Lessons from the SVO: multifunctional weapons systems should complement highly specialized combat vehicles

At the end of the XNUMXth and beginning of the XNUMXst centuries, one of the leading trends in the creation of weapons systems was the concept of multifunctionality.

What does it consist of?

Multifunctional concept

If we talk about aviation, and we will mainly consider the concept of multifunctionality in relation to the air force (AF), we can cite as an example structurally unified combat vehicles - the MiG-23 fighter, designed to gain air superiority, and the MiG-27 fighter-bomber - for striking ground targets.

Formally, the MiG-23 could operate against ground targets, and the MiG-27 against air targets, but in fact it is enough to compare the range of ammunition of these aircraft to understand how much the capabilities of the MiG-27 in terms of hitting ground targets exceeded those of the MiG-23, and as for the conquest air supremacy, the MiG-27 did not have a radar station (radar), which clearly did not allow it to be used to solve this problem.

MiG-23 (left) and MiG-27 (right)

The next generation of aircraft, for example, the Su-27 family, has already largely implemented the concept of multifunctionality. For example, if we talk about the extreme machines of the family - the Su-35S fighter and the Su-34 front-line bomber, then the range of their weapons is almost identical, both of these machines can operate against both air and ground targets.

The capabilities of the Su-35S in terms of hitting air targets are, of course, higher than those of the Su-34, primarily due to a more powerful and modern radar, as well as better flight performance characteristics, while the Su-34 is better optimized for flights at low altitudes and has titanium armor for the cabin and vital components.

Su-35S (left) and Su-34 (right)

However, there is an opinion that all the tasks that the Su-34 currently solves can be successfully solved by the Su-35S in a two-seat modification, without reducing the effectiveness of work against air targets.

For example, quite recently the US Air Force used the F-15C fighter as the main air superiority aircraft, and the F-15E fighter-bomber to work against ground targets, which in many ways can be considered “working on mistakes” in terms of enhancing capabilities The F-15C is capable of destroying ground targets, while the effectiveness of the F-15E against air targets has not decreased compared to the F-15C. It is characteristic that the newest American 4++ generation fighter F-15EX was developed on the basis of the F-150A modification for Qatar, created on the basis of the Saudi F-15S/SA, developed precisely on the basis of the F-15E.

F-15EX

As for fifth-generation aircraft, neither the American F-22 and F-35, nor the Russian Su-57 and Su-75 have two-seat versions yet, although there is sometimes talk about the need to create them. It is believed that in these machines the concept of multifunctionality is realized as fully as possible.

Fifth generation fighters do not yet have specialized modifications

Similar examples can be given for fleet – highly specialized anti-submarine defense (ASD) and air defense (air defense) ships gradually transformed into multifunctional combat units, additionally capable of striking surface ships and ground targets deep in enemy territory, as well as hitting targets in near space. In addition, for many types of shipborne anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM), the ability to operate anti-aircraft guided missiles (SAM) against enemy ships has been implemented.

To some extent, the concept of multifunctionality also affected ground combat vehicles, of course, “anti-aircraft Tanks"have not yet appeared, but thanks to guided missiles launched from the barrel, tanks have the ability to hit low-speed, low-flying targets.

Also, during the Russian Special Military Operation (SVO) in Ukraine, cases of using air defense systems in the role of operational-tactical missile systems (OTRK) were noted. In particular, the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) use outdated missiles from the S-200 air defense system for this, and the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (AF) presumably used outdated missiles from the S-300 complex for this.

Footage of the Ukrainian S-200 air defense missile used as a surface-to-surface missile

It would seem that the concept of multifunctionality is a blessing, and multifunctional combat vehicles should dominate the battlefield?

However, there are a number of factors that call this statement into question, and first of all this...

Human factor

You can make multifunctional combat vehicles, but where can you get multifunctional people?

Different combat missions require different skills from pilots/operators/crews. The skills and abilities to combat enemy aircraft can be very different from those required when fighting or overcoming enemy air defenses at ultra-low altitude, when striking ground targets, or when attacking enemy naval strike groups (SCGs). A warship capable of providing both anti-submarine and air defense must be manned by a crew capable of effectively performing both of these tasks, and its command staff must be equally competent in the field of anti-aircraft defense and air defense.

