleased with the way the engine ran throughout the test,” David Tweedy, GE Edison Works General Manager of Advanced Combat Engines, told Aviation Week. “Carrying out the first tests of the new center line fighter engine is challenging and this success is a testament to the great team that worked so hard to get us here. We look forward to working with the Air Force and other stakeholders to determine the next steps to take this revolutionary capability out of the testing lab and into the hands of a fighter jet. ”

    The XA100-GE-100 engine combines three key innovations that provide a generational change in combat performance:

    -Adaptive engine cycle that provides both high thrust mode for maximum power and high efficiency mode for optimal fuel economy and standby time
    -A third circuit architecture that provides a phased change in thermal management capabilities, allowing future mission systems to increase combat effectiveness
    - Extensive use of advanced component technology including ceramic matrix composites (CMC), polymer matrix composites (PMC) and additive manufacturing

    These revolutionary innovations increase thrust by 10%, improve fuel efficiency by 25% and provide significantly more heat from the aircraft, all under the same physical conditions as existing propulsion systems.

    In fact, the increase in characteristics was even more significant:
    “Not only are we reaching, we are actually exceeding those values ​​almost everywhere in the flight range - and in some places - up to 20% [more thrust],” Tweedy said. "We are very pleased with what we have achieved in terms of overfulfilling the program requirements."

    “When you translate that into what that means for the platform, it's 30% more range or 50% more loitering time depending on how you want to use that fuel burn improvement. This is a significant increase in acceleration and combat capability while increasing thrust, ”he added.
    -
    GE's new XA100 can produce a whopping 45000 pounds of thrust (20400 kgf), ahead of the Pratt and Whitney F-135-PW-100 currently used in the US F-35 Joint Strike Fighter single-engine fighter, making it a viable option for iterations with conventional runways. jet aircraft F-35A. The news comes amid ongoing concerns about the availability of F-35 engines and maintenance issues that could threaten 20% of the F-35 if a solution is not found soon. While the GE XA100 will not enter service in time to address these shortcomings, the new engine sheds light on the concept's promising future, as well as other potential applications for this engine that span three generations of fighters.
    1. bayard
      bayard 20 July 2021 08: 11
      +1
      This is certainly great, but the fact is that the "Product-30" is also three-circuit, it also implements variable contour, and although it will be smaller in size and weight, it gives out similar traction characteristics - up to 19,5 tf. at the maximum temperature regime of the forced draft. So his specific indicators are even higher. And he is not only tested at the stand, but also has been flying several experienced Su-57s for a long time.
      And if life gets the P579-300, then the Russian Federation will have another new generation engine with traction characteristics of 14 \ 21,5 tf, respectively. True, in a slightly different dimension, but I hope that it will still be able to find its application.
      1. Lozovik
        Lozovik 20 July 2021 18: 23
        0
        Quote: bayard
        This is certainly great, but the fact is that the "Product-30" is also three-circuit

        Do you know what the OCD for product 30 is called? "Development of a promising by-pass turbojet engine with an afterburner for the T-50 product"
        https://www.uecrus.com/files/essential-fact/essential_fact_19-07-2017_108.pdf

        Quote: bayard
        also implements variable contouring

        No, the degree of bypass does not change.
        1. bayard
          bayard 20 July 2021 18: 45
          0
          So, the head of the UEC was lying when, in a specially dedicated program, he painted exactly the three-circuit diagram and variable contouring? The fact that modern leaders often do not understand the specifics of the structure they lead is not uncommon today ... but he painted in detail.
          And it seems like he mentioned that during the work the terms of reference were expanded and the engine will no longer be the 5th, but at least 5+ generations. Maybe that's why they are still pulling the cat under the motion?
          1. sp77ark
            sp77ark 20 July 2021 21: 14
            0
            Maybe he's just ... disingenuous? How is Rogozin? Can you share a link?
            I think, if there were successes, they would have trumpeted a long time ago about the "no analogues" engine.
            It turns out, without finishing the 2-contour, we decided to swing right at Shakespeare 3-contour? laughing
            Well, well.
            1. bayard
              bayard 20 July 2021 21: 24
              +1
              Quote: sp77ark
              without finishing the 2-contour,

