Military Review

MiG-21: simple as a balalaika

114
MiG-21: simple as a balalaika

MiG-21 in Romania



"Balalaika" is the nickname of the MiG-21 aircraft, as an American expert in the field recalls in one of his videos. aviation Matthew Burshett. The nickname is due to the fact that this is the first aircraft among the Soviet MiGs with a triangular wing shape, which gives the front-line fighter an appropriate upper projection.

The MiG-21 began to operate back in 1959, being classified as a 3rd generation fighter.

In the Soviet Union, this combat vehicle was produced until 1985. But foreign versions of the fighter - J-7 / F-7 were also produced in the 2012st century, until relatively recently - until XNUMX.

In the USSR alone, more than 10 thousand of these MiGs were built, which made the MiG-21 one of the most common fighters in the world.
In a number of countries, the 21st MiG is still in operation. It, in particular, can be seen during operations in the Syrian Arab Republic, where its operation is more consistent with operation as a bomber or attack aircraft.

The secret of such success and such distribution is that the aircraft is simple and reliable. Simple as a balalaika, but can "play" a variety of "works". When equipped with additional avionics, it is capable of engaging in combat with more modern combat aircraft. Such options are used, for example, in the Indian Air Force.

The Sky Artist channel told the Sky Artist channel about how the American Burchett talks about the Soviet combat vehicle in colors, as well as what mistakes he makes in his story:

114 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. Boniface
    Boniface 2 December 2022 09: 40
    +5
    A barrel of kerosene on a jet engine, and a pilot is sitting on the barrel!
    I saw the cockpit of the MiG-21 in the Aviation Museum what - it seems to me that there is more space for a person in the carousel booth!
    But the plane turned out to be successful! There were only 31 modifications in the USSR, not counting the modifications of aircraft produced in other countries!
    For example, unlike the F-104 "starfighter" - which had a bunch of unpleasant names among pilots like "flying coffin"
    1. Romanovski
      Romanovski 3 December 2022 20: 04
      -1
      Under the leadership of A. MIKOYAN (together with M. I. Gurevich and V. A. Romodin), the MiG-1 and MiG-3 fighter planes that participated in the Great Patriotic War were created. After the war, MiG-15, MiG-17, MiG-19, MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-25, MiG-27, MiG-29 fighters were created at the Mikoyan Design Bureau.
      55 (!) world records were set on Mikoyan Design Bureau aircraft.

      Postage stamps dedicated to Mikoyan were issued in Armenia.
      In Moscow, Ulan-Ude and the Minsk region (Republic of Belarus) there is Aviaconstructor Mikoyan Street.
      Titles and awards:
      twice Hero of Socialist Labor (1956, 1957):
      By the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR dated July 12, 1957, Artyom Ivanovich Mikoyan was awarded the title of twice Hero of Socialist Labor for his outstanding contribution to the creation of new jet aircraft technology with the second gold medal "Hammer and Sickle" ...
      ----------------
      Artem Mikoyan: "MiG" of a lifetime ...
      Aircraft designer Artem Mikoyan was born on August 5, 1905. The machines created under his leadership entered the history of not only domestic, but also the world aircraft industry. Over 110 world records have been set on our famous MiGs, and the name of the design tandem of Mikoyan and Gurevich has become the most famous Russian aircraft brand in the world. For several decades, the Mikoyan Design Bureau provided the Air Force of the Soviet Union with high-quality competitive machines. Many aircraft of A.I. Mikoyan were the first in their class and are still used in many countries. The future aircraft builder was born in a mountainous Armenian village in the family of carpenter Hovhannes Mikoyan. After that, in 1918 he was sent to relatives in Tiflis, where he was able to continue his studies. 

      After graduation, Artem Mikoyan is appointed as a military representative at the State Aviation Plant No. 1. Here he controls the serial production of the I-15 fighter designed by N.N. Polikarpova and proves to be an excellent specialist. In December 1939, an experimental design department (OKO) was formed at the enterprise, which included the best designers of the plant. Artem Mikoyan is appointed head of the department, and Mikhail Gurevich is his deputy. The new OKO is given work on the promising I-200 fighter, which will later become the first registered MiG Mikoyan and Gurevich. In April 1940, the I-200 aircraft, named in the MiG-1 series, took to the air for the first time, and in December Mikoyan was appointed chief designer of plant No. 1. The fighter, which was created in an extremely short time, was not without flaws. The result of its refinement was a new design bureau model - the MiG-3 aircraft, which became our main high-altitude and night fighter of the Great Patriotic War. The MiG-3 could reach speeds of up to 640 km / h, which was a record of that time for mass-produced vehicles. The aircraft performed well at high altitudes and was widely used in air defense aviation, but at low and medium altitudes, where the main battles were fought, it was ineffective and suffered significant losses. Nevertheless, it was on the MiG-3 that ace pilot Alexander Pokryshkin began his victorious path.

      Aircraft of Mikoyan and Gurevich from the first days of the war participated in battles with enemies. At the beginning of the war, MiGs were the most massive fighters and accounted for about 90% of all fighter aircraft. During the first two years of the war, more than 3000 MiG fighters were built.

      Artem Mikoyan: "MiG" of a lifetime
      In April 1940, the I-200 aircraft, named in the MiG-1 series, took to the air for the first time, and in December Mikoyan was appointed chief designer of plant No. 1. The fighter, which was created in an extremely short time, was not without flaws. The result of its refinement was a new design bureau model - the MiG-3 aircraft, which became our main high-altitude and night fighter of the Great Patriotic War. The MiG-3 could reach speeds of up to 640 km / h, which was a record of that time for mass-produced vehicles. The aircraft performed well at high altitudes and was widely used in air defense aviation, but at low and medium altitudes, where the main battles were fought, it was ineffective and suffered significant losses. Nevertheless, it was on the MiG-3 that ace pilot Alexander Pokryshkin began his victorious path.

      Aircraft of Mikoyan and Gurevich from the first days of the war participated in battles with enemies. At the beginning of the war, MiGs were the most massive fighters and accounted for about 90% of all fighter aircraft. During the first two years of the war, more than 3000 MiG fighters were built.  

      MiG-3

      In 1942, OKO Mikoyan returns from Kuibyshev, where aircraft factory No. 1 was evacuated. A new enterprise appears - Pilot Plant No. 155 (OKB-155), the director and chief designer of which is Artem Ivanovich. During the war years, the Mikoyan team created several prototypes of equipment, but they did not go into mass production. However, these works helped the design bureau to maintain its potential in order to start developing jet aircraft after the war, which made Mikoyan Design Bureau one of the world leaders in aircraft construction.
        
      The beginning of the jet era

      Already at the end of the war, Mikoyan and his colleagues entered the race of design bureaus for superiority in the creation of a jet aircraft. Four design bureaus participated in it: Yakovlev, Sukhoi, Lavochkin and Mikoyan. Initially, the Mikoyanovsky design bureau was developing the I-290 fighter with two engines under the wing, which was later redesigned into the I-300 with a power plant in the fuselage. As a result, it was the second option that went into a series called the MiG-9. On April 24, 1946, he became the first Soviet jet fighter to take to the air. On the same day, the Yakovlev Yakovlev Yak-15 fighter, which was also mass-produced, took to the skies.
      1. aesculapius
        aesculapius 4 December 2022 04: 16
        0
        And there is also an excellent Mikoyan sausage. There was a human being, but unfortunately he wrote zero songs as part of Metallica
        1. insafufa
          insafufa 7 December 2022 15: 27
          -2
          sausage Mikoyan.
          this is about his uncle who lobbied for the creation of a cabaret for his nephew and assisted in every possible way in financing and allocating the best personnel.
          1. aesculapius
            aesculapius 8 December 2022 00: 17
            +1
            I admit, it was sarcasm about the previous post in the style of the lives of wonderful people
            1. insafufa
              insafufa 8 December 2022 07: 32
              0
              I admit it was sarcasm
              Well, Comrade Mikoyan Sr. left a fairly strong mark in the history of the USSR, if not for him, Khrushchev would not have come to power. Having visited the United States, he liked the fast food chain in the United States, where inexpensively and quite tasty hamburgers were prepared for the workers of the Cadillac plant, he tried to realize this in the USSR, but unfortunately only a cutlet remained from the hamburger. With his assistance, the range of sausage products and sausages was expanded, unfortunately in the USSR, only hot dogs did not take root. Even his son does not hide the fact that his father, at the beginning of his career, greatly contributed to Artyom Mikoyan in promoting him as the head of the cabet. As they say, an exception to the rule when family ties were not for harm, but for good. This suggests that Anastas Mikoyan believed in his nephew and he did not disappoint.
          2. Illanatol
            Illanatol 9 December 2022 13: 14
            0
            We should have more such "thieves".
            It is possible to organize a design bureau by pull. But to make this design bureau create something epoch-making is definitely not going to work out of blat. Talent is either there or not, and no uncle will help.
  2. agond
    agond 2 December 2022 09: 42
    0
    The plane was successful, probably they should have resumed their production with a different engine, where aluminum was replaced with a composite, modern instruments, and the size should be left the same. By the way, AFAR will easily enter that green cone that the American holds in his hands
    1. stoqn477
      stoqn477 2 December 2022 10: 29
      +5
      It's much easier to just make a new plane. The MiG-21 has seen its time.
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 2 December 2022 14: 27
        +2
        Quote: agond
        By the way, AFAR will easily enter that green cone that the American holds in his hands

