Military Review

Is one pilot good, but two better? Why does Russia need a new version of the Su-57

116

Photo: Interpolit


Program development


Presentation of a light tactical aircraft at the MAKS airshow Checkmate (now it is already openly called the Su-75) led to the fact that the first Russian "five" was almost forgotten. But quite recently it passed, one might say, a key stage - the first production car was delivered by the Aerospace Forces. Strictly speaking, this should have taken place a year earlier, but the very first production car crashed in December 2019 during testing (that is, the delivered plane is de facto the second production vehicle).

In any case, this is just the beginning. As the head of the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), Yuri Slyusar, said in July, the Ministry of Defense will receive 2022 such fighters per year starting from 12. And the total number of aircraft under the agreement signed at the Army-2019 forum will be 76 fighters.

At first glance, everything is pretty good. However, it is pertinent to recall that the same F-35 Lightning II as of August 2021 have built over 670 units. In addition, the Su-57 cannot boast of a single foreign contract (or we simply do not know about them), although there was previously evidence of interest from India, Algeria and Turkey. The building of the Ministry of Defense of Algeria was even decorated with the image of a fighter jet.

Is one pilot good, but two better? Why does Russia need a new version of the Su-57

Against this background, talk continues about endowing the aircraft with fundamentally new capabilities. Most often they talk about the new engine "Product 30", which should replace the AL-41F1, which are currently used and do not fully meet the requirements of the fifth generation. But there are also more original ideas.

One plus one


Recently, the Japanese have proposed unusual options for the layout of the two-seater cockpit of the Su-57 fighter.

One of the options involves "helicopter" accommodation of crew members, when instead of one cockpit with tandem pilots, two separate cockpits are used, one above the other. In fairness, there are more familiar patterns.


This could be attributed to a flight of fancy, if not for one "but": in Russia itself, they are increasingly talking about the two-seater Su-57. And if earlier this did not go beyond the drawings on the export version of the FGFA (Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft) aircraft, now everything is pretty serious.

"The plans of the Ministry of Defense and the Sukhoi Design Bureau are to manufacture a two-pilot cockpit, which will expand export demand for this model <...>, it can create additional demand",

- Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov said in the summer.

At first glance, this statement looks logical. The two-seater Su-30 has become the country's main export fighter: now more than 600 of these aircraft of different versions have been produced. But as for the more "advanced" single-seat Su-35, foreign customers bought only a few dozen of these machines.


However, you need to understand that the Su-30 and Su-35 appeared at different times, when the market for combat aviation and the balance of power in the world was very different. India ordered a significant part of the two-seater "Sushki" back in 2007, and the Su-35 made its maiden flight only in 2008.

The very decision to create a single-seat fighter did not appear out of nowhere.

Modern on-board electronics allows one pilot to fully solve all the main combat missions (the era of unmanned fighters has not yet arrived, but this cannot be ruled out either). If we remove the training aspect, then the creation of a two-seater car, in general, looks like an anachronism. It is pertinent to say that now no country in the world produces fifth generation two-seat fighters.

The question lies not only in the plane of improving avionics. Of course, for a modern fighter, the price of which can be measured in hundreds of millions of dollars, this is not a matter of principle, but still. All other things being equal, a two-seater car is more expensive, has a large mass, and its loss is more sensitive for the country (due to the larger crew).

In conjunction with the UAV


However, it is possible that the future will bring a number of surprises that very few people now know about.

Speech, oddly enough, lies in the plane of the development of the UAV.

To manage the latest drones "Hunter" will create a two-seat command version of the Su-57. It is assumed that the fighter, the development of which is already underway, will carry about four "Hunters",

- a source in the military-industrial complex told TASS in the summer.


The connection between the Okhotnik and the Su-57 has been talked about for a long time and not always in the context of creating a new version of the fighter. Recall that the first is a large attack UAV (one of the largest in the world at the moment), which at various times was considered both as a pure drummer, and as an unmanned slave, and even as an interceptor.

It is difficult to say something specific about its capabilities so far. According to media reports, the combat load of the "Okhotnik" will be about 3 tons, and the maximum speed reaches 1 kilometers per hour with a flight range of 000 kilometers.

Apparently, the issue goes beyond the program for the creation of "Okhotnik". Back in April, the source of RIA News in the aircraft industry said that the Su-57 would be able to carry more than ten different UAVs in the internal compartments, including shock ones. And even earlier it was reported that the promising Russian UAV "Thunder" will be able to control ten attack drones "Molniya", which will be launched by "another aircraft carrier."


What will this approach give?

It is difficult to say specifically yet. According to military historian Dmitry Boltenkov, even when using satellite communication channels, a delay in signal transmission is inevitable, which now prevents the use of UAVs in air combat or in a difficult and rapidly changing environment. Simply put, in the event of a war with a strong, well-equipped enemy, drones are best kept close at hand. Through direct automated interaction between the UAV and the manned aircraft, signal delays can be avoided and the efficiency of unmanned vehicles can be increased.

The pilot will not need to fully control the UAV, just give him commands. In this case, having a co-pilot who would coordinate the actions of unmanned vehicles makes sense: a modern fighter pilot already has to deal with a huge amount of data coming from different sensors. The extra workload can be overkill, even with the many virtual assistants.

It is worth saying that the unmanned wingman is not Russian know-how. Back in February, the aircraft Loyal Wingman, created by the Australian division of Boeing, took off, which will have to solve this kind of problem.


Europeans are also working in this direction now. True, if the United States is talking more about supporting fifth-generation fighters, then the EU and Great Britain are working with an eye on the sixth. In the first case, this is what is known as FCAS or Future Combat Air System, in the second, the Tempest program. It is noteworthy, however, that the European fighters of the future are seen as single-seat. At least for now.
Author:
116 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx 3 September 2021 04: 55
    +1
    Is one pilot good, but two better? Why does Russia need a new version of the Su-57

    A Russian proverb says that appetite comes with eating, but one trillion is good, but two is better.
    It is difficult to draw any conclusions about the appropriateness in the presence of defective copies (without "Product 30"). And the pace of production of the Su-57 speaks for itself.
    Is the military industry ready for the mass production of high-tech weapons today?
    In the meantime, you can speculate about the options for the layout of a two-seater cabin ... While ... While the cancer is on the mountain ... Until the thunder ...
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 3 September 2021 05: 38
      -1
      Quote: ROSS 42
      In the meantime, you can speculate about the options for the layout of a two-seater cabin ... While ... While the cancer is on the mountain ... Until the thunder ...

      That is, there is nothing to say on the topic of the article?
      1. El Chuvachino
        El Chuvachino 3 September 2021 10: 21
        +6
        There is nothing to discuss here. The "article" began with nonsense, right from the very first sentence.
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 3 September 2021 10: 28
          -5
          Quote: El Chuvachino
          The "article" began with nonsense, right from the very first sentence.

          What exactly?
          1. El Chuvachino
            El Chuvachino 3 September 2021 12: 38
            +5
            The presentation at the MAKS air show of a light tactical aircraft Checkmate (now it is openly called the Su-75) led to the fact that that they almost forgot about the first Russian "five".


            Who has forgotten? On what basis is this conclusion? What is it all about? Solid water and nonsense.
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 3 September 2021 12: 46
              +2
              Quote: El Chuvachino
              Who forgot?
              Press.
              Quote: El Chuvachino
              On what basis is this conclusion?
              When something new appears, the journalists switch to the novelty, and what was published before goes into the shadows. Standard Practice.
    2. mark1
      mark1 3 September 2021 06: 19
      +3
      Quote: ROSS 42
      in the presence of defective copies (without "Product 30")

      And what is the inferiority then? And in front of whom (what)? It achieves cruising supersonic sound (though small, there is not enough non-afterburner thrust of 500 pounds from each engine), like the F-22, and no one else is a rival to him so far.
      A fifth generation two-seater fighter is an inferiority (we will assume that this is just the first stage of mastering interaction with drones)
      1. bayard
        bayard 4 September 2021 02: 13
        +6
        Quote: mark1
        A fifth generation two-seater fighter is an inferiority (we will assume that

        Due to the absence of this inferiority (the second crew member), we lost India as a project partner. Instead of initially laying down the possibility of installing both types of cabins (like the MiG-35), our sages decided that it would do just that.
        And India insisted on a two-seat heavy fighter.
        And when the conversations and requirements to take into account the order of the project partner reached the stage of conflict, and the deadlines were delayed, the Sukhoi Design Bureau proposed developing a two-seat version as a separate project ... for the money of India alone.
        For very good money.
        And the Indians slammed the door with a scandal.
        Having spoken a lot of bile and absurdities to my journalists ... along with the truth.
        But it was enough from the very beginning to take into account the opinions of the partner and co-investor, and to design the aircraft for both types of cockpit.
        And now they would have an order for about 200 pieces. only from them.
        And the plane itself would have been in the series a long time ago, because the funding would be sufficient and rhythmic.
        This is from stupidity, arrogance and self-confidence. And shortsightedness.
        But now ... in 2021 (!!!) it finally came to pass that the two-seater version is needed by ourselves.
        And you really need it.
        And on the example of the successful Su-30MKI \ SM, this was obvious even then - at the dawn of the project.