              Cradle had all double circuits.
              And I read about the 3-contour with variable contour in several sources, so more than one official painted about them. Another thing is that in the TTZ given by Lozovik, there are dates for the start of work from the second half of the 90s. So the TTZ could change several times.
              1. sp77ark
                sp77ark 20 July 2021 21: 32
                0
                I mean, they are blowing trumpets and films about Zircons and so on, but silence about the product.
                But they are already flying! lol
                1. bayard
                  bayard 20 July 2021 21: 41
                  +1
                  Engines do not fly by themselves, why blow them?
                  There were reports on the thrust achieved at different temperature conditions, refinements in terms of resource capacity, reliability, stability.
                  But they do fly several experienced Su-57s.
                2. sp77ark
                  sp77ark 20 July 2021 21: 45
                  0
                  Blessed is he who believes hi
        2. Lozovik
          Lozovik 20 July 2021 22: 16
          0
          Quote: bayard
          So the head of the UEC was lying when, in a specially dedicated program, he painted exactly the three-circuit scheme and variable contouring?

          Artyukhov? Where can you see it?

          Quote: bayard
          And it seems like he mentioned that during the work the terms of reference were expanded and the engine will no longer be the 5th, but at least 5+ generations

          And this is being developed for the future. Product 30 is also the future, but not so distant.

          Quote: bayard
          Maybe that's why they are still pulling the cat under the motion?

          In 2011, we signed an agreement (see the link in the previous message), 15-17 years will be spent on execution. The engine, although not three-circuit, is also interesting. A high-pressure compressor, which I have not seen before in a TRDDF, a unique jet nozzle, etc.
          1. bayard
            bayard 20 July 2021 22: 40
            +1
            Quote: Lozovik
            Artyukhov? Where can you see it?

            Yes, as if not in the "Military acceptance" dedicated to engines.
            Yes, and I read it in several sources, one of them is not like Wikipedia. There were publications on the "Product", on the temperatures reached on the blades, on the reduced number of stages in the compressor and turbines.
            Maybe the author / ry of publications mixed the finished product and the promising engine that you mentioned?
  • Lozovik
    Lozovik 20 July 2021 06: 25
    +1
    Quote: mvg
    Tell me, at what point do you think it? D-30, Al-21, Al-31. Well, at least on what plane? For completeness, it was necessary at least to mention Typhoons and Rafale. I somehow looked at the characteristics of the M88 and the British Eurojet, while from the first versions .. never lagged behind ...

    Okay, let's compare.
    AL-31F
    Ppf = 12500 kgf, m = 1520 kg, hence Psp = 8,22 kgf / kg.
    Full afterburner Cud = 1,92 kg / (kgf ∙ h);
    Minimum afterburner Cud = 0,93 kg / (kgf ∙ h);
    Maximum Soud = 0,76 kg / (kgf ∙ h);
    Cruising Ship = 0,685 kg / (kgf ∙ h).
    M88-4E
    Pf = 7648 kgf, m = 897 kg, Psp = 8,53kg / kgf.
    Afterburner mode Sd = 1,7 kg / (kgf ∙ h);
    Non-afterburner mode Ships = 0,8 kg / (kgf ∙ h).
    And what, inferior? This is despite the fact that the AL-31F showed such characteristics when the M88 was not even on the drawings yet.
  • Thrifty
    Thrifty 19 July 2021 05: 33
    +5
    The conclusion is simple - you can't supply all kinds of China with our technologies! It didn't work for itself, then it's better to destroy than to give to a potential enemy!
    1. URAL72
      URAL72 19 July 2021 06: 44
      +3
      I don't know where the author got it from that Russia sold the engine documentation to China. At the same time, China was denied a license for the AL-31F. Now they refused to use the AL-41F. The same is with India. Only Ukraine sells such technologies. As for the AL-41, the information in the article is not clear - perhaps at the level of gossip. Why do we need two engines in a videoconferencing system if we can use one? The fact that development should be carried out is not contested, procurement is not.
      1. Shopping Mall
        19 July 2021 07: 36
        +6
        Quote: URAL72
        I don't know where the author got it from that Russia sold the engine documentation to China. At the same time, China was denied a license for the AL-31F. Now they refused to use the AL-41F. The same is with India. Only Ukraine sells such technologies. As for the AL-41, the information in the article is not clear - perhaps at the level of gossip. Why do we need two engines in a videoconferencing system if we can use one? The fact that development should be carried out is not contested, procurement is not.