        "In 1992, according to the tactical and technical specifications developed on its own, the NPO Fazatron team began to develop the Spear radar. The fourth and a half generation station was created to modernize the MiG-21 fighters, instead of the Sapphire-21 radar, it is proposed to install the Spear radar "". At the same time, the aircraft becomes a fourth-generation multifunctional fighter, it can use the most modern missile and bomb weapons. The radar is designed for newly developed and modernized light fighters of the MiG-21-93 type. Provides control of on-board weapons, including all of its types: guns, unguided missiles , modern guided missiles with thermal and radar homing heads, including active, adjustable bombs ......"

        MiG-21-93 cockpit

        PS
        "At the MAKS-2001 exhibition, fragmentary information about the Spear-DL rear-view radar (Su-34) was provided. According to the performance characteristics of the Spear-DL in the 2001 version, a miniature radar panel with a diameter of about 30 cm, however, provided missile control in the rear hemisphere and at a distance of 6-14 km at angles of +/- 60 degrees. ....."
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 2 December 2022 14: 54
          +1
          MiG-21bis - the most common modification of the entire line
      2. avg
        avg 3 December 2022 21: 10
        +1
        Quote: stoqn477
        The MiG-21 has seen its time.

        That's for sure. And what virtuosos flew on it. They worked with inspiration, like A. Arkhipovsky on the balalaika.
    2. insafufa
      insafufa 7 December 2022 15: 31
      -1
      probably should have resumed their production with a different engine,

      By the way, AFAR will easily enter that green cone that the American holds in his hands

      Why resume production, it is produced by the Chinese and Pakistanis in a new skin, old and cheap with new avionics, but the same MiG-21
      F-17 / FC-1 - in production for more than 10 years (first flight 2003), more than 140 aircraft were produced, export orders went (Burma, Nigeria)
  3. U-58
    U-58 2 December 2022 09: 42
    +3
    Well, they're not that simple.
    But .... Right now, a couple of dozen new gliders and a dozen 4 engines for them.
    Yes, equip with modern avionics.
    Yes, there would be no price for such a device!
    1. vovochkarzhevsky
      vovochkarzhevsky 2 December 2022 10: 02
      +10
      And for what? He is a purely air fighter, yet 1300 kg of combat load is already not enough to work on the NC.
    2. Maxim G
      Maxim G 2 December 2022 10: 09
      -1
      An outdated aircraft, with characteristics that are ridiculous by modern standards.

      We would like to equip the Yak-130 with modern avionics and weapons. And in the future, a heavier and larger UBS like the South Korean FA-50PL.
      1. vovochkarzhevsky
        vovochkarzhevsky 2 December 2022 10: 35
        +7
        Namely, today more than ever it is important to produce the Yak-130 and the main modern weapons.
        However, modern weapons in the first place. For using the same Su-30 as a carrier of "cast iron" (free-falling air bombs) is like hammering nails into a laptop. And they are hammered in badly and the cranks come to an expensive device.
        I understand that the sect of witnesses of attack UAVs will not agree with me, but today it is the V-P guided missiles with a sufficiently powerful warhead that are urgently needed. Enough already to substitute front-line aviation under enemy air defense.
        1. Foul skeptic
          Foul skeptic 2 December 2022 14: 52
          +3
          I understand that the sect of witnesses of strike UAVs will not agree with me, but today it is the V-P guided missiles with a sufficiently powerful warhead that are urgently needed

          But aren't "V-P guided missiles" combined with "UAVs"?
          Powerful warhead - how much? Because a powerful warhead, except for the destruction of stationary ground, buried or moving surface targets ... is not needed.
          For the first and second, smart people have long switched from missiles to planning KAB and UAB.
          1. vovochkarzhevsky
            vovochkarzhevsky 2 December 2022 16: 31
            0
            But aren't "V-P guided missiles" combined with "UAVs"?


            Very bad due to the meager load of the UAV. In addition, UAVs have very low mobility. And why bother with UAVs if you work without entering the air defense zone?

            Powerful warhead - how much? Because a powerful warhead, except for the destruction of stationary ground, buried or moving surface targets ... is not needed.
            For the first and second, smart people have long switched from missiles to planning KAB and UAB.


            From item 305 onwards.
            1. Foul skeptic
              Foul skeptic 2 December 2022 16: 45
              0
              Very bad due to the meager load of the UAV.

              So the UAV, even purely constructively, ceteris paribus, will have a larger payload than the manned version. You are just looking at the existing samples of multifunctional UAVs, the main function of which is reconnaissance. Do you think the development of UAVs has stopped on current models? Jump to conclusions.
              And why bother with UAVs if you work without entering the air defense zone?

              It'll be outrageously cheaper.
              From item 305 onwards.

              For BBM it is redundant, for the rest planning KAB and UAB are cheaper with the same result.
              But the fact that we have LMUR is very good. It's stupid to argue with this.
              1. vovochkarzhevsky
                vovochkarzhevsky 2 December 2022 17: 28
                +1
                So the UAV, even purely constructively, ceteris paribus, will have a larger payload than the manned version. You are just looking at the existing samples of multifunctional UAVs, the main function of which is reconnaissance. Do you think the development of UAVs has stopped on current models? Jump to conclusions.


                So what's the problem, name these most promising strike UAVs with a combat load at least at the level of the Su-25.

                It'll be outrageously cheaper.


                Will you provide calculations?

                For BBM it is redundant, for the rest planning KAB and UAB are cheaper with the same result.
                But the fact that we have LMUR is very good. It's stupid to argue with this.


                Is it excessive in terms of UAV load, or impact on the target? As for planning cheapness, free-falling batteries are even cheaper. That's just a very big problem to deliver them to the goal.
                1. Foul skeptic
                  Foul skeptic 2 December 2022 17: 58
                  +2
                  So what's the problem, name these most promising strike UAVs with a combat load at least at the level of the Su-25.

                  I have no doubt that at the end of the 19th century, those who denied aerodynamics asked to name an aircraft heavier than air, capable of delivering a hundred kilograms of payload over ten kilometers. If not today, it does not mean that they will not appear tomorrow. There are no constructive contradictions why there cannot be turbojet UAVs with a combat load of several tons.
                  Will you provide calculations?

                  You do not need a number of systems in the case of an unmanned vehicle, pilots cost more than operators (training, replacement, operating time).
                  Is it excessive in terms of UAV load, or impact on the target?

                  impact on the target
                  As for planning cheapness, free-falling batteries are even cheaper.

                  I kind of clearly wrote - "cheaper with the same result"
                  1. Maxim G
                    Maxim G 2 December 2022 19: 48
                    +1
                    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                    I kind of clearly wrote - "cheaper with the same result"

                    From what height should a planning bomb be dropped so that it flies 14,5 km like an LMUR?
                    1. Foul skeptic
                      Foul skeptic 5 December 2022 10: 53
                      0
                      From what height should a planning bomb be dropped so that it flies 14,5 km like an LMUR?

                      In a conversation about the economy, does it matter?
                      With a glide ratio of 1:10 and at a transonic carrier speed, a height of one and a half km will be enough.
                      You are missing an essential nuance - why launch a rocket over 15 km when you can launch a cheaper planning bomb of the same weight, but more power over 100 km.
                      Nobody says that LMUR is not needed. She has her own niche. The problem is that, for lack of a variety of tools, we plug it with the fact that there are all holes. Like launching LMUR on crossings.
                      1. Maxim G
                        Maxim G 5 December 2022 11: 23
                        0
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        You are missing an essential nuance - why launch a rocket over 15 km when you can launch a cheaper planning bomb of the same weight, but more power over 100 km.