        There can be two double versions:
        - tandem (similar to the Su-30 cockpit) as a command vehicle and for export,
        - with landing on the "automobile" (as in the Su-34), as a heavier, long-range strike vehicle with an increased volume of the weapon compartment. Suitable for MPA and Long-Range Aviation as a stealth medium-range missile-carrying bomber.
        And the new engines will extend both options to the required thrust-to-weight ratio.
        1. mark1
          mark1 4 September 2021 07: 18
          +2
          Well, at the expense of the Indians, you are a bit mistaken - the double version was also envisaged (but of course, after ... after all, not earlier, in fact!) It's all about our outrageous greed, they decided to shift funding almost entirely to the Indians (and not only this program), they naturally sent. Now the two-seater version will be developed primarily in order to return India
          For MRA and DA, the Su-57 is not entirely suitable due to the small volume of the internal weapon bays, so we are waiting for the PAK DA. As a command plane for drones-slaves, the two-seat version will make sense (and even then not a fact) only at the initial stage of the implementation of the slaves. expensive and not practical, the main direction of development is adaptation to a single-seat standard car of 5-6th generations.
          1. bayard
            bayard 4 September 2021 08: 19
            +3
            Quote: mark1
            Well, at the expense of the Indians, you are a bit mistaken - a two-seater version was also provided (but of course, after ... after all, not earlier, in fact!)

            The fact of the matter is that it was necessary to immediately design the T-50 fuselage for both cockpits - as was done in the design of the MiG-35, because the requirements of India for a two-seater aircraft were initially known. But the leadership of Sukhoi decided that "it will just do it" ... it's easier this way ... And then it faced a dilemma - either to start new R&D projects of the second version of the T-50 and conduct them in parallel (which was extremely difficult), or ... to persuade the Indians to accept the single version.
            And they began to persuade them.
            Not persuaded.
            It was then that they offered - so many years later, "and then let's have a two-seater version at your expense" ... and the price was rolled out.
            Well, they sent them.
            For not only was it too expensive, but also flew far away in time.
            Now we bite our elbows - both we and they.
            After complications with China, they needed such an airplane as they needed, but again - only a two-seater. Well, in our country they realized and felt the full cost and severity of their stupidity and stupidity. And the double itself was needed.
            And you could have foreseen what you yourself would need. And not only for the drone operator, but as a development of the T-50 platform for the future.
            Quote: mark1
            For MRA and DA, the Su-57 is not entirely suitable due to the small volume of internal weapons bays

            In the case of a cockpit like the Su-34, the middle part of the center section naturally expands and a hump grows behind the cockpit. If you also lengthen the fuselage itself and increase the wing area (in a natural way), then the internal volumes of the weapons compartment will naturally increase dramatically. They will grow so much that they can fit two hypersonic anti-ship missiles (a la Zircon air-launched). It is better to calculate the size of the weapons bay just for these missiles.
            As a result, we will get an unobtrusive supersonic attack aircraft MRA with weapons in its internal compartments ... and even capable of standing up for itself (at least two explosive missiles), with a range higher than that of the Tu-22M3.
            Why not a dream of the Navy?
            What is not the basis of the future MPA?
            There is another option - an enlarged version of the Su-34 with the same missiles on external suspensions. And also with new engines "Product-30". Such, in addition to the two anti-ship missiles itself, will be able to take more explosives (up to 6 pieces easily), but ... It will still be a 4 ++ generation aircraft, clearly visible on radars. But the Su-57MRA will be barely noticeable, which means it will be able to quietly reach the line of attack, shoot back and leave the danger zone unnoticed / unharmed.
            In general, for the future, I would bet on the Su-57MRA.
            Although the Su-34M2 \ MRA will be cheaper and faster.
            ... And the MPA needs to be revived as soon as possible.
            Quote: mark1
            As a command plane for drones-slaves, the two-seat version will make sense (and even then not a fact) only at the initial stage of the implementation of the slaves. expensive and not practical, the main direction of development is adaptation to a single-seat standard car of 5-6th generations.

            This works well in the movies, but in practice, you can make such an airplane, but where can you get the pilots who are able to control all this at the same time? We have already had experience with the single Ka-50.
            Do you remember?
            An excellent helicopter, phenomenal flight and dynamic characteristics, unprecedented thrust-to-weight ratio and advanced weapon systems (at that time).
            But to prepare pilots for it .... To pilot such a pilot, an Ace pilot with phenomenal capabilities was needed. It's just an information overload - you need to pilot in a difficult combat situation, and track all devices, and control various weapons systems.
            Such pilots are a piece of goods, and even then in a critical situation they can make a mistake.
            This is not a training ground.
            Indians don't want to risk it - they like a two-seater heavy car, when the functions of the crew are divided.
            And we have got accustomed to the Su-30SM / liked it - only they will be purchased for the Naval Aviation (for the base). Yes, and in the videoconferencing there are already a lot of them.
            Here are just the management with us every year thinks tighter and tighter ... weird ...
            1. mark1
              mark1 4 September 2021 08: 44
              +2
              Quote: bayard
              Here are the Indians

              Yes, the Indians do whatever they want, with all due respect to them, their number 16.
              Quote: bayard
              In the case of a cockpit like the Su-34, the middle part of the center section naturally expands and a hump grows behind the cockpit. If you also lengthen the fuselage itself and increase the area

              Well, what kind of EPR is obtained? Better then Su-34 followed by PAK YES.
              Quote: bayard
              We have already had experience with the single Ka-50.

              Yes, such thoughts wander - to revive the project. He was simply ahead of his time, what was on the verge of the impossible in the 80s today (and even more so tomorrow) is quite solvable.
              Quote: bayard
              Such pilots are piece goods.

              Sorry, the two-seater cab is also far from consumer goods.
              Quote: bayard
              And we have Su-30SM got accustomed / liked it - only they will be purchased for Naval Aviation

              This is from despair. But I would take a closer look at the Su-34 - it also has a toilet, among other advantages.

              Quote: bayard
              Here are just the management with us every year thinks tighter and tighter ... weird ...

              He wants to go to the Duma ...
              1. bayard
                bayard 4 September 2021 09: 33
                0
                Quote: mark1
                Yes, the Indians do whatever they want, with all due respect to them, their number 16.

                However, our main customer is aircraft. They want to modernize the entire fleet of their Su-30MKIs with our help ... it seems like $ 12 billion. bully
                Quote: mark1
                Quote: bayard
                In the case of a cockpit like the Su-34, the middle part of the center section naturally expands and a hump grows behind the cockpit. If you also lengthen the fuselage itself and increase the area

                Well, what kind of EPR is obtained?

                So he's unobtrusive feel , well, add 20 - 30 percent. He can't tumble in an air battle - he fired rockets and went home with all his blades.
                And the size will only benefit him - solidity, all the MRA, after all, to replace the Tu-22M3. And the engines ("Products-30") will be stretched out.
                Quote: mark1
                Better then Su-34 followed by PAK YES.

                Su-34M2 \ MRA will be cheaper, simpler, and most importantly - faster. But he will be seen from Mars with such a garland ... and the adversary "Hokai" and other AWACS. So in the future, I would have in mind the Su-57MRA.
                Well, in the meantime, let at least the basic version in the series be launched.
                Quote: mark1
                Yes, such thoughts wander - to revive the project. He was simply ahead of his time, what was on the verge of the impossible in the 80s today (and even more so tomorrow) is quite solvable.

                All the same, information overload, in a difficult combat situation, you can not keep track of everything. In theory, it could be used in combination, when the Ka-50 unit leads the Ka-52 with a radar and directs / coordinates, but we have a zoo again in attack helicopters.
                Quote: mark1
                Sorry, the two-seater cab is also far from consumer goods.

                The fact of the matter is that the navigator / weapons operator unloads the pilot, leaving him piloting and close combat.
                Quote: mark1
                Quote: bayard
                And we have Su-30SM got accustomed / liked it - only they will be purchased for Naval Aviation

                This is from despair.

                Well, if they are now upgraded to the Su-30SM2, then they will be on par with the Su-35 in all combat situations. But the second member of the crew expands the possibilities. Especially when flying over the sea.
                Quote: mark1
                Quote: bayard
                Here are just the management with us every year thinks tighter and tighter ... weird ...

                He wants to go to the Duma ...

                It is good in the Duma - the salary is high, the privileges are different, benefits, an apartment in Moscow from the state can be privatized ... and no responsibility ...
                But the sailor Zheleznyak will come and say the textbook: "The guard is tired" ... and where should the poor deputy go? request Is that on the Cote d'Azur ...? To the family ...? Pour the melancholy with champagne? ...
                But for this you need to be an athlete ...
                Or an artist ...
                Or have a billionaire friend ...
                crying
                You are a heavy deputy's share ... recourse
                1. mark1
                  mark1 4 September 2021 10: 02
                  +1
                  Quote: bayard
                  Well, not to somersault in an air battle - he launched rockets and went home with all his blades.