        From open sources. Therefore, it is written "according to unconfirmed reports."
      2. Avior
        Avior 19 July 2021 11: 03
        +5
        In Ukraine, there are no such technologies and there were no such technologies, Motor Sich did not produce engines for fighters, except for training ones.
  • mark1
    mark1 19 July 2021 07: 01
    +8
    A good topic has been raised, a very interesting one. More often this kind of article.
    As for the AL-41F, people who know (I do not know how much) claim that the engine was never brought to the declared characteristics (force. 15500 kgf instead of 18000). AL-41F1 - a compilation of developments on the AL-41F and AL-31, its competitor AL-31F3 (thrust force - 15500), why they chose one and not the other, a question for specialists. The topic with Р79-300 is at least not abandoned, for example, in the development of Р179-TV1 (27500kGs) for heavy transport workers, well, the author mentioned several directions. God willing it will not be lost.
    For the new single-engine Su, it would be interesting to see the development of the P79 on it (with a rotary nozzle, a VTOL aircraft is obtained like the F-35B), but if unification with the Su-57 is at the forefront, it will most likely be ed. 30
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 19 July 2021 07: 28
      +1
      For VTOL aircraft there is a lot of things to change ... to shift the turbojet engine to the center, to put a fan somewhere, etc.
      1. mark1
        mark1 19 July 2021 07: 45
        0
        Quote: Zaurbek
        For VTOL aircraft there is a lot to change.

        Are you the owner of secret knowledge? Can you imagine the layout perfectly?
        For example, I am the only thing that I can assume - if the new Su has a concept close to the F-35, then the VTOL variant can also be provided.
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 19 July 2021 08: 48
          0

          the USA has 2 concepts here:
          1. Universal strike aircraft for the Air Force with advanced air defense capabilities
          2. unified fighter for the Air Force, Navy, VTOL aircraft.


          No, it's enough to read the articles here ...... The turbojet engine of the VTOL aircraft is located closer to the center of mass, so the F35 has it pushed inward .... but this is worse for a conventional fighter. And it makes it very difficult to develop all versions (A, B, C). But the Americans have a good idea for unification, it was difficult from the beginning and they solved it in their own way. Why should we worsen the flight performance of the aircraft initially? What is the demand for VTOL aircraft? And what kind of a conventional fighter?
          1. mark1
            mark1 19 July 2021 10: 21
            +2
            Quote: Zaurbek
            The taxiway of the VTOL aircraft is located closer to the center of mass,

            Well, I hope we'll see everything tomorrow.
            Quote: Zaurbek
            What is the demand for VTOL aircraft?

            Deferred
            We have our own not bad groundwork - Yak-141 / Yak-201. It is possible that there is no connection with Su's project here, but I would like to.
            1. Avior
              Avior 19 July 2021 11: 07
              +1
              There are big questions about the Yak-201
              The pictures in the article, signed by the Yak-201, are someone's modern fantasies with avia.pro.
              Not to mention the fact that they are completely different - that is, pgo, then no, the engines in the upper picture are 2, on the lower one.
              1. mark1
                mark1 19 July 2021 11: 33
                0
                You discard the particulars (this is still a draft design in several versions) and pay attention to the layout of the propulsion system and how it can correlate with the fuselage of the new Su (again, takeoff weight ...)
                1. Avior
                  Avior 19 July 2021 12: 19
                  +3
                  I strongly doubt that these pictures are related to Yakovlev Design Bureau
                  Rather, these are modern purely drawing exercises, and drawing some conclusions from them is just time to waste
                  1. mark1
                    mark1 19 July 2021 12: 25
                    -1
                    Then don't waste your time.
                    1. Avior
                      Avior 19 July 2021 13: 41
                      +2
                      I don’t lose. there is nothing to discuss with these pictures
            2. Zaurbek
              Zaurbek 19 July 2021 11: 33
              +1
              I would count .... a normal 100 ton aircraft carrier with carrier-based fighters .... or a cheaper UDC with an exclusive VTOL aircraft.
              1. mark1
                mark1 19 July 2021 11: 42
                +1
                Yes, I am least concerned about the 100 kiloton aircraft carrier, it has its own way - the VTOL is also an aerodromeless base for the ground forces (which for some reason everyone forgets) and an almost instantaneous increase in striking power with the help of container ships ... And let's agree "PRINCIPALLY NEW" must have fundamentally new capabilities.
  • Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 19 July 2021 09: 09
    +9
    For a long time the Soviet Union and the United States went practically "head to head", from time to time one country, then another pulled ahead.