                        You can let it go, or you can not let it.
                        Why did you decide that the bomb would plan so much in real combat operations, and not in tests?
                        There is no engine.
                        And you have to get closer.


                        And the difference in launch height, rocket and bomb flight speeds.
                      2. Foul skeptic
                        Foul skeptic 5 December 2022 12: 05
                        +1
                        Why did you decide that the bomb would plan so much in real combat operations, and not in tests?

                        And what, the laws of physics start to work differently?
                        And the difference in launch height, rocket and bomb flight speeds.

                        And also in the cost, power and ability to survive the flight to the carrier of the weapon. Today's loss of the Ka-52 will not teach anyone anything, apparently.
                      3. Maxim G
                        Maxim G 5 December 2022 12: 15
                        0
                        No. Just wondering what kind of miracle bomb is capable of flying 100 km.
                        French analogues of JDAM fly from high altitudes to 50-60 km, from low altitudes to 15 km (heights are not specified).

                        Those. this is the S-300 kill zone.
                      4. Foul skeptic
                        Foul skeptic 5 December 2022 12: 34
                        0
                        JDAMs fly from high altitudes at 50-60 km, from low altitudes at 15 km (heights are not specified)

                        From 11 km JDAM-ER flies to 74 km.
                        Just wondering what kind of miracle bomb is capable of flying 100 km.

                        There are so many, actually. For example, Indian Gaurav, South African Umbani, German HOPE, American JSOW or SDB, etc. They are all 100+ km.
                        Those. this is the S-300 kill zone.

                        One nuisance, systems of the S-300 level are low-mobile and give themselves away if they monitor the situation.
                      5. Maxim G
                        Maxim G 5 December 2022 12: 45
                        0
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        American JSOW or SDB, etc. They are all 100+ km.

                        Specially built bombs, rather than relatively cheap conversions from regular ones.

                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        One nuisance, systems of the S-300 level are low-mobile and give themselves away if they monitor the situation.

                        What does it matter if the plane needs to enter the kill zone to drop the bomb.
                      6. Foul skeptic
                        Foul skeptic 5 December 2022 13: 26
                        0
                        Specially built bombs, rather than relatively cheap conversions from regular ones.

                        It's still cheaper than a rocket
                        What does it matter if the plane needs to enter the kill zone to drop the bomb.

                        Such that a pair of drones with PRR missiles will go in front of the plane and wait for the air defense to begin searching for air threats.
                      7. Maxim G
                        Maxim G 5 December 2022 14: 36
                        0
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        It's still cheaper than a rocket

                        Cast iron is even cheaper. About what you already wrote earlier.
                        That's just with missiles on board, the plane can pass at an extremely low altitude, launch, and go unnoticed, and the missiles will fly at an altitude of 30-40 meters. And do not go down from 10-15 km.


                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        drones with PRR missiles



                        Prospects for European military drones.
                      8. Foul skeptic
                        Foul skeptic 5 December 2022 16: 12
                        0
                        Cast iron is even cheaper. About what you already wrote earlier.

                        With cast iron, you don't get accuracy and range. What I already wrote about.
                        That's just with missiles on board, the plane can pass at an extremely low altitude, launch, and go unnoticed, and the missiles will fly at an altitude of 30-40 meters. And do not go down from 10-15 km.

                        It will be seen by AWACS aircraft at any altitude. And when the hostilities have moved to the stage when the enemy’s radar field has been destroyed, then even without tricks with missiles (there is an extra plane), it’s much cheaper to start destroying targets with planning bombs.
                        Prospects for European military drones.

                        Well, that's what I’m talking about.
                        Such that a pair of drones with PRR missiles will go in front of the plane and wait for the air defense to begin searching for air threats.

                        In the same vein, they work in the USA with their NGAD, and in India with their HAL CATS.
                      9. Maxim G
                        Maxim G 5 December 2022 17: 13
                        0
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        It will be seen by AWACS aircraft at any altitude.

                        "Rafali" in 2018 went unnoticed in Syria, although there was also a Russian A-50.

                        However, too lazy to have a discussion with you.
                        Nothing useful hi .
                      10. Foul skeptic
                        Foul skeptic 5 December 2022 17: 25
                        0
                        although there was also a Russian A-50

                        1) He should be in the air, and not at the airport
                        2) Not Rafali went unnoticed, but SCALP-EG, which Rafali allowed.
                        Have a nice one you too
                  2. vovochkarzhevsky
                    vovochkarzhevsky 2 December 2022 19: 49
                    0
                    I have no doubt that at the end of the 19th century, those who denied aerodynamics asked to name an aircraft heavier than air, capable of delivering a hundred kilograms of payload over ten kilometers. If not today, it does not mean that they will not appear tomorrow. There are no constructive contradictions why there cannot be turbojet UAVs with a combat load of several tons.


                    At your leisure, nevertheless, try to think why, in the absence of aerodynamic and design limitations, strike UAVs lag so far behind combat aircraft in terms of flight characteristics. yes

                    You do not need a number of systems in the case of an unmanned vehicle, pilots cost more than operators (training, replacement, operating time).


                    Cheaper? Let's compare, Bayraktar TV2 has a load of 100 kg and a cruising speed of about 150 km / h, controlled by two operators. The Su-30, with a crew of 2, carries 8000 kg at a cruising speed of about 900 km/h.
                    In total, in order to simultaneously deliver the same load to the target as the Su-30, you will need 80 TV2 bayraktars. And if periodic impacts are required, then to ensure a comparable impact, you need to increase it by another 6 times.
                    It turns out that we need 480 TV2 bayraktars and how many crews.
                    That is, 480 against 2, so-so savings. This is without taking into account the fact that the UAV has caliber restrictions. No.

                    impact on the target


                    Then this is nonsense. First of all, guaranteed destruction of the target is required.

                    I kind of clearly wrote - "cheaper with the same result"


                    And who said that UAVs will provide a comparable result? No.
                    1. nickname7
                      nickname7 3 December 2022 08: 15
                      0
                      Su-30, with a crew of 2 people, carries 8000 kg

                      This Su-30 of yours is immediately shot down by a stinger, and the pilots are captured when flying into enemy territory, so the SU-30 is not able to throw 8000 kg on enemy columns, which means it is useless. The case could be saved by planning bombs at a distance of 50 km, but there are no such bombs.
                      But the shahid-moped UAV can destroy objects in depth, therefore it is much more effective than the SU-30.
                      1. vovochkarzhevsky
                        vovochkarzhevsky 3 December 2022 11: 11
                        0
                        You obviously didn't read carefully. How will you shoot down the Su-30 with a stinger if, when using guided missiles, it does not even enter the air defense strike zone?
                        And 8000 kg, these are not only free-falling ABs, but the entire line of ASPs available to him.
                        As for the shahid-moped UAV, they are more effective than the Su-30 only from the point of view of schoolchildren. In reality, the range of use of the same "Geraniums" is very narrow.
                        Firstly, the flight time to the target is too prohibitive. 180 km / h, at long ranges far from ice.
                        Secondly, the weight of the warhead is no more than 50 kg, the same S-24 has more than twice as much.
                      2. Maxim G
                        Maxim G 3 December 2022 18: 41
                        +1
                        Plus, the ease of detection (due to the fact that he cannot fly at an extremely low altitude) and destruction (low speed).
                        The fact that there is an inexpensive weapon against slow UAVs is known - anti-aircraft artillery with a radar.
                      3. vovochkarzhevsky
                        vovochkarzhevsky 3 December 2022 18: 59
                        0
                        The fact that there is an inexpensive weapon against slow UAVs is known - anti-aircraft artillery with a radar.


                        It's true. On the other hand, it would be quite logical to equip anti-aircraft artillery with an additional GShG-7,62. Against ultra-small UAVs, a rifle caliber multiplied by a high rate of fire will be just right.
                    2. Foul skeptic
                      Foul skeptic 5 December 2022 11: 56
                      0
                      At your leisure, nevertheless, try to think why, in the absence of aerodynamic and design limitations, strike UAVs lag so far behind combat aircraft in terms of flight characteristics.