Returning to pilots, their professional training in complexity, time and cost can be comparable to the production of combat aircraft and helicopters themselves, of course, if we are talking about high-class professionals with a large number of flight hours. It will always be much more difficult to train a “generalist” pilot than a specialist in any one selected “narrow” area.

In fact, training pilots for multifunctional combat vehicles violates Henry Ford's "assembly line" principle. What is the principle of the conveyor? The fact is that many “narrow” specialists effectively solve one complex problem. Why are we trying to create a “universal master” for the armed forces?

This problem is especially acute during combat operations, when the Air Force suffers losses and must be urgently replenished. The enemy shoots down planes and helicopters - not everyone manages to escape, and also deliberately hunts pilots, attacking their places of deployment with high-precision weapons. weapons, arranging sabotage, as recent practice shows, including against flight school cadets.

It is clear that in such conditions it is necessary to train as many pilots as possible in the minimum time.

"Dive bombers" of the XNUMXst century

Article "Reincarnation of MiG-25" the concept of restoring the MiG-25 or MiG-31 from storage bases (if technically possible) without major modernization of avionics (avionics) was considered for use as an “acceleration stage” for aerial bombs equipped with unified planning and correction modules (UMPC) . The choice of MiG-25 / MiG-31 was justified by their speed and altitude characteristics, which made it possible to throw aerial bombs from the UMPC to the maximum possible range, while it was separately stipulated that:

“...The maximum speed and altitude will be determined by the ability of the aerial bomb and UMPC to withstand thermal and mechanical loads during acceleration and release; it may be necessary to strengthen the design of the UMPC and some kind of heat-protective cover for the aerial bomb...”

However, the main message of the article was not necessarily to use the MiG-25 or MiG-31 - it’s just that these machines potentially allow the use of aerial bombs with UMPC from the maximum possible range, which increases the safety of the carrier, but to use for the delivery of aerial bombs with UMPC is some kind of relatively inexpensive highly specialized aircraft. That is, instead of a MiG-25 or MiG-31, these could be Su-27 or MiG-29 recovered from storage, having undergone repairs and extremely limited modernization, it is possible that even with the dismantling of part of the avionics (for example, if the radar is not operational, then we We do not repair and we do not install new ones).

If all aircraft available at storage bases cannot be restored, then simplified, highly specialized modifications of commercially produced combat aircraft can be made. For example, what percentage of the cost of the Su-35S is its powerful radar and other avionics elements? How much do these aircraft components affect the duration of its production and the possible number of aircraft produced per year? If such a limitation exists, then is it possible that for one “full-fledged” multifunctional Su-35S it is possible to produce one or two simplified, highly specialized Su-Z5U? And this is without prejudice to the initially planned production volumes of the Su-35S.

Another option is the MiG-35 multirole fighter.

The fate of this aircraft somehow did not work out; only six aircraft were received for supply; there are no export contracts, and none are expected. According to unconfirmed reports, the MiG-35 has some problems with the avionics in terms of the radar, which presumably led to the loss in the Indian tender.

MiG-35

If this is so, then is it possible that the optimal carrier of aerial bombs with UMPC could be a simplified, highly specialized version of the MiG-35U?

Fighters of the MiG-29 / MiG-35 family are produced at the Sokol aircraft plant, where MiG-31 interceptors are also modernized and Yak-130 combat trainer aircraft are produced. Considering that many components of the MiG-35, including engines, should not overlap with components of the Su family aircraft, the production of the MiG-35U will not in any way affect the production rate of the Su-34, Su-35S or Su-57.

Potentially, the most “economically profitable” carriers of aerial bombs with UMPC can also be Yak-130 combat training aircraft. These aircraft should have a minimum cost of production (about $16 million) and operation, but their performance characteristics are seriously inferior to the performance characteristics of “normal” combat aircraft, which will reduce the throwing range of air bombs with UMPC and expose the carriers to the risk of destruction by enemy air defense systems. Actually, even It’s strange that the Yak-130 has not yet been “put to work” in the Northern Military District zone.