                  When you roll around in battle it's not up to EPR, it's too late.
                  The scale of the alterations is such that this is practically a new plane - better than PAK YES
                  Quote: bayard
                  But the second crew member expands the capabilities

                  Yes ... if you put a machine gun in the back, then yes ... wassat
                  1. bayard
                    bayard 4 September 2021 10: 28
                    +2
                    Quote: mark1
                    The scale of the alterations is such that this is practically a new plane - better than PAK YES

                    PAK YES in our case is not very suitable - subsonic. In our case, you need to quickly reach the line of attack, shoot back and run away with all your shoulder blades. For their aviation dominates the sea - aircraft carriers request , and our base will not be able to escort at a long distance.
                    At a distance of the GZUR of 1000 - 1500 km. It is not worth counting, but closer - there is a great risk of being discovered by the Hokai, at least at the moment of launching the missiles. In this case, the slow-moving PAK DA may not have time to retire from the patrol on duty.
                    And the Su-57MRA is not only able to easily break away, it can also snap back.
                    But this is a very distant prospect. Now it is more rational to revive the MRA on the Su-34M2 \ MRA.

                    Quote: mark1
                    ... if you put a machine gun in the back, then yes ..

                    You can still give advice.
                    Valuable.
                    1. mark1
                      mark1 4 September 2021 13: 14
                      +1
                      Quote: bayard
                      In our case, you need to quickly reach the line ...

                      The last frontier ... in all other cases, rushing from the shore is not so important. Absolutely invisible aircraft do not exist, we have proved, i.e. we will be detected in the same way at a great distance, even along the heat trail, since we are going on supersonic (although it is lowered, it is far from 0). And why do we need invisibility in this case, there is a wonderful MiG-31K (it works not only on land)
                      Quote: bayard
                      You can still give advice.
                      Valuable.

                      It's not advice, it's sarcasm - it's free.
                      1. bayard
                        bayard 4 September 2021 23: 24
                        0
                        Quote: mark1
                        rushing from the shore is not so important.

                        It all depends on the situation. If the enemy's AUG \ KUG is detected, reaching the launch line of the CD along our coast, then you will have to hurry.
                        Or accept gifts from partners, after which you can no longer get together.
                        MRA is a tool for rapid response to a threat from the sea.
                        But this does not mean that in order to approach the enemy, you need to scratch the entire route at supersonic speed. You need to accelerate when approaching the zone of probable detection by the enemy, so that even being detected, you have time to reach the line of attack, shoot, turn, and go home with all your blades. Here the task is not to be heroic, but to destroy the target.
                        Quote: mark1
                        those. we will be found in the same way at a great distance, even along the heat trail, since we are going on supersonic

                        This is only if from space. But for this, the satellite must be above the place of events, cloudiness must not interfere with it and the warning system must have time to work.
                        If you do not press on afterburner, but go to cruise, there will be no outstanding heat trace. And you need to accelerate only at the moment of the attack (when reaching its line), and when retreating after it.
                        An exception may be the case described above, when a KUG / AUG is found near our shores of an attack that is reaching the line. Then time is gold and you need to react quickly in order to forestall their blow with your own.
                        Quote: mark1
                        And why do we need invisibility in this case, there is a wonderful MiG-31K (it works not only on land)

                        So far there was no confirmation of the defeat of the "Dagger" mobile sea target. Although the head was invented for this, but so far there have not been any reports of such an application. "Dagger" - aeroballistic missile for hitting stationary protected targets, the equivalent of the MRBM banned until recently. This is their value.
                        For MRA, the airborne version of the Zircon is relevant.
                        Il at worst - "Onyx".
            2. the most important
              the most important 4 September 2021 23: 15
              +1
              Quote: bayard
              Well, in our country they realized and felt the whole cost and severity of their stupidity and stupidity.

              Well, it’s in vain that way. Did someone get a big pendel for their stupidity? So what would the echo be all over the country? The country must know its "heroes".
              Quote: bayard
              Here are just the management with us every year thinks tighter and tighter ... weird ...

              And this is physiology. After the age of 25, the brain begins to degrade.
              1. bayard
                bayard 5 September 2021 00: 33
                +3
                Quote: the most important
                Well, it’s in vain that way. Did someone get a big pendel for their stupidity? So what would the echo be all over the country? The country must know its "heroes".

                We do not abandon their own.
                Quote: the most important
                And this is physiology. After the age of 25, the brain begins to degrade.

                Why would it be?
                If only a drug addict or alcoholic.
                A normal person's brains mature by the age of 40, life experience appears, skills, knowledge with experience are systematized, a specialist matures ... And later WISDOM is born.
            3. Joker62
              Joker62 5 September 2021 05: 04
              +1
              What you said to the remark of this article - I agree.
              I can only add a couple of my thoughts.
              It will be difficult for one pilot, if we talk about the Su-57, to operate a drone as a Hunter, to put it mildly. Not to mention the control as an option - a flock of drones.
              But the option as a two-seater for the Su-57 would be just optimal. Co-pilot - possibly as a navigator-gunner for drones.
              It is difficult to say about the cabin - which one is convenient - the "tandem" type or the "Spark" type. Most likely it will rest on the aerodynamics of the fuselage itself.
              1. bayard
                bayard 5 September 2021 05: 44
                +1
                A huge mistake of the leadership of the Sukhoi Design Bureau was the refusal of the initial design of the fuselage for two types of cabins. Of course, now we are talking about a cockpit with a tandem landing - this is a fighter and it is fraught with disturbing its aerodynamics.
                But the use of a cockpit a la Su-34 is already for the shock derivative of the T-50 airframe. The aircraft will already be larger and heavier, with a larger payload and a larger armament bay. The mass of such an attack aircraft can be 70 - 75 tons. For engines "Product-30" with a thrust of each afterburner 18 - 19,5 tf. such a takeoff weight is quite normal and a speed of Mach 2 - 2+ will be ensured. But not cruising supersonic, which he doesn't need.
                For MRA, such an aircraft would be simply ideal in all respects - range, stealth, armament, the ability to hit back (explosive missiles).
                But it has to be completely new OCD, it will take a lot of time. Therefore, for the revival of the MPA, these are rather aircraft of the second stage. And now we urgently need to take measures to create a version of the enlarged Su-34M2 \ MRA for arming the regiments of naval missile-carrying aviation, without which we cannot keep our maritime lines safe - our ships will not appear very soon and will not be able to keep up everywhere, by definition.
                MRA is the Fleet's rapid reaction force, it is the ability to quickly inter-fleet maneuver of forces (which cannot be done by ships), and, if necessary, it is a powerful tool for projecting force in any region of the planet where we can have an airfield with all the infrastructure.
                He transferred a regiment of such missile carriers to Venezuela - and immediately stabilized the situation ... Placed such a regiment in Cam Ranh - and jeopardized any maneuvering of the US and Co. naval forces in the strategic straits zone in order to violate the freedom of navigation ... deployed such missile carriers in Syria - and under the control of the entire Eastern Mediterranean.

                And for the Long-Range Aviation of the Aerospace Forces, such aircraft will not be superfluous, because they will work for stationary targets with much more ease and success than for sea ones.
                The range of such an aircraft can be about 6 - 000 km.
            4. Briz
              Briz 7 September 2021 21: 31
              +1
              In the case of a cockpit like the Su-34, the middle part of the center section naturally expands and a hump grows behind the cockpit. If you also lengthen the fuselage itself and increase the wing area (in a natural way), then the internal volumes of the weapons compartment will naturally increase dramatically. They will grow so much that they can fit two hypersonic anti-ship missiles (a la Zircon air-launched). It is better to calculate the size of the weapons bay just for these missiles.
              As a result, we will get an unobtrusive supersonic attack aircraft MRA with weapons in its internal compartments ... and even capable of standing up for itself (at least two explosive missiles), with a range higher than that of the Tu-22M3.
              Why not a dream of the Navy?

              It's good that the Tu-22 was remembered ... because this is a completely different aircraft, this is not an upgrade, this is a complete overhaul (based on)
              1. bayard
                bayard 7 September 2021 22: 44
                +2
                This is what we are talking about. To revive the MPA, a new aircraft is needed, capable of carrying two GZ anti-ship missiles. Precisely new, because Tu-22M3 \ 3M can live on the strength of 10-15 years.
                And the base for such an MRA aircraft can be both the Su-34 and the Su57.
                But since such an aircraft is needed already yesterday, it is wiser to take the Su-34 as a base, and start R&D regarding the Su-57MRA, because it will appear no earlier than 10-15 years (at our pace), when both the last Tu-22M3 will be decommissioned.
                1. Briz
                  Briz 7 September 2021 23: 03
                  0
                  Or maybe it would be more rational to improve the missiles so that they can be carried by aircraft already in service ?!
                  1. bayard
                    bayard 7 September 2021 23: 38
                    +1
                    Su-34 with modifications are also capable of carrying such missiles (the air version of the Zircon).
                    But it is worn. And in order to effectively use and carry ammunition to the most distant launch line, you still need specialized versions, albeit existing machines.
                    Look at the torment of the Indians with the adaptation of their Su-30s for a lightweight (!) Airborne version of the "Brahmos". Only ONE lite version of Brahmos.
                    They had to specially strengthen the fuselage and make a special suspension pylon.
                    The chief designer of the Su-34 argued that with proper adaptation, the Su-34 is capable of lifting not even two, but three Zircon \ Onyx into the air. But the range will not be great at all.
                    Everything needs harmony and SPECIALIZATION. For a specialist is always preferable, even a master, of a wide profile.
                    This is if we need a result, not a checkmark.
                    Quote: Briz
                    Or can it be more rational to improve missiles