    Seriously?
    The technology of growing blades of a hot turbine from a single crystal - they themselves "gave birth", is it a coincidence that Rolls-Royce already had it? (a method of manufacturing monocrystalline blades for aircraft engine turbines by precision casting from high-temperature nickel-based alloys, including casting a single crystal billet by oriented growth in a casting mold from a melt using a monocrystalline seed of a given crystallographic orientation).
    But the designers did not hesitate to admit where the "legs grew" from.
  • SHAH
    SHAH 19 July 2021 11: 13
    +1
    [i] [/ i] Interestingly about galoshes the author does not remember, Russia without the legacy of the USSR is simply zero.
  • CastroRuiz
    CastroRuiz 19 July 2021 11: 51
    +1
    Statia with the correct vivods. The author is plus.
  • Serge_
    Serge_ 19 July 2021 14: 11
    -4
    The twin-engine Su 57 is a good aircraft. I look forward to when he appears in the army. But a new dry single engine is not needed. It is better to direct resources towards reviving the Yak 141 program. This is an excellent single-engine vehicle with vertical take-off capability. Nobody can think of anything better than this machine.



    Takeoff can be performed in six ways: conventional, using a springboard, vertically, with a short takeoff run (120 meters), with a short takeoff run and using delay devices (about 60-80 m), with an ultra-short takeoff run (6 meters).

    Landing can be done in two ways: in the usual way (with a braking parachute) and vertically (on aircraft-carrying cruisers).
  • Undecim
    Undecim 19 July 2021 14: 33
    -3
    During the Cold War, the leading developers of aviation turbojet engines were the United States and the USSR, Great Britain and France breathed in the back of their heads.

    This author is clearly excited. MiG-15, MiG-17, Il-28, Tu-14 flew at the height of the Cold War on a copy of the British Rolls-Royce Nene, while the copy was worse than the original, yielding in specific thrust and having a specific fuel consumption more than twice ...
    1. mark1
      mark1 19 July 2021 15: 03
      +4
      You haven't got excited about the specific consumption? If it is not difficult to provide data and a link.
      For "Nin" 1,06-1,1, for YuMO -1,2, what is the specific consumption of RD-10 and RD-45?
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 19 July 2021 16: 39
        0

        Source - V.A. ZRELOV DOMESTIC GTE. BASIC PARAMETERS AND DESIGN DIAGRAMS Part 2.
        Ning has 1,06-1,1

        You are not careful. This is in lb / (lbf⋅h) - lb / lbf hour. If converted to kg / (kgf h), we get 0,48 kg / (kgf h)
        1. mark1
          mark1 19 July 2021 16: 51
          +2
          Quote: Undecim
          If converted to kg / (kgf h), we get 0,48 kg / (kgf h)