The Yak-130 combat training aircraft is potentially one of the most cost-effective carriers of air bombs with UMPC

Highly specialized tasks

Why have we returned to the topic of UMPC bomb carriers?

Yes, because this task will be very, very in demand in the foreseeable future. In addition to aerial bombs with UMPC, highly specialized carriers can also be used to use other guided weapons operating against stationary targets with known coordinates, including cruise missiles, similar to how Ukrainian MiG-29 fighters and Su-24 front-line bombers do it.

Other highly specialized solutions can be created that are superior in cost/effectiveness to their multifunctional “brothers”, for example, for hunting armored vehicles, artillery and other ground combat vehicles on the line of combat contact (LBC) and in the near rear, for fire support of ground units - a kind of GunShip of a new generation, low-speed UAV fighters, the destruction of which by conventional fighters is fraught (does everyone remember the Ukrainian MiG-29 fighter, which knocked out itself with fragments of the Geranium it shot down?), and much more.

Conclusions

Does all of the above mean that the concept of multifunctionality is fundamentally wrong?

Not at all, moreover, the role of multifunctional combat vehicles is extremely important - they are the ones who will confront the high-tech enemy in the forefront, performing particularly important and extremely complex tasks - “at the tip of a spear, at the edge of a knife.” Destroy particularly important targets deep in enemy territory, break into enemy air defenses, and destroy ship and aircraft carrier strike groups. And such machines will be driven by the best of the best, the elite, a kind of Top Gun.

However, the number of multifunctional combat vehicles will always be limited, since their complexity and cost will only increase over time, this also applies to promising aviation weapons systems, and to promising warships, and to multifunctional ground combat vehicles.

Many highly specialized tasks will eventually be taken over by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), but not all and not always, and it is necessary to reduce the cost of combat operations without loss of effectiveness now. And this can be done through the production of relatively inexpensive, highly specialized types of military equipment, and this applies not only to aviation, but also to the fleet, and even to the ground forces.

At the same time, the Su-34 and Su-35S, freed from routine tasks, will put pressure on Ukrainian air defense and aviation, that is, engage in tasks that correspond to their high combat capabilities.

Comments

[maximace]

Russian S300 missiles are invulnerable. They have never been able to intercept them and are the only ones used to hit civilian targets. And they also have an excellent range - they fly to any city. Is that how it works?

[Civil]

1. So far, the SVO has shown that the role of bombing aircraft behind enemy lines is performed by UAVs of the "Geran-2" type and their modifications, as well as cruise and ballistic missiles. The enemy's air defense systems have created a situation where the loss of expensive aircraft with equally valuable pilots will not allow the use of aircraft deep in its territory.
2. The role of attack aircraft is played by Lancet-type UAVs with modifications and multiple variations of FTP UAVs. Since the same air defense systems and air defense systems made attacking the front line by aviation a very expensive task.
3. Reconnaissance is also carried out by UAVs, both on the LBS and in a more distant zone, as well as by a satellite constellation.
4. To launch from a distance cast iron from the UMPC, a heavy UAV is generally sufficient. Where is the pilot on the ground?

Instead of a conclusion, technology moves on; progress cannot be stopped by order of the Ministry of Defense. Funding should be distributed accordingly based on the results.
P.S. the next step is space-based UAVs, mass-produced and cheap, with guidance from, for example, Starlink. Thanks to cheaper launches, space has become extremely accessible.

[nickname7]

the next step is space-based UAVs, mass-produced and cheap, with guidance from, for example, Starlink

A similar rearmament program has already been adopted, but not here in the states. They are going to abandon nuclear weapons, which cannot be used anyway, and put them in reserve, and abandon tanks, aircraft, and will rely on drones controlled by AI, as well as automated factories for the production of drones in the millions. Although this could be fake.
At least in the United States, on October 28 they officially announced preparations for the next generation war. In Russia, no one knows about this event.

Article on "Aftenshok"

https://aftershock.news/?q=node/1305015

Our Ministry of Defense is also rapidly expanding the construction of UAV factories, since we came to this through experience, but this is not being done systematically. In the USA they do it systematically. Therefore, all these MIG SUs are already outdated, against millions of clouds of drones controlled by AI.