                    Reduce size and weight?
                    Reduce warhead power and range?
                    Are you sure it's worth it?
                    We have an air-based anti-ship missile system for a range of 200 - 200+ km. , these are the X-35 and X-31. The latter is supersonic. And almost any multipurpose fighter of the Aerospace Forces can carry them by 4 pieces ... And even a helicopter.
                    The long (!) Range anti-ship missile system is needed to be able to launch it from a distance greater than the range of US carrier-based aircraft. And this radius has grown from the current 800+ to 1000+ = with the advent of deck-mounted F-35S. That is why the range of the airborne missile defense system is declared as "over a thousand kilometers."
                    And getting such a range is a very difficult task.
                    And the carrier of such difficult and very (!) Expensive missiles should be a SPECIALIZED MRA aircraft.
                    Otherwise, all efforts are in vain.
                    Leave the Su-30 Naval Aviation, which is just beginning to revive, the tasks of protecting and air defense of the naval and coastal bases, as well as attacks by enemy surface forces in the zone of their reach with standard ammunition (the same X-31 \ 35). Believe me, they will have enough work without MPA tasks.
                2. Osipov9391
                  Osipov9391 7 September 2021 23: 38
                  0
                  I once saw a mock-up of a bomber with two NK-32 engines made on the basis of the Tu-160. It practically repeats its aerodynamics and layout. With variable sweep wing. Only a couple of engines and one cargo hold. Well, and much less, about the size and weight of the Tu-22M3.
                  But the project did not go, although it was largely unified with product 70.
                  1. bayard
                    bayard 7 September 2021 23: 47
                    +1
                    It was planned to produce Tu-22M4 with these engines, but did not have time before the collapse of the USSR. They could have started production earlier, but these engines then went exclusively for the Tu-160.
                    And the entire Tu-144 fleet was waiting for the NK-32 for remotorization ... only one was re-equipped.
                    And he was later sent to the United States for several years - as a flying laboratory.
                    1. Osipov9391
                      Osipov9391 7 September 2021 23: 59
                      0
                      That is, that model of the Tupolev bomber with two NK-32s (this is from the 90s) is a heavily modified Tu-22M and letter 4? But the aerodynamics were almost like those of the 160th.
                      1. bayard
                        bayard 8 September 2021 00: 32
                        +1
                        The Tupolev Design Bureau had many projects, including a long-range escort fighter for the SA. Maybe you saw him?
                        There were other projects - engineering thought gushed out.
                        According to the program of only one Tu-160, there were a hundred-ole projects fellow - you will get jealous of the designers' fantasies.
                      2. Osipov9391
                        Osipov9391 8 September 2021 02: 09
                        0
                        It was precisely a medium bomber. And if I find a photo of that model, I will definitely show it. There then it seems the Tupolev Design Bureau, based on its base, demonstrated a supersonic business jet. But this did not work either.
                      3. The comment was deleted.
                      4. Osipov9391
                        Osipov9391 8 September 2021 02: 56
                        0

                        There she is. Almost repeats the Tu-160. In everything. But the dimensions and weight are less, a pair of motors. This is already the mid-90s.
                      5. bayard
                        bayard 8 September 2021 03: 43
                        +1
                        Unfortunately, I have not seen the Tu-22M4 project, I have only heard and read. It was supposed to be put into production in the early 90s, when the production volumes of the NK-32 will reach a sufficient level. The director of the Kazan plant dreamed of launching its production and fiddled with the Chief Designer - "Well, when?" ...
                        Perhaps this is it.
                        Integrated circuit, aerodynamics from the Tu-160 ... It is unlikely that until the mid-90s they could come up with something new - then there was no time.
                        ... And the plant for some time was producing Tu-22M3 from the reserve ...
                        Today this scheme is unlikely to be relevant - it is outdated, and the road to production will be complicated. In operation, it is also difficult and expensive.
                        Therefore, in the future, it is wiser to take the Su-57 glider as a basis.
                        And right now - to start R&D on the Su-34MRA.
                        With engines "Product-30".
                        As a backup engine, I would recommend renewing funding for another engine - P579-300. It is somewhat larger and heavier, but it also promises significantly higher performance:
                        - thrust swing. afterburner - 22 kg.
                        - maximum non-afterburner thrust - 14 kg.p.
                        This is a derivative of the same P79-300 that was on the Yak-141.
                        In the late 90s, the developer presented its development - P279-300 with a max. afterburner power 18 000 tf.
                        It was then bought by the Chinese, albeit without a rotary nozzle (for vertical thrust), and since then, an engine for their J-20 has been sculpted on its basis. Several times they stated that they had reached a traction of 18 - 18,5 tons. , but ... still nothing - MATERIALS SCIENCE.
                        Р579-300, this is the last derivative from Р-79-300, its weight should be 2000 kg with small "kopecks".
                        For comparison, the NK-32 weighs 3000 kg. with "kopecks", having a thrust of 25 \ 000 kg.s.

                        In general, it would be wiser to work on the P30-579 in parallel with the "Izdelyem-300", there would be healthy competition and insurance in case of failure.
                        Moreover, it is P579-300 that is preferable for VTOL aircraft. With such an engine it would be possible to create SUCH a beast ... The whole world would be envious.
                        And for the MRA aircraft, it, too, would probably be better - providing a reserve of thrust and even the possibility of "cruising supersonic".
                        Or it would provide less restrictions on airframe size, payload and fuel capacity. This means the range.

                        But what am I talking about if, at the insistence of Boeing, the project of the magnificent NK-93 was destroyed !!!
                      6. Osipov9391
                        Osipov9391 8 September 2021 03: 55
                        0
                        Tupolevites based on this model offered a supersonic business jet. Wealthy uncles and aunts (maybe Arab sheikhs) could probably give their best for such a miracle for themselves. But it didn’t work.
                        They also offered a demilitarized lightweight version of the Tu-160SK Burlak for launching satellites using a rocket suspended under an aircraft. No further than the layout
                        came out. Although this version of the Tu-160 could be made as quickly as possible, simply and cheaply throwing away all unnecessary military equipment. Some of the titanium ridges and beams (now there are difficulties with their welding) could be replaced with steel from alloy steel.
                        This could have made the glider heavier or worse. But given that there are no military systems and weapons (there are not even cargo compartments, there is a special beam and pylon) on it, I think it is not critical.
                        He could fly empty where necessary. There he hung up a rocket and launched it over the ocean flying straight along the equator.
                      7. bayard
                        bayard 8 September 2021 04: 37
                        +1
                        At that time, one Tu-160 cost 250 million dollars. , the demilitarized version would not cost much less.
                        Quote: Osipov9391
                        Tupolevites based on this model offered a supersonic business jet. Wealthy uncles and aunts (maybe Arab sheikhs) could probably give their best for such a miracle for themselves. But it didn’t work.

                        A slightly different version was proposed, but probably still based on this particular project. The project was unsuccessful.
                        Unsuccessful for these purposes.
                        For several reasons:
                        - it is too difficult to maintain (it's not even about the price, but about the COMPLEXITY of servicing the wing pivots and all this mechanization. In Engels, they toss about with this and remember the design with an unkind word),
                        - the characteristics of two engines for such a glider ... are irrational - for a supersonic flight, you will either have to turn on the afterburner, or (as promised) not use the afterburner (move without afterburners at all), but the entire flight will go on the maximum non-afterburner thrust ... this will kill the resource engines.
                        I suggested a different circuit and other engines. There we got completely different weights, a different non-afterburner thrust and completely different possibilities. And the speed was higher.
                        And the serial production of the engine increased, which did not know where else to fix it.
                        And the range.
                        In general, they liked my idea, but this project was rejected.
                        Time will tell whether we will be engaged in business jet supersonic. Now the engine I have proposed is not yet available. And the UAC has enough other programs and problems.
                        But if P579-300 appeared in the hardware ... fellow
                        What room for opportunity!
                        But this requires at least some goal setting and a program for the development of the industry and the Country as a whole.

                        And then there were enough exotic ways to air launch carrier rockets with a satellite:
                        - and from the back of "Mriya",
                        - and dropping the rocket from the cargo hold of the "Ruslan" by parachute and after leveling - start,
                        - and even from under the belly of the MiG-31 ... Tu-22M3 ... and of course the Tu-160.
                        But this did not interest anyone, no one was going to invest in the Russian Federation, and Roscosmos began to earn money as a taxi driver on the Korolev, Chelomey and Yangel rockets.

                        And the Tu-160 was offered as a demilitarized platform because there were a lot of buildings and center sections left unfinished in Kazan ... so they were offered to anyone.
                      8. Osipov9391
                        Osipov9391 8 September 2021 12: 48
                        0
                        What about the Tu-244 supersonic airliner? It doesn’t have a CIS but is large. Is it possible, on the basis of such a glider, to create both a missile carrier and a platform for launching satellites and a passenger airliner? I think it's easier to manufacture. At least there are no KIS cylinders and hinges in the design.
                        Factories in Smolensk, Taganrog, Voronezh and Samara are practically dying. The same applies to the Nizhny Novgorod Sokol. The Saratov plant was destroyed.
                        There are production sites. But everywhere the ideas of Serdyukov-Rogozin and their henchmen rule.
                      9. bayard
                        bayard 8 September 2021 15: 24
                        +1
                        Quote: Osipov9391
                        What about the Tu-244 supersonic airliner? It doesn’t have a CIS but is large. Is it possible, on the basis of such a glider, to create both a missile carrier and a platform for launching satellites and a passenger airliner?