                      Probably because there are no UAV attack aircraft, fighters and bombers in operation yet. Probably because the majority does not understand that the UAVs, which this majority calls shock, in fact, do not speak of identity with the assault or bomber roles. These are primarily reconnaissance vehicles designed for continuous monitoring of the situation and target designation. If during such monitoring a target suddenly appears, for example, a truck with l / s or military cargo leaves from point A to point B, then there is simply no need to waste time calling aircraft for the sake of this truck.
                      And performance characteristics depend on the role assigned to the apparatus. Do not UAVs used by armies compete with manned aircraft in terms of duration or flight range?
                      Cheaper? Let's compare

                      And why are you not comparing with a paper children's airplane?
                      And we have already discussed that it is pointless to look at the dry figure of the combat load, you need to look at specific suspension configurations.
                      If you do not manipulate the comparison of incomparable devices, then essentially what is written
                      You do not need a number of systems in the case of an unmanned vehicle, pilots cost more than operators (training, replacement, operating time).

                      can you answer?
                      Then this is nonsense. First of all, guaranteed destruction of the target is required.

                      We've already discussed your "assured destruction". But even in the absurd version of "spraying into atoms", planning UABs will be preferable, since more explosives will be carried in the same caliber. A video using LMUR on crossings or buildings (and not on BBMs) should directly hint at this.
                      For guaranteed destruction of AFVs, the correct warhead was invented, and not centner land mines. Not HEAT, but HEMAT-HE-FT. It has long been used by Dynamite-Nobel and Instalase in their RPGs, and has long been used in torpedoes. With the technological simplification of TV guidance systems (that is, when the operator can choose the place of impact), it will also appear in guided anti-tank missile weapons. A cumulative charge with a spherical (rather than a conical funnel) pierces a channel in the armor, through which an OFZ charge flies in with undermining the armor. Without active protection - death.
                      And who said that UAVs will provide a comparable result?

                      And what does the UAV have to do with the text about BOMBS?
                      1. vovochkarzhevsky
                        vovochkarzhevsky 5 December 2022 12: 58
                        0
                        Probably because there are no UAV attack aircraft, fighters and bombers in operation yet.


                        So why not? What prevents the conversion of manned vehicles into UAVs? lol

                        Probably because the majority does not understand that the UAVs, which this majority calls shock, in fact, do not speak of identity with the assault or bomber roles.


                        And what, the need for an attack has already disappeared?


                        These are primarily reconnaissance vehicles designed for continuous monitoring of the situation and target designation. If during such monitoring a target suddenly appears, for example, a truck with l / s or military cargo leaves from point A to point B, then there is simply no need to waste time calling aircraft for the sake of this truck.


                        How many times will the dimensions and take-off weight increase in order to take at least a meager 100 kg of load, can you imagine? Bayraktar help you. lol

                        And performance characteristics depend on the role assigned to the apparatus. Do not UAVs used by armies compete with manned aircraft in terms of duration or flight range?


                        No, they don't. For for the sake of this range and duration, they paid with speed, turning UAVs into simple targets.

                        And why are you not comparing with a paper children's airplane?
                        And we have already discussed that it is pointless to look at the dry figure of the combat load, you need to look at specific suspension configurations.
                        If you do not manipulate the comparison of incomparable devices, then essentially written.
                        You do not need a number of systems in the case of an unmanned vehicle, pilots cost more than operators (training, replacement, operating time).


                        You don’t spin like a snake and don’t tear phrases from the context. It was clearly stated.

                        Cheaper? Let's compare, Bayraktar TV2 has a load of 100 kg and a cruising speed of about 150 km / h, controlled by two operators. The Su-30, with a crew of 2, carries 8000 kg at a cruising speed of about 900 km/h.
                        In total, in order to simultaneously deliver the same load to the target as the Su-30, you will need 80 TV2 bayraktars. And if periodic impacts are required, then to ensure a comparable impact, you need to increase it by another 6 times.
                        It turns out that we need 480 TV2 bayraktars and how many crews.
                        That is, 480 against 2, so-so savings. This is without taking into account the fact that the UAV has caliber restrictions.


                        We've already discussed your "assured destruction". But even in the absurd version of "spraying into atoms", planning UABs will be preferable, since more explosives will be carried in the same caliber. A video using LMUR on crossings or buildings (and not on BBMs) should directly hint at this.
                        For guaranteed destruction of AFVs, the correct warhead was invented, and not centner land mines. Not HEAT, but HEMAT-HE-FT. It has long been used by Dynamite-Nobel and Instalase in their RPGs, and has long been used in torpedoes. With the technological simplification of TV guidance systems (that is, when the operator can choose the place of impact), it will also appear in guided anti-tank missile weapons. A cumulative charge with a spherical (rather than a conical funnel) pierces a channel in the armor, through which an OFZ charge flies in with undermining the armor. Without active protection - death.


                        Discussed, but you did not understand anything. A simple example, for the destruction of a WWII aircraft, a medium-caliber anti-aircraft projectile was quite enough. But inquire at your leisure how many shells were spent on the destruction of one aircraft.
                        And guided weapons are far from a panacea. Because there is a failure of guidance, and the enemy does not take measures to protect and disguise. And the first hit can only damage the protective screen, and there is no ammunition for the second. request


                        And what does the UAV have to do with the text about BOMBS?


                        Forgot what they were talking about? So let me remind you, you were looking for cheapness. lol
                      2. Foul skeptic
                        Foul skeptic 5 December 2022 13: 47
                        0
                        So why not? What prevents the conversion of manned vehicles into UAVs?

                        What for? They will make new cars, originally created as unmanned vehicles. Mass junk will be converted into unmanned versions for opening air defense. As China has been doing for 10 years.
                        And what, the need for an attack has already disappeared?

                        No. It simply means that you need to attack with attack aircraft, and not with scouts.
                        How many times will the dimensions and take-off weight increase in order to take at least a meager 100 kg of load, can you imagine? Bayraktar help you.

                        And for a scout, a bomb load of 50 kg is enough. For the cases described above. This will not affect the intelligence function.
                        You don’t spin like a snake and don’t tear phrases from the context. It was clearly stated.

                        Yes, it was clearly stated
                        You do not need a number of systems in the case of an unmanned vehicle, pilots cost more than operators (training, replacement, operating time).

                        What did you start comparing the incomparable - a half-ton piston reconnaissance aircraft and a 30-ton turbojet fighter
                        No, they don't. For for the sake of this range and duration, they paid with speed, turning UAVs into simple targets.

                        Because gaining in one, you lose in another. For a scout, the duration of the flight is more important. You remember that the same TB2 ... reconnaissance first of all. Simple Goals? And who said that you won’t get all the radars out at first?
                        A simple example, for the destruction of a WWII aircraft, a medium-caliber anti-aircraft projectile was quite enough. But inquire at your leisure how many shells were spent on the destruction of one aircraft.

                        Originally, evaluate guided weapons by unguided ones.
                        Forgot what they were talking about? So let me remind you, you were looking for cheapness.

                        Just remember. I answered your words
                        As for planning cheapness, then free-falling AB even cheaper.
                      3. vovochkarzhevsky
                        vovochkarzhevsky 5 December 2022 14: 23
                        0
                        What for? They will make new cars, originally created as unmanned vehicles. Mass junk will be converted into unmanned versions for opening air defense. As China has been doing for 10 years.


                        So where are these new cars? For how many years, things have not gone further than prototypes and conversations.
                        By the way, can you imagine what it will cost to remake and operate, as you say junk? lol

                        No. It simply means that you need to attack with attack aircraft, and not with scouts.


                        That is, you admit that you cannot do without strike aircraft.


                        And for a scout, a bomb load of 50 kg is enough. For the cases described above. This will not affect the intelligence function.


                        That is, how many times the take-off weight of the aircraft will increase to provide a payload of 50 kg, you do not know. It's clear.

                        Yes, it was clearly stated
                        You do not need a number of systems in the case of an unmanned vehicle, pilots cost more than operators (training, replacement, operating time).


                        That is, you do not take into account the fact that the number of operators will be required by orders of magnitude more, with a obviously worse result.

                        What did you start comparing the incomparable - a half-ton piston reconnaissance aircraft and a 30-ton turbojet fighter.


                        No, you are just an amateur in military affairs and do not understand what the calculation of the required forces and means is. yes

                        Because gaining in one, you lose in another. For a scout, the duration of the flight is more important.


                        Why did you decide so? A combat radius, reaction time is no longer needed? lol

                        You remember that the same TB2 ... reconnaissance first of all.