[Rome]

Quote: nickname7

will rely on drones controlled by AI,

I hope that humanity is smart enough to impose restrictions on the use of AI for military purposes! so that in real life you don’t end up with a war with terminators AI should not independently make decisions about the destruction of people! His role on the battlefield should be auxiliary: identify the target, plot a route, visit the target, but the trigger must be pressed by a person! a serious anti-war movement will most likely arise in the world if the military transfers the destruction function to AI, so it is too early to talk about UAV swarms.
Multifunctional complexes appeared due to the desire to make the most of available combat units. In peacetime, this looks very beneficial, and in low-intensity battles it also justifies itself. But in real large-scale wars, the question of insufficient numbers always arises, and then the economy begins to work against multifunctional complexes, since you need a lot of, for example, strike vehicles, for which the same radars and medium-range missiles are unnecessarily complicating and unnecessary elements
You need to think about these issues in peacetime and have ready-made kits for different warriors.

[blackGRAIL]

200% no. The hegemon (and it doesn’t matter who it will be, the matter does not focus on the United States) in an attempt to maintain its hegemony will do anything to realize its technical and industrial superiority.

[Bad_gr]

Quote from maximace

Russian S300 missiles are invulnerable. They have never been able to intercept them and are the only ones used to hit civilian targets.

So ask yourself the question why Ukrainian air defenses even shoot down Iskander hypersonic missiles (if you believe the same Ukrainians), but for some reason they cannot shoot down an air defense missile from the S-300 complex.
And the second question is, why use an expensive missile to strike a residential building, when any other cruise missile would cope with a similar task much better and would fly more accurately, at a strategically important target, and not at someone’s apartment.

[NIKN]

I started reading and for some reason identified the author as Kiril Ryabov. I was surprised to read the real author. Is there an effective exchange of experience there? In general, it’s bad when a shoemaker bakes pies. It was worth reading for the comments; the comments are much more professional and relevant.

[Aviator_]

I started reading and for some reason identified the author as Kiril Ryabov. I was surprised to read the real author.

Likewise. Something atypical happened with Mitrofanov.

[Fluoride11]

Not far from my production, there is a workshop where volunteers make FPV drones. Now they are financed through the Ministry of Defense; they are paid from a special account; a “receiver” from the RF Ministry of Defense is constantly located in the workshop. We started with simple enthusiasm. So that's what I'm getting at. FPV drones can be manufactured in a large factory in the tens of thousands. It is clear that with a large financial injection (adequate), only the most important question remains. If we imagine that we have solved the problem of starting with explosives and sequentially launching such a huge number of drones (I think this is a fairly solvable problem), then we need an AI capable of controlling and selecting targets for such a number of drones. My point is that the technical part of the issue is already completely solvable, and the production of millions of drones in automatic mode is already a banal process of creating production and its robotization and automation (as machines are made on an assembly line). The only question that remains is artificial intelligence capable of controlling the FPV drone, find a target and decide who has priority to destroy. By the way, I read that there are volunteers who are working on this, maybe something will come of it (although the Ministry of Defense should work)

[karabas-barabas]

Quote: Fluoride11

My point is that the technical part of the issue is already completely solvable, and the production of millions of drones in automatic mode is already a banal process of creating production and its robotization and automation (as machines are made on an assembly line)

Russia, with today's sanctions, will not be able to develop modern robotic production, since this requires close cooperation with the leaders in these processes, the Germans, Japanese, and Americans, where the elements of such production are produced. But these kamikaze drones themselves are quite primitive products, and to produce thousands per day, you need, in addition to components such as a platform, motors, propellers, a control and communication unit, thousands of people who will assemble them together.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

1. So far, the SVO has shown that the role of bombing aircraft behind enemy lines is performed by UAVs of the "Geran-2" type and their modifications, as well as cruise and ballistic missiles. The enemy's air defense systems have created a situation where the loss of expensive aircraft with equally valuable pilots will not allow the use of aircraft deep in its territory.