                        The experience of operating the Concorde (and some Tu-144) has shown that the use of a large passenger supersonic aircraft is irrational - too expensive in terms of fuel, maintenance, and the cost of the aircraft itself. Tickets will cost many times more expensive than usual, but there will still be more risks.
                        Businessjet is another matter. A small plane for 8 - 24 people, which can transfer a passenger to the other side of the planet in a matter of hours. But the passenger is not an ordinary one, but one whose time is extremely expensive and who is ready to pay for it without hesitation. That is, it is a very niche aircraft. And this is already being done in the United States.
                        Should we get into this race today?
                        Definitely not.
                        Development for the future is another matter.
                        Sketches, projects, calculations, new generation engines with completely new specific characteristics.
                        We do not have a case when it was possible to get involved in a race - with an unlimited budget, an excess of high-class engineering and design personnel, with the full support of the Soviet Government. Now it is better to take a closer look at what the "competitors" will get, at their mistakes, the problems they face. Look at the economics of such an undertaking and the reaction of the market.
                        Supersonic is not an end in itself. To spend on a flight instead of five hours two, and instead of ten - three and a half ... For an extremely busy and unlimited person - this is interesting. Provided unconditional safety, comfort and goodness in application (how much time for maintenance and preparation for the flight, what state is needed for this, if the plane is private) ... Yes, this is interesting ... Maybe ... if everything works out like necessary .
                        But as a commercial airliner, their operation is practically ruled out.
                        Tu-244 - this is work on the errors of Tu-144. But there was the Soviet Union, where air tickets were subsidized ... and just the desire of designers to realize their idea.
                        As a "missile carrier" - definitely not. For these purposes, a subsonic rocket transporter is fully justified. To do this, he does not even need to be inconspicuous, etc., an aircraft of the Il-96 type with weapons compartments and a large number of launch drums would be quite suitable.
                        I am exaggerating, of course, but this is precisely the point - for the launch platform of Kh-101 \ 102 missiles, the speed characteristics and even the configuration are indifferent.
                        Another thing is the MRA aircraft and the airborne GZUR carrier. This aircraft should be multi-mode, capable of flying at low altitudes at subsonic levels, and supersonic at altitudes. A speed of 2 - 2,2M is enough for him. And it is more reasonable to take the Su-57 airframe as a basis, as a promising project for the MRA, and the Su-34, as a project for the near / medium perspective.
                        Quote: Osipov9391
                        There are production sites. But everywhere the ideas of Serdyukov-Rogozin and their henchmen rule.

                        They themselves are in the field, which means that there will be no aviation yet.
                        And everything we talk and write about is sophistry.
                      10. Osipov9391
                        Osipov9391 9 September 2021 00: 19
                        0
                        Then what is the point of restoring the Tu-160 in production? If the Kh-101 missile carrier can be made subsonic on the basis of the Il-96.
                        And not a single Tu-160 made in Russia from scratch, as I understand it, is not. In general, in the world today, no one builds or designs airplanes with CIS. Tornado and B-1 are still in operation, but I think they will not live long, B-21 and Eurofighter are replacing them.
                        Could a project like the Tu-244 be a platform for launching satellites? The Americans are making similar launches from the good old B-52 so far as part of tests.
                        Both the Tu-144 and Tu-160 do not use conventional kerosene. There is a special RT or T-6/8 nitrided. And in what civilian airport will this be flooded and nitrided?
                        Putin proposed to make a passenger version of the Tu-160 ...
                      11. bayard
                        bayard 9 September 2021 07: 26
                        +1
                        Quote: Osipov9391
                        Then what is the point of restoring the Tu-160 in production?

                        For long-range Aviation, there is not a single other ready-made project for the carrier of the Kh-101 \ 102 KR. Maintaining a fleet of 15 - 17 such aircraft is extremely difficult - the engines were running out, and it made sense to resume production (practically from scratch) only under some serious order. So we decided to combine the desirable with the necessary - to resume production of the Tu-160 and engines for it, as well as modernization. parts of the Tu-22M3 fleet using the same engines.
                        And then you look and PAK YES will mature.
                        And the engine to it.
                        Quote: Osipov9391
                        If the Kh-101 missile carrier can be made subsonic on the basis of the Il-96.

                        To do this, you need to completely redesign the IL-96. His bomb bays should go all over his belly ... this weakens the structure, but on the contrary we need to strengthen it. I said it figuratively, we simply do not have another platform.
                        In the United States, there was a project to make such a flying arsenal based on the Boeing-747 ... But they decided to leave the B-52 in service.
                        Quote: Osipov9391
                        And not a single Tu-160 made in Russia from scratch, as I understand it, is not.

                        Shoigu was in Kazan the other day. The first center section has already been assembled there - it stands with a cockpit and a tail. It was the first one assembled in the Russian Federation from scratch. If everything goes well, the series will go on, but apparently small. Under the Union, 5 pieces were collected. per year, in modern conditions there will be 2 pcs. So more than 10 - 15 pieces. will not collect in any way. And then the PAK YES will go, engines for it were assembled this year, they began to test at the stand.
                        A good stock of new engines will be built under the Tu-160 restart program, and the fleet will be expanded to 25-30 units. and will continue to operate.
                        Nobody knows yet how the PAK YES will turn out.
                        Therefore, the Tu-95 is in service.
                        And they will remain in the ranks.

                        Quote: Osipov9391
                        Could a project like the Tu-244 be a platform for launching satellites? The Americans are making similar launches from the good old B-52 so far as part of tests.

                        Just for the sake of this, no one would build a new, huge and astronomically expensive supersonic. Satellites can be launched in any way. If you have them. It all depends on the target load and its weight.
                        Small satellites can be launched with the Sineva SLBM. If you want to implement an air launch, then any carrier with a suitable carrying capacity will do - even the Il-76, even the An-124, even the Tu-22M3, even the MiG-31.
                        All those projects that were published in the 90s are attempts by various design bureaus and enterprises to attract attention and get at least some order.
                        Quote: Osipov9391
                        Both the Tu-144 and Tu-160 do not use conventional kerosene. There is a special RT or T-6/8 nitrided. And in what civilian airport will this be flooded and nitrided?

                        Tu-144s were operated from conventional airports, and the ground infrastructure for each type of aircraft is being prepared separately. Prepared for the Tu-144.
                        Quote: Osipov9391
                        Putin proposed to make a passenger version of the Tu-160 ...

                        Well, the man froze stupidity ... and let's quote everything. request
                        Well, which Tu-160 is a supersonic? Look at it - a conventional transonic military glider with supersonic dash capability. True, the jerk can be 40 minutes or even more ... but this is not a Tu-144 or a Concorde at all.
                        He (the Guarantor) recently taught children about the history ... so his student corrected him - about the Northern War.
                        Supersonic could be designed on the basis of the Tu-144 airframe (reduced to a take-off weight of 100 - 120 tons) and four "Product-30" engines - without afterburners. It would be a good long-range business jet. This is more interesting than what the Tupolevites with the NK-32M (deformed) offered.
                      12. Osipov9391
                        Osipov9391 9 September 2021 15: 22
                        0
                        I think that a demilitarized Tu-160 for launching satellites would cost one and a half to two times cheaper than a conventional combat one.
                        Even if the defense kit "Baikal" is removed, then it is minus two tons of weight, including kilograms of gold and palladium in green capacitors (I saw these boards).
                        There are many military systems that weigh tons, money and weight.
                        Demilitarized would have weighed about 100 tons, I think. Sighting systems, radar and stuff weighs tons there. And it would not be necessary.
                        It's a pity even one prototype didn't do that. And they could even shake up the old Zhukov Tu-160 of which 3 canned pieces are worth. But they could build from scratch.
                        But I don't know where to make some of the devices and systems. Now they are taking from old stocks. The same Voronezh "Elektropribor" bent a year ago. There SOS-5 and ABSU-200 were engaged ...
                      13. bayard
                        bayard 9 September 2021 20: 44
                        +1
                        Then (90s - the beginning of the XNUMXs) they could do a lot. And the people were alive, and the production was new, and the projects were more or less fresh.
                        But there was no payload for these ... carrier aircraft.
                        There was no rocket itself that could be launched from under the belly.
                        There were no satellites that would have to be brought out by such a circus
                        For the USSR is gone.
                        And the Russian Federation did not need all this for nothing ... And even with a surcharge.
                        We then almost stopped launching our satellites, and it was easier to carry out commercial launches on old proven rockets. With minimal costs. We then had a bunch of conversion ICBMs - alter it and start it up.
                        And they let it go.
                        And it was even fashionable to launch your own satellite from the Russian "Satan" ("Dnepr").
                        Quote: Osipov9391
                        I think that a demilitarized Tu-160 for launching satellites would cost one and a half to two times cheaper than a conventional combat one.
                        Even if the defense kit "Baikal" is removed, then it is minus two tons of weight, including kilograms of gold and palladium in green capacitors