                        First of all, this is a rapier product.

                        Simple Goals? And who said that you won’t get all the radars out at first?


                        And who will knock out, really those same TB2? lol

                        Originally, evaluate guided weapons by unguided ones.


                        Originally trying to be funny while not understanding what it is about. It's about you, if anything. You are not aware that guided weapons do not provide 100% hit. And the probability of defeat is even lower.

                        Just remember. I answered your words


                        A word cheaper you didn't get it?
                        In principle, everything is clear with you, having nothing to object to in essence, you began to distort and lie.
                        So that's it, you don't have to bother answering, I'll stop the discussion here. Sorry beads. lol
                      4. Foul skeptic
                        Foul skeptic 5 December 2022 16: 54
                        +1
                        So where are these new cars? For how many years, things have not gone further than prototypes and conversations.

                        Just because they don't exist today doesn't mean they won't appear tomorrow. All serious players have started work. So the result will not keep you waiting.
                        By the way, can you imagine what it will cost to remake and operate, as you say junk?

                        I represent. Therefore, to a very "smart" question (What prevents the conversion of manned vehicles into UAVs?), And he answered that they will create new vehicles. And the fact that China considers it expedient to convert the J-6 and others into an unmanned version - ask the Chinese questions.
                        That is, you admit that you cannot do without strike aircraft.

                        Where did I deny it? They themselves came up with - themselves debunked. The question is that there are no restrictions that cannot make strike aircraft unmanned.
                        That is, how many times the take-off weight of the aircraft will increase to provide a payload of 50 kg, you do not know. It's clear.

                        AND? From this, the scout will not be able to fulfill his reconnaissance role?
                        That is, you do not take into account the fact that the number of operators will be required by orders of magnitude more, with a obviously worse result.

                        1) The deliberate "worst" is not justified by you except as "I said so"
                        2) You came up with the idea that UAV operators need an order of magnitude more than aircraft pilots.
                        No, you are just an amateur in military affairs and do not understand what the calculation of the required forces and means is.

                        I don’t understand on what basis a “non-amateur” compares a half-ton piston reconnaissance aircraft and a 30-ton turbojet fighter.
                        Why did you decide so? A combat radius, reaction time is no longer needed?

                        You are chatting like g ... in the hole. They forgot that they suffered for "paid with speed." The answer to this is that for a reconnaissance (front-line, otherwise it will start to demolish you somewhere on the U-2 again) the duration of the flight is more important than speed.
                        First of all, this is a rapier product.

                        Marketing will not change the purpose of the LA. A scout is a scout.
                        And who will knock out, really those same TB2?

                        No, front-line scouts do not destroy air defense.
                        Originally trying to be funny while not understanding what it is about. It's about you, if anything. You are not aware that guided weapons do not provide 100% hit. And the probability of defeat is even lower.

                        Why do you think so? From the fact that I understand that it is impossible to evaluate a guided weapon by an unguided one, as you did in your example?
                        And you still haven’t seen the word cheaper?

                        Where did you see the word UAV in that text?
                        In principle, everything is clear with you, having nothing to object to in essence, you began to distort and lie.

                        Everything is explained to you on the merits. You have been cocooned in a cocoon of some past experience and do not perceive the changes that have occurred since then.
        2. Maxim G
          Maxim G 2 December 2022 19: 58
          +3
          Here is another question.
          But what about hypersonic weapons and new missiles like the Kh-32, these are all large and heavy weapons.
          "Dagger" even the MiG-31 takes 1 (and the Su-57, according to press reports, will also be able to carry 1 "Dagger" reduced to fit the compartment in the internal compartment), the Tu-22M3M will be able to take 4), but the Kh-32 does carry 1 at a time -2 (judging by the photo) only Tu-22M3M.

          This is what kind of drone is needed to carry such colossus. what
          1. KCA
            KCA 4 December 2022 06: 04
            0
            I’ll correct it a little, there is no TU-22M3M, there is only one prototype, and the X-22 or X-32 M3 carries 3 pieces, one under the fuselage and two on pylons, under the wings, but to the detriment of the flight range, X-22 and X- 32 are the same in size and weight, even outwardly they do not differ in anything
            1. Maxim G
              Maxim G 4 December 2022 07: 40
              0
              Quote: KCA
              X-22 and X-32 are the same in size and weight, even outwardly they do not differ in anything

              Where is the weight data from? I have not seen them in the public domain.
              Quote: KCA
              and X-22 or X-32 M3 carries 3 pieces, one under the fuselage and two on pylons, under the wings, but to the detriment of the flight range

              Those. with overload.
              For the Tu-22M, the normal combat load is 2 X-22.

              Quote: KCA
              TU-22M3M no, there is only one prototype

              It turns out there is. This is not some completely new aircraft of a new model, but the modernization of an existing one.
              1. KCA
                KCA 4 December 2022 08: 35
                +1
                The data on the mass was in the public domain, on the website of the State Design Bureau "Rainbow", only now there is no website, for some reason KTRV closed it, there is only one M3M, it's hard to call it an upgrade of the M3, other engines, completely new avionics, the normal load of the M3 is one Kh-22 or 32, three is an excess and a significant reduction in flight range, enough for the Black Sea or the Baltic, but no one will drive aircraft carriers into them
                1. Maxim G
                  Maxim G 4 December 2022 12: 40
                  0
                  Quote: KCA
                  other engines

                  The same NK-25s are standing there, NK-32s were not delivered.
                  1. KCA
                    KCA 4 December 2022 12: 56
                    0
                    That's just on the only M3M and put
                    1. Maxim G
                      Maxim G 4 December 2022 13: 15
                      +1
                      Where can you read about it:
                      in the news they write about replacing only avionics, and here in the comments in 2018 people "in the subject" wrote that the engines were old.
    3. Svetlana
      Svetlana 4 December 2022 18: 23
      +2
      Quote: U-58
      Well, they're not that simple.

      MiG-21PFS (product 94) (MiG-21PF (SPS)) (1963) - a sub-variant of the MiG-21PF. The letter "C" means "blow-off of the boundary layer" (SPS). The military wanted the MiG-21 to be easily operated from unpaved airfields. For this, a system for blowing the boundary layer from the flaps was developed. Under this system, engines were modified, called R-11-F2S-300, with air extraction from the compressor. In the released position, the air taken from the compressor was supplied to the lower surfaces of the flaps, which dramatically improved the takeoff and landing characteristics of the aircraft. The use of ATP made it possible to reduce the length of the run to an average of 480 m, and the landing speed to 240 km/h. The aircraft could be equipped with two launch boosters SPRD-99 to reduce the takeoff run. All these innovations were installed on all subsequent modifications.
      https://arsenal-info.ru/pub/voennye-samolety/mig-21-razmery-dvigatel-ves-istoriya-dalnost-poleta-prakticheskiy-potolok
      Few of the modern aircraft have on board such a sophisticated system for blowing off the boundary layer in order to reduce the length of the run.
  4. Amateur
    Amateur 2 December 2022 09: 54
    -5
    Only a few aircraft were produced under the name MiG-21. Everything else was called MiG-21 *, where * means different letters and numbers. There were more than 20 modifications.
    There are 21 generations in the extensive MiG-4 family, and the machines of the first series differ from the latest (according to the apt expression of the MiG-21 pilot) as well as "Nieuport, from the Yak-3".
    (http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/mig21b.html)
    1. Guran33 Sergey
      Guran33 Sergey 2 December 2022 10: 34
      0
      A 1955 glider? And generations are commercial mind games invented in the states, if you don’t pay attention to them, then all light single-engine fighters are the first generation and the MIG-21 elite of these gliders, heavy, USSR designs are the second and the su-57 with "chess" is the third .Also in tanks from T-44 to T-90, the second generation (the first is a longitudinally mounted engine, respectively, a "jumping" tower on the front rollers) "armata", which, due to the huge number of innovative solutions, is being processed for so long by a "rasp" of the third generation, all the rest of the nuances are advertising moves
    2. seacap
      seacap 2 December 2022 11: 57
      +2
      The first modifications of the moment, the Americans called the "dove of peace", because of the extremely weak weapons and small fuel supply, the complete inability to conduct maneuverable air combat. These were the erroneous concepts for the role of a light fighter-interceptor, under which it was created. Taking into account this and the refusals of "our friends" to purchase a fighter, by the beginning of the 70s, the MiG-21bis appeared, in fact a completely different machine, a "full-fledged" fighter with the entire weapon system inherent in this class.
  5. Guran33 Sergey
    Guran33 Sergey 2 December 2022 10: 13
    +6
    Who would have thought in the distant Stalinist USSR that this plane would outlive the country that created it
    1. seacap
      seacap 2 December 2022 12: 12
      +4
      So, in our country, practically, all relevant aircraft today are the product of the Soviet aviation industry and the Soviet engineering school, nothing fundamentally new has been created in the class society of "advanced consumers" for 30 years, and so far only all heritage and technologies are for sale or destroyed. If something appears, it is not thanks to, but in spite of, again, the efforts of enthusiasts from the Soviet past.
  6. AlexVas44
    AlexVas44 2 December 2022 10: 28
    +3
    The MiG-21 began to operate back in 1959, being classified as a 3rd generation fighter.