The rear areas are attacked by missiles, both ground-based, sea-based and air-based. "Geranium-2" is more suitable for hitting transformer booths. They have neither power, nor speed, and therefore reaction and survivability.

2. The role of attack aircraft is played by Lancet-type UAVs with modifications and multiple variations of FTP UAVs. Since the same air defense systems and air defense systems made attacking the front line by aviation a very expensive task.

The role of attack aircraft has long been taken over by combat helicopters. They are the ones who can work quite selectively along the front line, when troops are in close contact with the enemy. At the same time, with the right tactics, there are no threats from enemy air defense systems and missile defense systems.
Losses are suffered when, for unknown reasons, they climb to a height, or use the suicidal Western tactic of launching an ATGM from a hover.
As for the Lancet, its role is auxiliary; it has neither power nor massive impact.

3. Reconnaissance is also carried out by UAVs, both on the LBS and in a more distant zone, as well as by a satellite constellation.

UAVs in relation to this theater of operations only complement satellite reconnaissance at the forward edge and near tactical depth.

4. To launch from a distance cast iron from the UMPC, a heavy UAV is generally sufficient. Where is the pilot on the ground?

This UAV will be inferior to a manned aircraft in all performance characteristics, but at the same time superior in price.
And why is it needed if its main meaning does not work here?

Instead of a conclusion, technology moves on; progress cannot be stopped by order of the Ministry of Defense. Funding should be distributed accordingly based on the results.
P.S. the next step is space-based UAVs, mass-produced and cheap, with guidance from, for example, Starlink. Thanks to cheaper launches, space has become extremely accessible.

I always wondered why a military pilot wouldn’t bother to discuss issues, for example, of landscape design, ladies’ haircuts, network marketing and other things. But at the same time, every landscape designer, hairdresser, marketer and others consider themselves specialists in military affairs, at least at the operational level.
Well, the “funeral” of manned aircraft increasingly resembles a kind of online masturbation, based on banal envy.

Well, the conclusion.
Today, manned aircraft continue to be the most effective highly mobile weapons platform. But it is also obvious that the attempt to continue to use cheap types of ASP on expensive air complexes is a dead end.
There are two ways out, this is to increase the production of controlled ASP, and also to use the experience of the USSR, this is to reduce the cost of producing wartime aircraft. A mass aircraft with a load of 1500-2500 kg is urgently needed. For which pilots can be trained in flight schools, which will reduce the cost of training, especially since a large share of training can be given to simulators. Well, it’s clear that helicopters are also needed.
Also a disastrous attempt to work in small groups. Here, neither electronic warfare can be properly organized, nor suppression of air defense, nor rescue of crews.
And yes, all human life is valuable, not just pilots. And if the death toll of flight personnel increases by a certain percentage, but at the same time losses on the ground, both military and civilian, are significantly reduced, then this is justified.

[Goto]

they use suicidal Western tactics of launching ATGMs from hovering.

It is the lack of 3rd generation ATGMs that forces them to do this, and not just what they themselves do. Until now, the operator on the Ka-52 guides the missile to the target in manual mode. If the missiles were homing, then they wouldn’t have to hover, and they would attack more targets at a time.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Goto

It is the lack of 3rd generation ATGMs that forces them to do this, and not just what they themselves do. Until now, the operator on the Ka-52 guides the missile to the target in manual mode.

The second generation ATGM also has automatic target tracking. But it still won’t solve the problem.
It's not the targeting mode, it's the system. Whether with a laser-beam system, or a radio command system, or a semi-active laser system, guidance of an ATGM without visibility of the target using the helicopter’s on-board optics is impossible.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

It is the lack of 3rd generation ATGMs that forces them to do this, and not just what they themselves do. Until now, the operator on the Ka-52 guides the missile to the target in manual mode. If the missiles were homing, then they wouldn’t have to hover, and they would attack more targets at a time.

The semi-automatic mode appeared on the Phalanx. I have dozens of launches of the Sturm ATGM from the Mi-24 and not a single one from the hover mode. All starts on the fly.
The problem is not the ATGM, but the generation gap, loss of continuity of experience, thoughtless copying of Western tactics and much weaker crew training than in Soviet times.