                        All these ideas appeared after the state defense order for military-industrial complex enterprises ceased or was reduced by orders of magnitude ... And at the enterprises (including in Kazan) there were enough unfinished Tu-160 buildings. So they were looking for non-military use for them.
                        And fantasized.
                        Well, why did the deeply bourgeois and market administration of Yeltsin need to build ... a supersonic (!) Air-launch aircraft ... and missiles for this complex (!)? If the country had enough free ICBMs to launch any payload in such a weight category.
                        And conventional launch vehicles ... used, reliable and very inexpensive - were enough too.
                        So why new ROCs, budget spending, financial and technical risks?
                        If you just cut coupons from the wealth you already have?
                        ... And the designers who were out of work ... gushed with ideas and published them in all available magazines.
                        Think of these projects as science fiction ... for they are, at their core.
                      14. Osipov9391
                        Osipov9391 11 September 2021 00: 15
                        0
                        Yes, there was some money. And the Germans gave millions of marks to the Diana-Burlak project. But they managed to make only the layout and the rest was stolen. Serial Tu-160 # 342 had to be re-equipped at the beginning for this purpose. Then they postponed it. Which rocket model dragged. Then it turned out (that kind of car was born in 1988, an early series) that the plane had cracks in its power elements and it almost did not fly.
                        He was not transferred to the troops. It seems to be in Zhukovsky to this day.
                      15. bayard
                        bayard 11 September 2021 00: 42
                        0
                        Some million marks were not enough for such a project, and the Americans would not have allowed this program to take place. They have consistently destroyed our entire high-tech industry. And the aviation industry - first of all. And their henchmen in the power of the Russian Federation closely watched so that nothing competitive would appear in our country. Remember the history of the IL-96 with American engines, remember the history of the NK-93 propeller-fan engine - to this day, no engine has been able to realize such fuel efficiency and low noise.
                        And then many dreamed. For there was someone.
                        And about "Burlak" then really wrote a lot ... but it was "girl's dreams".
                        There was an air launch project from Mriya ...
                      16. Osipov9391
                        Osipov9391 11 September 2021 01: 59
                        0
                        An American firm, some kind of private aerospace, seems to have wanted to buy several disarmed Tu-160s from Ukraine for this purpose. But it didn't work out.
                        And so we have the development of such air-launched missiles now. Even private ones. But transport planes are planned as a platform.
                      17. Eug
                        Eug 18 October 2021 07: 56
                        0
                        Again - what is the diameter of the NK-93? I met around 3200. What would be the Cx of an aircraft with such engines? What should be the height of the wing above the takeoff? How will all this affect the balancing angle of attack and, accordingly, fuel consumption? I met the opinion that the Il-76 with the D-30KP 3 series is more efficient than with the PS-90 precisely because of the larger diameter of the PS-90, even with a lower fuel consumption at the PS.
                      18. bayard
                        bayard 18 October 2021 09: 00
                        -1
                        Quote: Eug
                        Again - what is the diameter of the NK-93? I met around 3200.

                        Yes, it seems like 3150 mm.
                        Gross weight is 3650 kg.
                        Length 5975 mm.
                        The takeoff thrust is 18 kgs, but the test pilots claimed that during tests it produced 000 kgs several times.
                        Bypass ratio 16,7. As a result, only 15% of the thrust was provided by the jet gas stream, and 85% by the fan.
                        And despite the fact that this is a 1985 development, in terms of fuel efficiency, emissions and noise, it significantly exceeds the performance of any modern engine, incl. PD-14.
                        But that is precisely why this engine was banned, the program was closed, and even ... it was removed from Wikipedia ... in any case, I could not find it there now.
                        This is how it is - the "hand of the market" and "free competition".
                        The NK-93 was planned to be installed on the Il-96, Tu-204 and, apparently, a less powerful modification of it, on the Tu-334 (with the installation in the tail section as in the Tu-134). A production line was already deployed, capable of producing up to 100 engines per year and 11 pieces were in stock ...

                        Quote: Eug
                        What should be the height of the wing above the takeoff?

                        These engines are not very sensitive to the problem of sucking various debris from the strip, because the air intake itself is located high enough, the rest is a fan. But the idea of ​​taking it forward a little was also considered, so that the top edge of the shell rises above the upper edge of the wing. It was believed that not only did the engine rise higher on the low-lying wing, but also blowing the upper edge of the wing would provide greater wing lift and improve handling. Or the placement of such engines in the tail section was considered (as in the Tu-134 and Il-62).
                        Quote: Eug
                        I met the opinion that the Il-76 with the D-30KP 3 series is more efficient than with the PS-90 precisely because of the larger diameter of the PS-90, even with a lower fuel consumption at the PS.

                        Well, there is already something to choose from - power and efficiency, or .... After all, they were planning to install them only on passenger and transport aircraft.
                      19. Eug
                        Eug 18 October 2021 15: 49
                        0
                        It's not about the suction of debris, or rather, not only about it - mainly about Cx and about compensation of the pitch-up torque due to a decrease in the thrust axis, the height of the fuselage (not for transport workers) and other AD moments ... and under a heavier engine and the wing must be reinforced, and this is the weight.
                      20. bayard
                        bayard 19 October 2021 00: 33
                        -1
                        Quote: Eug
                        This is not about sucking up debris, or rather, not only about it - mainly about Cx and about compensation of the pitching torque due to a decrease in the thrust axis, the height of the fuselage (not for transport workers) and other AD moments.

                        So to reduce this factor, it was proposed to move the engine forward a little and raise it, providing the wing with an air flow from the fan. As an option . Yes, in the case of the Il-96, where it was planned to install four NK-93s, such an effect would not have been too great, look at the twin-engine Boeings and Airbuses, how far large-diameter engines are located below the fuselage axis. So for the IL-96, this problem would not become critical.
                        By the way, now Rolls-Royce is working on the same (as NK-93) engine.
                        Apparently it was for this that we were banned from this engine, so that the right people could repeat this for themselves.
                        And yes, the developers of this engine argued that it would not be a problem to bring the NK-93 thrust to 23,5-24 tf. , which means - to install those on the An-124 "Ruslan" ... But the modern government of the Russian Federation is too obedient to any shout and prohibition from partners.
                        Alas.
                      21. Eug
                        Eug 18 October 2021 07: 49
                        0
                        The R-579 -300 has a diameter of 1m.63 cm. And also thermal insulation .. "pot-bellied" it is like for a relatively light aircraft, even an integrated circuit will not hide this midsection.
                      22. bayard
                        bayard 18 October 2021 09: 20
                        -1
                        Quote: Eug
                        The R-579 -300 has a diameter of 1m. 63 cm.

                        I did not find data on the diameter of the P579-300, but since it is understood that this is a development of the P79B-300, which has a diameter of 1390 mm. ... Well, in terms of pot-belliedness, it is worth looking at the F-35, and understand that the engine is MORE POWERFUL than the capacity of the "Pregnant Penguin", and should be no less in size. In addition, he (P579-300) implements variable contouring ... which also leads to some "completeness".
                        And it is quite natural that a "light" fighter with an afterburner engine up to 22 - 000 kgf. and weighing 23 kg. , "light" can only be conditional. After all, he has a non-afterburner maximum of as much as 000 kg.f. - almost like the AL-2050F-14C with afterburner.
                        And why hide such beauty?
                        This engine really had (and if desired - and remained) a very wide range of applications. From VTOL aircraft and "light" single-engine fighters, twin-engine MRA aircraft and medium-range aircraft of Long-Range Aviation, to a supersonic business jet and even ... a four-engine reincarnation a la Tu-144 with very acceptable performance. Indeed, its line includes a single-circuit version without an afterburner with a maximum thrust of 16 kg.f. ... namely, this engine power was in the very first experimental version of the Tu-000 ... But the engines were then much heavier and not at all economical, and gave out that thrust on afterburner.
                        Yes, and I did not notice the excessive completeness of the same Yak-141. request
                      23. Eug
                        Eug 18 October 2021 14: 46
                        0
                        I took the data on the diameter of P579 from an article on VO about an alternative engine of the 5th generation. There are several tables with engine parameters. And something I did not find information about the reality of P579 - as well as about ed. thirty
                      24. bayard
                        bayard 19 October 2021 00: 07
                        -1
                        For reality, you still need an order and a specific purpose (the type of aircraft for such an engine), I think there is mainly prototyping or, at most, bench tests. Who will waste their own funds in vain for no reason.
                        I think that the R179V-300 engine could become an alternative to the "Izdeliyu-30" for the PAK FA of the second stage. Its diameter is slightly larger than the "Product", the thrust is also somewhat superior.
                        As for the Р579-300, this is an engine for another type of aircraft. Most likely it is offered for the PAK DP, it can be used for a new MRA aircraft based on the Su-34 or Su-57 airframe. Can be used for VTOL aircraft, a la Yak-201.
                      25. Eug
                        Eug 18 October 2021 15: 45
                        0
                        https://topwar.ru/184990-sovetskoe-nasledstvo-turboreaktivnyj-dvigatel-pjatogo-pokolenija-na-baze-izdelija-79.html#comment-id-11812824
                        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.