    But here, not everything is so simple with the definition of which generation the MIG-21 was. Specialists not so long ago divided the MIG-21 into two generations: the second generation, all modifications released from 1959 to 1972, and the third generation from 1972 to 1985, namely the MIG-21bis, the latest and most advanced modification. So, apparently, we can assume that the MIG-21 is a two-generation fighter.
  7. your vsr 66-67
    your vsr 66-67 2 December 2022 10: 47
    +2
    I saw the 21st in the distant 67-69 years. A very beautiful aircraft, and the pilots spoke very well of it! And at the same time, the SU-7, SU-7B were in service, and about which the pilots at that time spoke like this: An airplane is a pipe, and a pipe for a pilot! They did not like Sukhoi aircraft at that time. It seems, I don’t remember exactly, there were also SU-9s then.
  8. kalita
    kalita 2 December 2022 10: 57
    -2
    They used to build like that. Today, not one aircraft model has been built and up to two hundred. Su-34s were built the most and this is only 159 pieces, but it’s a shame to talk about the rest. MiG-35 - 6 pcs. Su-57-5 pcs.
    1. Mikhail Tynda
      Mikhail Tynda 2 December 2022 15: 24
      +1
      Chet artistic whistle: SU-35 124 vehicles minimum. SU-34 also, to put it mildly, does not beat the number. SU-57 and then 16. Guess further.
  9. Comrade I
    Comrade I 2 December 2022 11: 04
    -10
    We never got a continuation of the idea of ​​this aircraft. From that, in many respects, there are problems with the number of fighters we have. The MiG-29 proved to be an unsuccessful concept. We now need a modern analogue of the 21st blood from the nose, so that they can be riveted in the amount of 200-400 pieces.
    As an option to start, you can consider purchasing and licensing the production of J-10.
  10. ODERVIT
    ODERVIT 3 December 2022 10: 48
    +4
    MiG-21smt is my first plane. I was in ground operation.
    The plane is good, in memory for the rest ...
    But for the sake of objectivity. Operational manufacturability is low, aerodynamic layout of the last century.
    It's obvious to me.
    1. Svetlana
      Svetlana 4 December 2022 18: 31
      0
      Quote: ODERVIT
      Operational manufacturability is low

      It was noted in the comments that cracks often appeared on the compressed air extraction pipelines for the boundary layer blowing system (SPS) on the MiG-21PFS ..
      1. ODERVIT
        ODERVIT 4 December 2022 19: 57
        0
        ATP, branch pipes, were finalized on subsequent ones. So there were quite a few other problems. For example, in order to "roll out" the IM, it was necessary to dismantle the seventh fuel tank. It took one and a half working days for the ZD. At the current 2-3 hours.
        What was, was. wink
  11. Eug
    Eug 3 December 2022 11: 49
    +1
    There was a training regiment on various modifications of the MiG-21, in which for some time there were 105 (!) BN. All in the past....
  12. Vadim Topal Pasha
    Vadim Topal Pasha 3 December 2022 14: 25
    0
    Quote: Comrade Y
    We never got a continuation of the idea of ​​this aircraft. From that, in many respects, there are problems with the number of fighters we have. The MiG-29 proved to be an unsuccessful concept. We now need a modern analogue of the 21st blood from the nose, so that they can be riveted in the amount of 200-400 pieces.
    As an option to start, you can consider purchasing and licensing the production of J-10.


    1. Excuse me, but "with us" is who?
    2. Why did the MiG-29 not please you? Well, or if now it's the MiG-35.
    3. Why does the Russian Federation need a license for the J-10 if it was created with the participation of Soviet specialists? And why did China produce so few of them for itself? Actually, you propose to buy them all and transfer production from China? /sincerely perplexed/
    1. Sancho_SP
      Sancho_SP 3 December 2022 15: 23
      -2
      MiG-29 is also not needed.

      It is more important to reduce the range of aircraft, rather than increase. Unification allows you to increase output, and you just need as many machines as possible.

      By and large, the Su-30/34/35 in general could be replaced by a single machine.
      1. Nordsc0l
        Nordsc0l 3 December 2022 16: 48
        +1
        You can also see here. Because the Su-30 is something like the Su-27, only with 2 pilots. 34, this is again a development of 27, but in the direction of the fleet bomber. A 35, a continuation of the idea of ​​​​27, as a fighter. In this situation, the Su-30 seems to be multi-purpose, but I would look in the direction of 35. It is still more modern.
        1. Sancho_SP
          Sancho_SP 3 December 2022 17: 36
          0
          Considering that the boundaries between a fighter and a bomber are already very blurred, it is technically quite realistic to bring everything to a single machine with a bomber load and fighter maneuverability. Su-34 and Su-35 are close in basic parameters, in general. A stronger airframe will be useful for all types of machines, a more powerful engine too.
      2. ailcat
        ailcat 3 December 2022 18: 35
        0
        MiG-35 - potentially more needed than the Su-35 / Su-34. Simply due to the fact that 3 moments are able to solve the problem of two dryers (if we talk about 404 or Syria) in 95% of the tasks. But the labor intensity of production is such that during the construction of these two dryers they would have managed to collect six instants.
        ---
        Su-30 is already history.
        The Su-34 and Su-35 are too different machines (the Su-34 is a replacement for the Su-24M, and is a multiple of the Su-30 in terms of efficiency on the ground).
        ---
        But just unification in its current form (su-35, su-30, su-34) is exactly what "kills" migars. Because having 95% of the common consumables and 80% of the common spare parts for bombers and fighters is very beneficial in terms of logistics. And it is.
        1. Sancho_SP
          Sancho_SP 3 December 2022 19: 52
          0
          Are you sure about this? Is there any information on the cost / labor intensity of the MiG-35 / Su-35?

          How will three moments fulfill the tasks of two sous if they carry almost a third less cargo for half the range?
          1. ailcat
            ailcat 6 December 2022 06: 39
            0
            Have you tried to compare not theoretical figures, but real ones?
            ---
            We open the Su-35S map and look: for work on the ground, we can hang 4 pieces of KAB-500 and 2 RVV-AE or 4 R-73 for self-defense (another APK-9 and a tank, but we are neither hot nor cold from them) . We open the MiG-35 map and look: for work on the ground, we can hang 4 pieces of KAB-500 and 2 RVV-AE or R-73 missiles for self-defense. What do the Americans say in such cases? - Oops!..
            Okay, let's try to fire TV-guided missiles. The Su-35S will take 6 Kh-29s and 2 RVV-AE or 4 R-73s for self-defense. The MiG-35 will take only 4 X-29s, plus 2 RVV-AE or R-73. In, in such a configuration, it will already take 3 MiGs to replace two Dryers (which I actually wrote about). Yes, I almost forgot: you can attach an additional tank and "sorption" to both machines with such a load)
            ---
            Now for the range part: just look at the map. And remember that for the attacked targets, not only the MiG-35, but even the banal Su-25s have enough range (unless they cannot carry half the nomenclature of the moment and drying). That is, for the task "flew-hit-returned" the high range of dryers is simply not used! And work from loitering is hindered by the enemy’s unfinished air defense (at least in 404) or the enemy’s “oasis” infrastructure (if we talk about Syria. Although it’s just in Syria that the range of Sushki may not be superfluous).
            ---
            PS
            By the way, two Yak-130s in strike missions will completely replace one Su-35S in terms of the weapons used. If not for the range (for Yashka, some of the targets are already beyond the radius of destruction).
    2. Chief Officer Lom
      Chief Officer Lom 3 December 2022 17: 23
      +1
      The MiG-29/35 did not please with the need for an inexpensive mass-produced single-engine modern aircraft, and the MiG-29, according to numerous reviews, decided to try to occupy part of the niche of a heavy fighter, and as a result fell out of its own. Of course, there is no reason for us to license a Chinese fighter, everything is not so bad here. But I would like something more "tangible" than the layout of Chess ...
      1. Sancho_SP
        Sancho_SP 3 December 2022 17: 39
        0
        And why is he needed, a light fighter?