          Can you check it again? The ratios of pound to pound-force and kilogram to kilogram-force should not differ ...
          0,48 kg / kgf hour is a unique result, I know a close value (0,49) only for NK-93
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 19 July 2021 17: 15
            0
            Yes, you're right, I screwed up here.
            1. mark1
              mark1 19 July 2021 18: 01
              +1
              We are all not without sin ...
  • Mikhail Shilo
    Mikhail Shilo 19 July 2021 14: 43
    -2
    Amers have 2 real developers of military engines: GE and PW. Even they do not have enough money for more.
    Where can the beggar of our aviation industry pull 3 manufacturers? We really won't be able to feed two. How can we not feed two manufacturers of fighters? MiG is on the verge of bankruptcy and takeover. The Klimovites with the RD-33 survive only thanks to the helicopter theme (TV7).
    Even Sukhoi barely has enough money because the T-50 turned out to be a black money hole (along with the Superjet), because this is all the brainchild of Poghosyan.
    And the second - if Lyulka cannot publish. 30 to quickly bring to mind (despite the fact that they have no problems with the volume of serial production of Al-31FP, Al-41F1), then where does the AMNTK Soyuz real competence, which has been sitting without money since the 90s ?!
    The specifications stated on paper are just ink on paper.
  • datura23
    datura23 19 July 2021 18: 36
    -2
    how to check or how to confirm the thrust indicators of American engines?
  • Eug
    Eug 19 July 2021 22: 19
    0
    The 579 ... has a very large diameter for a fighter. But for a promising multipurpose interceptor - a naval missile carrier, it directly asks ...
  • Marius
    Marius 21 July 2021 14: 38
    0
    We just google AMNTK SOYUZ, look for feedback from employees, owners and understand that this organization will never release anything more complicated than a frying pan.
  • AC130 Ganship
    AC130 Ganship 21 July 2021 15: 23
    -1
    Author,
    First, neither Su nor Mig have ever developed engines. This is none of their business.
    And secondly, the MiG-31 has never been "multifunctional". Being a modification of the Mig-25 aircraft, it was created to solve a single task - to catch up and attack a target with a minimum level of protection. By definition, the 31st cannot conduct an air battle. Now we have hung 1pc Dagger. But there won't be many such planes. Maybe 1-2 squadrons in 2-3 regiments
    1. Shopping Mall
      27 July 2021 10: 39
      0
      Quote: AC130 Ganship
      Author,
      First, neither Su nor Mig have ever developed engines. This is none of their business.


      And where was it stated?

      Quote: AC130 Ganship
      And secondly, the MiG-31 has never been "multifunctional". Being a modification of the Mig-25 aircraft, it was created to solve a single task - to catch up and attack a target with a minimum level of protection.


      Written by "(later multifunctional)", which we saw in the modification of the MiG-31BM:

      The new equipment expands the capabilities of the MiG-31BM, transforming it from a highly specialized interceptor into a multifunctional combat unit that effectively interacts with air defense anti-aircraft missile systems. In particular, a powerful radar can be used to target air targets with guided missiles launched from other fighters approaching the enemy at a missile salvo range in a radar silence mode. The aircraft can also be used as a kind of air command post, coordinating the actions of other types of fighters equipped with less powerful radars.

      Quote: AC130 Ganship
      By definition, the 31st cannot conduct an air battle. Now we have hung 1pc Dagger. But there won't be many such planes. Maybe 1-2 squadrons in 2-3 regiments


      This is why he cannot conduct DVB in the presence of powerful long and medium-range explosive missiles and radar with PFAR?

  • ramzay21
    ramzay21 22 July 2021 04: 21
    0
    It is necessary to develop a second engine, competition is a great thing. But one engine should go into production for a heavy twin-engine and light single-engine fighter, with a minimum difference, the cost price is important here, which depends on the number of engines produced.
  • gridasov
    gridasov 24 July 2021 10: 27
    0
    It looks like an absolutely unhealthy anomaly, but everything is obvious, not to say that all these turbojet engines are, first of all, not only iron, but it is iron that transforms one type of energy process into another. And it is precisely the physical process of transformation that is so ill-considered and not logical that one should be surprised at the massive psychosis of the designers responsible for the development of these technologies and engines. Further, there is nothing more to say. You look at all these attempts and observe.
  • certero
    certero 26 July 2021 09: 52
    0
    Future fighters must be unmanned
  • Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 26 July 2021 10: 39
    0
    And why, as an illustration to the article, a picture from Wikipedia with Pratt & Whitney J58 on afterburner?
  • Styletto
    Styletto 27 July 2021 13: 58
    +1
    Thank you! Sobsno just this and wanted to say.
    I love these articles. More good and impartial (albeit subjective) analytics. :)
    And how on time!
  • EMMM
    EMMM 28 July 2021 23: 40
    0
    I don’t know where the author borrowed tables with engine parameters, but I want to note that all of them have the same error: what is called specific thrust in the afterburner is actually the inverse value - the ratio of engine mass to thrust in afterburner ...
    In other words: Who needs an engine that develops afterburner thrust ten times less than it weighs itself?