                        Below is a table with the dimensions of P579, for some reason it is not transferred.
                      26. bayard
                        bayard 19 October 2021 00: 16
                        -1
                        It all depends on the decision makers. P579-300 can be used in a number of projects, moreover, very necessary projects. But the paradoxical nature of the thinking of those in power is sometimes so amazing that it is almost impossible to foresee the twists and turns of their gloomy mind.
                        The country's defense capability, at the same time, they have somewhere in tenth place.
                      27. Eug
                        Eug 19 October 2021 13: 18
                        0
                        More engines - good and different! I'm all for it"!
                      28. Eug
                        Eug 18 October 2021 07: 46
                        0
                        As for me - an excellent version of the UNIFIED PLATFORM MRA and PAK DP. Perhaps, taking into account the realities and prospects, and for unification, it should be scaled under two "ed.30". Although under the NK-32 with unification, everything is fine.
                      29. bayard
                        bayard 18 October 2021 09: 37
                        -1
                        "Product-30" has not yet been born and has not shown any acceptable resource.
                        And it is for these two platforms - PAK DP and MRA, or a single one ... P579-300 would be best suited. Both in terms of traction characteristics and specific traction.
                        Just compare:
                        The weight of the NK-32M is at least 3000 kg. , and for P579-300 - 2050 kg. - one and a half times easier.
                        But comparing the power ...
                        For NK-32M - 16 \ 000 kg.f. , and for P25-000 - 579 \ 300 (or even 14) kg.f.
                        Plus the difference in size.
                        I'm not even talking about the fact that adding a large-diameter fan with a gearbox to the R579-300 gas generator, and you would get a high bypass engine, which is not inferior in power to the promising NK-23D.
                        The fact is that power gas turbines based on Р79В-300 have been created and are working. And that means they show a good resource ... So I am for the revival of this project - it is on such an engine that you can create a whole line of promising aircraft that are very necessary for defense capability.
                        And the "Product-30" with a very high probability may not "shoot".
                        And in this case, if the alternative is not insured, a number of other promising programs can be covered. And the Su-57 can also fly with the AL-41F-1C.
                  2. bayard
                    bayard 7 September 2021 23: 49
                    +1
                    There is no need to invent anything new for the MPA. It is necessary to take the existing glider as a basis and adapt it to the tasks. If the "Product-30" still appears, then such an aircraft is possible even on the basis of the Su-34, even on the basis of the Su-57. But in both cases, the glider will have to be increased - this will only benefit. Both range and stability will increase.
    3. Thompson
      Thompson 5 September 2021 08: 45
      0
      A rolling stone gathers no moss. They do something, so they will do it
  2. Mikhail Ishin
    Mikhail Ishin 3 September 2021 05: 22
    -2
    We write one, three in the mind
  3. Seryoga64
    Seryoga64 3 September 2021 05: 34
    +4
    the modern fighter pilot already has to deal with a huge amount of data coming from different sensors.

    It just does not fit in my head how you can work with such a mass of information, even with electronic assistants.
    Truly labor, labor and labor
    1. Eug
      Eug 3 September 2021 09: 36
      +5
      And for several hours ... as for me, in a single-seat fighter, with all the technical advances already in a 3-hour flight, the pilot is at the limit of his physiological capabilities, and if he is also imputed to control the drones ...
      1. Seryoga64
        Seryoga64 3 September 2021 11: 05
        +2
        Quote: Eug
        already in a 3-hour flight, the pilot is at the limit of physiological capabilities,

        So I am about it. You can't fool your head and body
    2. Briz
      Briz 7 September 2021 21: 39
      0
      And a modern attack pilot has to work alone, although even in WWII they fought together (after the 42nd)
  4. avia12005
    avia12005 3 September 2021 06: 24
    +3
    This concept should be tested on the Su-34, built on the principle of "open architecture" and its load of 10-12 tons allows you to carry the same drones. And then build a 2-seater Su-57.
  5. gregor6549
    gregor6549 3 September 2021 06: 52
    +2
    In my opinion, the answer to the question of the article is obvious. Now there is a great desire of the Russian Aerospace Forces to pair SU 57 with drones controlled from a manned aircraft. For a pilot of such an aircraft as SU 57, such a load will obviously be "too much" and in order not to overload it, it was decided to add a second member to the crew of SU 57. Whether he will only deal with the control of the attached drones or a number of other tasks (navigational, tracking the air and ground situation, weapons control, etc.) will be clear later after carrying out the appropriate modeling and conducting full-scale tests of prototypes (when and if such appear).
    Here you also need to remember that decision-making in military systems is what SU 57 is so far they do not trust any AI and are unlikely to be trusted in the future. And if so, then the decision to introduce a second member of the crew in the SU 57 is logical and quite justified.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 4 September 2021 11: 34
      +2
      For starters, you just need to complete the usual assembly of three Su-57s by the end of the year.
      And send them to the troops.
      To make it clear whether the plane took place or not.
      1. outsider
        outsider 1 October 2021 08: 38
        -1
        - That it did not take place in the form as it was conceived, it became clear from the first days of its appearance, when it was shown to the Indians and told the most terrible military secret, then unknown to Russian aviation lovers:
        http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/01/india-russia-close-to-agreement-on-next.html
        Sukhoi's FGFA prototype, which is expected to make its first flight within weeks, is a true stealth aircraft, almost invisible to enemy radar. According to an MoD official, “It is an amazing looking aircraft. It has a Radar Cross Section (RCS) of just 0.5 square meters as compared to the Su-30MKI's RCS of about 20 square meters. "
        .......................
        Having an EPR at least three orders of magnitude worse than the F-22 / F-35, the PAK FA / T-50 / Su-57 turned out to be useless to anyone in the world, first of all - its own aerospace forces and its own MO ... This is not stealth, therefore - with the aircraft of the fifth generation, he never "was lying around" ...
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 1 October 2021 12: 46
          +1
          I think it's not about the EPR. (0.5 m2 is still better than 20).
          The Su-35 has components and avionics that suppliers cannot master in production.
          For example, after accident number 1 (his tail unit is jammed)
          replaced hydraulics with electric motors. It's not easy.
          Therefore, the three fuselages that are being assembled cannot finish in any way for almost a year.

          The Su-57 needs to be brought up to standard, because the Su-35 are becoming obsolete before our eyes.
          If you coat the Su-57 with a stealth coating rather than camouflage paint and eliminate
          several unmasking defects in terms of radar (put partitions
          in the air intakes, make a faceted case for an optical sight and even on trifles),
          then he will be able to fight against 5th generation aircraft much better than
          Su-35.
          1. outsider
            outsider 1 October 2021 14: 07
            -1
            - Generally speaking, normal people would long ago have spent 10-20-30 training battles between the Su-35 and the Su-57 (in each, of course, the best pilots) and by the average statistical results they would have found out "who is hu?" And does the Russian Aerospace Forces really need the Su-57, or is it on ...
            For some reason I think that this has already been done. Only we were not told. laughing lol And it is the results of these checks that explain the "paradox" that the newest Russian "stealth" is absolutely not produced in the same way as the F-22s were made in their time, and how F-35s are riveted by one and a half hundred a year ...
  6. Avior
    Avior 3 September 2021 06: 54
    0
    ... Recently, the Japanese have proposed unusual options for the layout of the two-seater cockpit of the Su-57 fighter.

    One of the options involves "helicopter" accommodation of crew members, when instead of one cockpit with tandem pilots, two separate cockpits are used, one above the other.

    And where, according to this scheme, will the radar station be located?
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. Doctor
    Doctor 3 September 2021 08: 21
    0
    A two-seat command variant of the Su-57 will be created to control the latest Okhotnik drones. It is assumed that the fighter, which is already under development, will carry about four "Hunters"

    Has anyone tried to control drones from a flying fighter?
    It seems to me that this is still a hemorrhoid. wink
  9. Bez 310
    Bez 310 3 September 2021 08: 28
    -3
    "Oh, these fairy tales, oh, these storytellers" ...
    They are building both the Su-75, and the two-seater Su-2, and the "Okhotnik" they have
    controlled by the Su-57, and even a new city in Primorye.
    In general, they look confidently into the future, and for the present
    nobody is answering.
  10. Maks1995
    Maks1995 3 September 2021 09: 04
    -1
    All this has already happened. And why re-write?
    And the SU modifications have already been promised a bunch. And upgrades are about to happen too.
    But it seems that there is only one combatant so far.

    And of course, as soon as the space 57s cross the expanses of the stellar ocean, there will be training, sparks, and varieties for deserts, north, seas, interception, reconnaissance, anti-ship missiles and other things ...