        It will not be “mass-scale”, the savings will be only on engines, everything else will be the same as in the “hard” one. The benefit from savings on aluminum will not compensate for the losses on deunification.
      2. ailcat
        ailcat 3 December 2022 18: 48
        0
        The MiG-29 has never tried to occupy the heavy niche.
        It is our current military leaders who refuse to see the difference between machines.
        And the main advantage of the MiG-29 over the Su-27 was their versatility, the ability to work on the ground (dryers taught this almost 20 years later!) -
        But the main thing is that they were twice cheaper and three times more technologically advanced than dryers. That is, instead of one drying, you can build three moments. In peacetime, this is unprincipled, but in the event of war, it becomes critically important.

        ***
        But I agree with one. The concept of mandatory twin-engineering in a cheap fighter-bomber did not justify itself. It's time to admit the mistake (which the Americans did not make when they added the heavy F-15 to the light and single-engine F-16).
        But you are wrong about the Su-75. He is just in his place, and his partial unification with the Su-57 is only good.

        ***
        PS
        And for the Mikoyanites, if their design bureau is still alive, it probably makes sense to retrain as drone-creators. Although, they feel that the Ponosyanites will not let them in here either ...
        1. Chief Officer Lom
          Chief Officer Lom 3 December 2022 19: 24
          0
          And what, someone objects to the Su-75? Its supposed characteristics, in addition to unification with the Su-57, which makes it even more attractive, are very encouraging. At the moment there is only one drawback, but fatal - it does not exist even in the prototype.
          1. Sancho_SP
            Sancho_SP 3 December 2022 19: 58
            0
            I'm objecting ;) (although no one asks).

            It will not be cheaper even twice (one and a half, at best).
            1. ailcat
              ailcat 6 December 2022 06: 02
              0
              It won't - due to the fact that it will be stuffed with the same systems as on the heavier Su-57. But even one and a half times is a quite noticeable decrease.
        2. Sancho_SP
          Sancho_SP 3 December 2022 19: 56
          0
          Why did you get the idea that instead of one sou, you can build three instants? Where are the critical technological processes?

          There are two engines here and there, the set of breo is the same. What about the rest, aluminum and rubber?
          1. ailcat
            ailcat 6 December 2022 06: 05
            0
            Nevertheless, the labor intensity of the production of MiGs and Dryers at the time of the collapse of the USSR differed exactly three times. Considering how much more technologically advanced the MiG-35 turned out to be (though at the cost of higher requirements for the level of equipment for production and training of workers), I think I’m not much mistaken that comparing the MiG-35 and Su-35 will give a close result.
            1. Sancho_SP
              Sancho_SP 6 December 2022 10: 21
              0
              I do not have all the completeness of the information, but the units made at approximately the same technological level cannot differ “three times”. Let's say some set of power elements of a glider taken out of context - maybe, but not engines, breo, etc.

              Well, I suppose, simply due to the specifics, the Su-30MKI will turn out to be the most technologically advanced, due to the large series and commercial focus.
        3. KCA
          KCA 4 December 2022 06: 15
          0
          I’m not a pilot at all and I didn’t fly fighters, but even I know that the pilots of the SU-27 air defense fighters had exercises to defeat ground targets, it’s not a problem to read about it on the Internet
  13. Vadim Topal Pasha
    Vadim Topal Pasha 3 December 2022 14: 26
    0
    Quote: Eug
    There was a training regiment on various modifications of the MiG-21, in which for some time there were 105 (!) BN. All in the past....

    Et bullshit! I know a regiment that had 140 L-39s! 6 squadrons. In the summer I worked from three airfields! And then, in the next course), the cadets switched to the MiG-21.
  14. Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 3 December 2022 15: 20
    -1
    With the development of anti-aircraft missiles, short-range interceptors lost their meaning.
    1. ailcat
      ailcat 3 December 2022 18: 56
      0
      The front-line interceptors as a whole have lost their meaning.
      On the other hand, the value of work on the ground has sharply increased (that is, front-line bombers have become needed).
      The Mikoyanovites understood this right away (and the MiG-29 was originally a fighter-bomber), it was very hard for the Sukhovites, and only Pogosyan's rate to "squeeze the MiG out of the state defense order and export" helped the Su-27 become a universal machine, and even then not immediately.
      1. Sancho_SP
        Sancho_SP 6 December 2022 10: 23
        0
        For such a vehicle, "ground work" is a bombsight and/or a targeting electronics container. The plane itself is just a platform.
        1. ailcat
          ailcat 6 December 2022 11: 39
          0
          Much more, if we are talking not only about free-falling bombs.
          1. Sancho_SP
            Sancho_SP 6 December 2022 14: 52
            0
            For example? For an adjustable plus block guidance.
  15. air wolf
    air wolf 3 December 2022 15: 56
    0
    The best and most budget fighter is the MiG-23MLD, the version with the new avionics is the MiG-23-98, so it should be put into production hi
    And MiG-31M!
    1. ailcat
      ailcat 3 December 2022 18: 59
      0
      I agree with many things, but it's definitely not worth resuming the release. The same Yak-130 is close to the migarb in terms of capabilities (just finish the avionics, because they still fly without a radar of at least Spear level) - but better for both the pilot and the aviation industry
    2. Sancho_SP
      Sancho_SP 6 December 2022 18: 32
      0
      Where can I get it.

      And if you do it again, then it's better to make a big drone than a small fighter.
  16. EVGENIY_VLADIMIROVICH
    EVGENIY_VLADIMIROVICH 3 December 2022 17: 58
    0
    From An2, Azerbaijan made drones, from instant 21, you can probably also make a disposable drone.
    1. ailcat
      ailcat 3 December 2022 19: 02
      0
      What for? It would be nice to give the half-dead old people the opportunity to be useful - but build new ones?
  17. multicam
    multicam 3 December 2022 20: 33
    0
    Mirage III is much more like a balalaika due to the lack of stabilizers
  18. certero
    certero 3 December 2022 20: 53
    0
    The funny thing is that at the time of its appearance and subsequent operation, no one certainly called the Mig21 simple. On the contrary, they noted the difficulty in development and operation, especially in comparison with the moment17.
  19. cat hippopotamus
    cat hippopotamus 3 December 2022 23: 41
    0
    It is not for nothing that this aircraft is compared with the AK-47 assault rifle, simple and reliable.
  20. Losyara
    Losyara 3 December 2022 23: 45
    0
    Comrades, on one site of flyers, I read statements about Mig 23. That this is a pure fighter with very good characteristics. Who is in the subject of the "former"? I would like to hear
  21. Vadim Topal Pasha
    Vadim Topal Pasha 4 December 2022 14: 45
    0
    Quote: Sancho_SP
    MiG-29 is also not needed.

    It is more important to reduce the range of aircraft, rather than increase. Unification allows you to increase output, and you just need as many machines as possible.

    By and large, the Su-30/34/35 in general could be replaced by a single machine.

    Who are you in general in life? Education and main source of income. It's just not clear to me how to relate to some of your ideas....

    You can write a personal account if it is publicly undesirable.
    1. Sancho_SP
      Sancho_SP 6 December 2022 10: 25
      0
      I guess, measuring life experience in the comments to the article is somehow nerdy, or something;)
  22. Vadim Topal Pasha
    Vadim Topal Pasha 4 December 2022 14: 52
    +1
    Quote from Nordsc0l
    You can also see here. Because the Su-30 is something like the Su-27, only with 2 pilots. 34, this is again a development of 27, but in the direction of the fleet bomber. A 35, a continuation of the idea of ​​​​27, as a fighter. In this situation, the Su-30 seems to be multi-purpose, but I would look in the direction of 35. It is still more modern.

    As far as I understand in modern jet aviation, most aircraft are made in different factories. You can screw up the production of some of them, but it’s not always possible to produce others instead of the screwed ones, especially in the same quantity.
    And then the second moment comes out. Tasks for different aircraft are different. Multi-purpose ones are better than highly specialized ones, they do only one thing - they cost! Yes, I'm talking about the price of production / operation. Everything else they do is worse than highly specialized ones.