    "It's a pity - to live in this wonderful time. I won't have to - neither me, nor you ..." Nekrasov.
  11. Kalmar
    Kalmar 3 September 2021 09: 34
    +2
    I really like that the article is decorated with a picture, literally written up and down with requests and threats (not to repost it)) The picture itself is also good, of course: in the second version of the radar, as I understand it, lies on the knees of the "front" pilot)
    1. arkadiyssk
      arkadiyssk 3 September 2021 10: 38
      +2
      Uh-huh on my knees. In the picture, whatever you take it seriously, under option number 4 it is written: "Feel the power of high-quality alcohol", i.e. the author immediately admits - only drunk can you think of such a thing.
  12. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 3 September 2021 10: 02
    +1
    The F15EX is also a good example ... the Americans took the two local version of the F15 as a basis. Although the "Board" is very modern there.
  13. mva
    mva 3 September 2021 11: 49
    -1
    Quote: mark1
    Quote: ROSS 42
    in the presence of defective copies (without "Product 30")

    And what is the inferiority then? And in front of whom (what)? It reaches cruising supersonic sound (though small, there is not enough non-afterburning thrust of 500 kilograms from each engine)

    Defectiveness in straight air intakes without S bend and open nozzles. Without all this, there is no need to talk about stealth. Put in S-shaped air intakes and cool the exhaust, then see how it "reaches the cruising supersonic".
    1. Runner2022
      Runner2022 4 September 2021 12: 57
      -1
      Fighter of the 5th generation is far from being about stealth, which is already like an anecdote in the light of the latest radar technologies and electronic warfare
    2. URAL72
      URAL72 5 September 2021 10: 45
      0
      Put on S-shaped air intakes "

      What for? This is the last century. Russian engineers went further. Already officially for people like you reported, reflectors with a radio-absorbing coating will be installed in the air intake channel. They will hide the turbine blades, preventing the echo signal from returning not only back, but generally outward.
      1. Flanker692
        Flanker692 5 September 2021 12: 50
        +1
        exactly the opposite: radar blockers were used on a number of fighters and bombers of the 4th generation (the same upgrade of the FA-18E / F hornet first flight 1995). On modern American aircraft and fighter concepts from other countries, this is either a strongly pronounced S-shaped channel (F-22, J-20, ATD-X), or an S-channel + DSI air intake (F-35, J-31, FCAS) ... Even the JF-17 Block 3, the Pakistani-Chinese great-grandson of the MiG-21, took to the skies with DSI air intakes. Those. for engineers of modern aircraft, a radar blocker is a compromise solution that does not meet the requirements of stealth and therefore is no longer used when designing from scratch
      2. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 6 September 2021 14: 02
        -1
        And the engineers were all Russians?
    3. EMMM
      EMMM 13 September 2021 00: 32
      0
      Before saying this, you need to understand the gas temperature at the entrance to the SA of the theater, and at the entrance to the nozzle
  14. Moysha
    Moysha 3 September 2021 13: 57
    -2
    There is an opinion that the alma-ata tank, su-57 und chess are pilarams.
    1. shahor
      shahor 3 September 2021 17: 22
      -1
      Quote: Moishe
      There is an opinion

      There is a conviction ...
  15. Babermetis
    Babermetis 3 September 2021 16: 34
    +1
    The main advantage of unmanned aerial vehicles flying with a wingman is the availability of direct communication between the pilot and his commander. A kind of "intranet" instead of the Internet. And if a signalman is needed for this, let it be!
  16. iouris
    iouris 3 September 2021 17: 59
    0
    The first drives the left motor and the second drives the right. And they are not so lonely.
  17. Azimuth
    Azimuth 3 September 2021 20: 40
    -2
    As before, we are lagging behind the West in electronics and technology, so in the shock version, and even in conjunction with drones, we need a second crew member anyway.
    1. Runner2022
      Runner2022 4 September 2021 10: 40
      0
      Well, for now, as soon as Russia has a full-fledged 5th generation fighter
  18. FrankyStein
    FrankyStein 3 September 2021 22: 37
    -1
    To use a UAV to launch an UAV, kmk is nonsense. Isn't it easier to use a rocket? Likewise, the control of a UAV from a fighter, which is the most effective combat unit, does not seem to be a rational idea. You can also steer drones from some kind of flying trough.
  19. V means B
    V means B 4 September 2021 12: 56
    +2
    All this reminds me of a conversation from one well-known cartoon "which is better than wings, legs?" they are there at the present time.
    1. Runner2022
      Runner2022 4 September 2021 13: 02
      -1
      Well, if we compare with the United States, then they do not have 5th generation aircraft at all, and in the light of the developing events of 15 years, this does not shine for them
  20. lynnot
    lynnot 4 September 2021 14: 09
    +1
    Now the second place on a multipurpose aircraft is usually reserved for the operator who controls the airborne weapons systems in order to reduce the workload on the pilot.
  21. Castro Ruiz
    Castro Ruiz 4 September 2021 16: 44
    +1
    And yet, yes. No 2. pilot or navigator but drone (s) operator.
    Verzia with 2 pilots for IN.
  22. abc_alex
    abc_alex 4 September 2021 18: 29
    +1
    I don’t understand something, why rewrite history?
    In fact, all Sukhoi planes were originally planned to be two-seaters. Nobody canceled the training. With the Su-35, it turned out strange, for it was also planned a twin, but when it was decided to make the Su-30MKI for the Russian Air Force, the presence of two two-seater vehicles was considered superfluous. Who and why is not clear.
    For the Su-57, you first need to decide "WHY"? As correctly noted in the comments, unlike the MiG Design Bureau, which made the MiG-29M2 universal platform, the Sukhoi Design Bureau makes each aircraft a thing in itself, not complimentary with other machines. And therefore, before you put the co-pilot in the car, you need to understand what he will do there. He also needs to equip the cabin. If you control the UAV - one, if you lead the Su-35 flight - another, if you bomb on the ground - the third.
    In my opinion, so ...
    Again, if a UAV, then what for? If for air combat, then why control it?
    1. outsider
      outsider 1 October 2021 14: 19
      0
      - Training canceled for the F-22 and F-35. Probably canceled on the next American stealth. (I need to clarify how the Chinese are doing on the J-10?)
      Again, if a UAV, then what for? If for air combat, then why control it?

      - Control. To completely "get out of hand" ... wink
      1. Maxim G
        Maxim G 14 November 2021 10: 21
        0
        Quote: Outsider

        Outsider (Michael)
        1 October 2021 14: 19

        0
        - Training canceled for the F-22 and F-35. Probably canceled on the next American stealth. (I need to clarify how the Chinese are doing on the J-10?)

        And when does the process of retraining pilots for these aircraft look like - first on a simulator, then immediately on a single-seat aircraft?
        1. outsider
          outsider 14 November 2021 11: 59
          0
          - Yes, of course.
  23. Glagol1
    Glagol1 6 September 2021 20: 21
    -1
    12 su-57 per year starting in 2022? Oh well! 4 cars, as already announced.
    So you can forget about the su-57-2
    1. outsider
      outsider 1 October 2021 08: 13
      -1
      - The fact is that according to the most important criterion: efficiency / cost The Su-57 is unlikely to outperform even the Su-35, at a price three times higher. Therefore, even the native Aerospace Forces and the native Ministry of Defense do not need him in FIG. Therefore, these interested parties will slow down its mass production with their hands and feet - they do not just need such an airplane, they do not need it ruinously...
  24. Figvam
    Figvam 6 September 2021 23: 05
    0
    in order for the aircraft and the UAV to work together, they should at least have similar speed capabilities
    otherwise one for the other will be a burden and together they will not fly far
    1. outsider
      outsider 1 October 2021 14: 16
      -1
      - There is no problem here: 95% of all flights of fighter aircraft are performed on subsonic. Almost all fighter aircraft today have a speed range of up to 2.3M-2.5M maximum. moreover, this maximum is almost never used in real conditions, but a good engine / s provides:
      - maximum ceiling;
      - maximum rate of climb;
      - the best overclocking characteristics;
      - maximum maneuverability (not to be confused with the fucking super-maneuverability that nobody needs);
      - the minimum take-off run and take-off distance.
  25. EMMM
    EMMM 13 September 2021 00: 27
    0
    I'll try to translate it into Russian.
    We are being told about new aircraft control technologies, up to the processing by artificial intelligence of what the pilot will say aloud in a critical situation, with the subsequent issuance of control signals directly to the aircraft actuators.
    They tell multimillion-dollar (or multi-billion dollar) tales about making decisions on the movement of the pupil of the pilot's eye.
    And at the same time, a second crew member was required - more likely for potential buyers. Surely, the latest control technologies using information from the pilot's subconscious for making management decisions will not be transferred to anyone in the near future.
  26. EMMM
    EMMM 13 September 2021 01: 02
    0
    More or less attentively ran through all the comments and was surprised: no one paid attention to who suggested the layout options for the two-seater car - Japan. Is she our closest military partner, potential buyer, or where? We (Russia and Japan) are still at war: the peace treaty has not been signed.
    Perhaps India or someone else is interested in a two-seater of this class.
    If someone ordered such a project, it is not clear why. To offer, say (sorry for the tautology) India, to replace the cockpit, which includes the ability to delve into the brains of a bear fighter, but who will allow it?
    So I absolutely do not understand why this was done.
  27. outsider
    outsider 1 October 2021 08: 09
    -1
    Modern on-board electronics allows one pilot to fully solve all the main combat missions (the era of unmanned fighters has not yet arrived, but this cannot be ruled out).

    - Undoubtedly - where she is... But the Russian Air Force has NO electronics and computers that fit into the required weight and dimensions. And out of stock. And even the Chinese don't sell. NO WHERE TO TAKE.
    If we remove the training aspect, then the creation of a two-seater car, in general, looks like an anachronism. It is pertinent to say that now no country in the world produces fifth generation two-seat fighters.

    - The Su-57, with its miserable frontal RCS ~ 0.1 m², is not a "fifth generation" aircraft and will never become one.... Therefore, the appearance of a two-seater option is completely normal and natural.
  28. outsider
    outsider 1 October 2021 14: 11
    -1
    Quote: Runner2022
    Fighter of the 5th generation is far from being about stealth, which is already like an anecdote in the light of the latest radar technologies and electronic warfare

    - Of course it is firstly, stealth, secondly, stealth, thirdly, stealth! Fourthly, avionics, including the obligatory airborne radar with AFAR. Fifthly, the performance characteristics provided by the engines.