    Let's not forget about the need to change generations of technology. And this suggests that it is necessary to produce different aircraft. And exploitation is even more different. Due to those that no longer produce, but still creak! :)
  23. Vadim Topal Pasha
    Vadim Topal Pasha 4 December 2022 14: 57
    0
    Quote from Losyara
    Comrades, on one site of flyers, I read statements about Mig 23. That this is a pure fighter with very good characteristics. Who is in the subject of the "former"? I would like to hear

    He's a good fighter. But the problem is that it is complicated and expensive. Yes, and the accident was not all good. The notorious variable sweep without comp...

    For what purpose are you interested? to revive production is frankly stupid. In stocks in decent quantities and in a maintainable condition is absent.

    It is of historical value only.

    Not if you fight against a weak enemy. then the MiG-21 will be redundant! If the enemy has only pistons, then the MiG-15 is the king of the sky!

    But if with NATO, then only new.
  24. Vadim Topal Pasha
    Vadim Topal Pasha 4 December 2022 15: 03
    0
    Quote: EVGENIY_VLADIMIROVICH
    From An2, Azerbaijan made drones, from instant 21, you can probably also make a disposable drone.


    It is possible, but is it necessary?

    Still, let's not confuse the transport with supersonic jet fighter aircraft. The second requires very high quality materials, careful workmanship and much more. At the same time, it has a high price and a small resource. And a small payload. No, well, if they were in conservation grease in epic quantities, that's another matter.
    And so the conversation is devoid of practical meaning. Purely to chat. "If my grandmother had horseradish with eggs, then she would be a grandfather" (C) :)
  25. Vadim Topal Pasha
    Vadim Topal Pasha 4 December 2022 15: 12
    +1
    Quote: Sancho_SP
    Considering that the boundaries between a fighter and a bomber are already very blurred, it is technically quite realistic to bring everything to a single machine with a bomber load and fighter maneuverability. Su-34 and Su-35 are close in basic parameters, in general. A stronger airframe will be useful for all types of machines, a more powerful engine too.

    There will be no universal machine forever. It's good for drinkers. Promise that everything will be fine. But keep silent about the price and operating costs. And about the fact that EVERYTHING she will do is worse than highly specialized ones.

    They handed over to the stupid Yankees the developments on the Yak-141. And they are happy to try! They made the F-35 so that both the VTOL aircraft (for the marines) and the deck carrier would work as an ordinary aircraft. But the desire for radar invisibility finally killed the practical value.

    As a result, the money was spent, the aircraft were built and continue to be built. And not a single enemy shot down by them for so many years. Unlike the same Su-57, which until recently was presented only with pre-production samples, waiting for a new engine and electronics.



    "The US Congress has seen the light: F-35 - a planned failure to copy the Yak-141?" https://trymava.rf/?p=15027
    1. Sancho_SP
      Sancho_SP 6 December 2022 10: 37
      0
      What won't happen? It depends on what functions to unify and what restrictions to introduce.
      If you look at the Su-34 and Su-35, it becomes clear what is left of the "specialization". Combining the "chips" of two machines in one is hindered only by the lack of an order, because there are no specific restrictions.

      With the F-35, the difficulties came out precisely from the fact that it was built under the conditions of the limitations of the Aerial Vehicles and carrier-based aircraft. Regarding the Harier and Super Hornet, he is, in general, nothing.
  26. Vadim Topal Pasha
    Vadim Topal Pasha 6 December 2022 15: 28
    0
    Quote: Sancho_SP
    I guess, measuring life experience in the comments to the article is somehow nerdy, or something;)

    Well, I don’t find out in what position you and your wife are sleeping and whose wife it is! It's none of my fucking business!

    I just want to be clear for myself where some of your ideas and ideas might come from. How far are you from the army in general and from the supersonic fighter aircraft of the USSR in particular. And how to bring the correct (my :)) point of view to you. And do I have enough pedagogical talent and perseverance. Or easier to wave your hand. Because I have other things to do.
  27. Vadim Topal Pasha
    Vadim Topal Pasha 6 December 2022 15: 32
    0
    Quote: Sancho_SP
    What won't happen? It depends on what functions to unify and what restrictions to introduce.
    If you look at the Su-34 and Su-35, it becomes clear what is left of the "specialization". Combining the "chips" of two machines in one is hindered only by the lack of an order, because there are no specific restrictions.

    With the F-35, the difficulties came out precisely from the fact that it was built under the conditions of the limitations of the Aerial Vehicles and carrier-based aircraft. Regarding the Harier and Super Hornet, he is, in general, nothing.



    The F-35 was finally killed not by an attempt to combine VTOL aircraft, a deck and a regular one. And the fact that they also wanted to be invisible!

    And why did they start producing the superhornet again? Because the F-35 is so good? If so, why hasn't he hit anything yet? Unlike the Su-57?
    1. Foul skeptic
      Foul skeptic 6 December 2022 16: 14
      0
      If so, why hasn't he hit anything yet?

      What an original argument. Excuse me, but who could he shoot down since 2015?
      PS The Israelis shot down two Iranian UAVs this year
  28. Vadim Topal Pasha
    Vadim Topal Pasha 6 December 2022 15: 40
    0
    Quote: Sancho_SP
    If you look at the Su-34 and Su-35, it becomes clear what is left of the "specialization". Combining the "chips" of two machines in one is hindered only by the lack of an order, because there are no specific restrictions.


    Even during WWII, if new engines, weapons and / or some equipment were installed on a manufactured aircraft, it was supposed to call it a new modification and test this modification. In the past, technology was easier. And the tests were faster. And there was a lot of technology. Now it is scarce and produced for a long time.

    If now you start trying to replace the Su-34 and Su-35 with the conditional Su-34,5, you need to kill time and money. No, well, to drank, it’s easy! But for some reason I doubt that the profit from unification will quickly cover the costs incurred and, most importantly, the time spent. This is despite the fact that now the country seems to be at war. And at any moment he can start fighting without joking, already against NATA.

    Have you ever been in business for a long time? Not broke? :)
    1. agond
      agond 6 December 2022 22: 54
      +1
      The MiG-21 was with one engine at the same time and its accident rate was not critically high, in other respects, like any single-engine aircraft, the presence of a second engine reduces the accident rate, but by no means doubles, and sometimes even increases the probability of occurrence of unrelated events ( failure of one of the engines on takeoff) add up, so you should not always strive to put two engines on the plane. And then modern aircraft tend to be made universal, as a result, complex, which greatly affects their cost, while universality always loses specialization, and the MiG-21 was specialized in one direction, which is why it is still in service in some states.
  29. Vadim Topal Pasha
    Vadim Topal Pasha 8 December 2022 14: 48
    0
    Quote: A vile skeptic
    If so, why hasn't he hit anything yet?

    What an original argument. Excuse me, but who could he shoot down since 2015?
    PS The Israelis shot down two Iranian UAVs this year


    The F-35 appeared earlier than the SU-57. The second really opened the account.
  30. Vadim Topal Pasha
    Vadim Topal Pasha 8 December 2022 14: 52
    0
    Quote: agond
    The MiG-21 was with one engine at the same time and its accident rate was not critically high, in other respects, like any single-engine aircraft, the presence of a second engine reduces the accident rate, but by no means doubles, and sometimes even increases the probability of occurrence of unrelated events ( failure of one of the engines on takeoff) add up, so you should not always strive to put two engines on the plane. And then modern aircraft tend to be made universal, as a result, complex, which greatly affects their cost, while universality always loses specialization, and the MiG-21 was specialized in one direction, which is why it is still in service in some states.

    I can subscribe to almost everything. But as for the second engine, it is not so much to reduce accidents, but to increase survivability in battle and payload. A heavy fighter with 2 engines carries more than twice the payload than two single engines with the same engines. Purely out of savings on the pilot, control system and so on.
  31. iouris
    iouris 12 December 2022 19: 23
    0
    Try it, play Beethoven's Fifth Symphony on the balalaika.
    1. agond
      agond 22 December 2022 19: 09
      0
      Quote: Vadim Topal-Pasha
      ... about the second engine, it is not so much to reduce accidents, but to increase survivability in battle and payload.

      Combat survivability is a kind of accident-free, and yes, two engines give more thrust than one, but if you have an engine of sufficient power, you can get by with one. Two spaced engines make it possible to hang something heavy between them on the central suspension, this is a serious plus