[Comet]

Quote: Goto

If the missiles were homing, then they wouldn’t have to hover, and they would attack more targets at a time

How can you give target designation to a missile’s seeker without hovering at a moving or camouflaged target?

[Civil]

The rear areas are attacked by missiles, both ground-based, sea-based and air-based. "Geranium-2" is more suitable for hitting transformer booths. They have neither power, nor speed, and therefore reaction and survivability.

Well then, explain why the UAV was chosen for this role.

The role of attack aircraft has long been taken over by combat helicopters. They are the ones who can work quite selectively along the front line, when troops are in close contact with the enemy. At the same time, with the right tactics, there are no threats from enemy air defense systems and missile defense systems.

The enemy's squealing and noise comes from FTP drones and loitering UAVs. What is the role of aviation?

This UAV will be inferior to a manned aircraft in all performance characteristics, but at the same time superior in price.
And why is it needed if its main meaning does not work here?

How shoud I understand this? How can a flying platform for dropping a bomb with a UMPC, without a radar, without a pilot (by the way), without crew rescue systems be more expensive than an airplane?

A mass aircraft with a load of 1500-2500 kg is urgently needed. For which pilots can be trained in flight schools, which will reduce the cost of training, especially since a large share of training can be given to simulators

The time has passed when it was possible to throw packs at people's expense. And there is no question about a new edition of Kamikaze.
Therefore, UAVs and air defense systems have at least supplanted front-line aviation. Accept the facts.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Well then, explain why the UAV was chosen for this role.

Because the capitalist military-industrial complex of the modern Russian Federation’s task is not victory, but to earn as much as possible from weapons. Therefore, priority is given to those samples where the difference between price and costs is maximum.

The enemy's squealing and noise comes from FTP drones and loitering UAVs. What is the role of aviation?

Viz and noise are only in the media space. But the front line has long been static.
The role of aviation in direct support of ground forces both in defense and offensive. Just to play a role, aviation must be in greater numbers than needed for parades.

How shoud I understand this? How can a flying platform for dropping a bomb with a UMPC, without a radar, without a pilot (by the way), without crew rescue systems be more expensive than an airplane?

Because in order to raise the BC of the necessary equipment, you will have to increase the take-off weight, and this means engine power and so on. Which entails an increase in price and complexity. And such a platform cannot be made disposable, and therefore the price will rise again.

The time has passed when it was possible to throw packs at people's expense. And there is no question about a new edition of Kamikaze.
Therefore, UAVs and air defense systems have at least supplanted front-line aviation. Accept the facts.

The front line stands, and the number of graves of SVO participants in cemeteries is growing. This is the entire cost of replacing full-fledged air strikes with UAV pin pricks.

[alexoff]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

Because in order to raise the BC of the necessary equipment, you will have to increase the take-off weight, and this means engine power and so on. Which entails an increase in price and complexity. And such a platform cannot be made disposable, and therefore the price will rise again.

Growth relative to what? Regarding geraniums or regarding a similar manned aircraft? Without a pilot, the plane will definitely be cheaper with the same engines and wings

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Growth relative to what? Regarding geraniums or regarding a similar manned aircraft? Without a pilot, the plane will definitely be cheaper with the same engines and wings

The required control system will far exceed the pilot's life support system. Not to mention that many flight modes will simply be unavailable.

[alexoff]

What kind of unusual control system is there? To pilot a plane you need a quantum supercomputer weighing half a ton? Or is this the kind of transmitter you intended? Maybe, in your opinion, a pilot’s brain is as bad as a chess player’s at the World Championship; no computer can replace it? Replaced it so long ago! Passenger planes have long been able to do everything themselves; pilots are needed there more for responsibility. And since that “long time ago” computers have shrunk a lot

[alexoff]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

The rear areas are attacked by missiles, both ground-based, sea-based and air-based. "Geranium-2" is more suitable for hitting transformer booths. They have neither power, nor speed, and therefore reaction and survivability.

Geraniums for the most part reach and hit their targets. The locations are taken out. Where do the conclusions about their low effectiveness come from? And what should the effect be? The Germans took out entire cities, but the effect was rather weak; the Japanese managed to burn out their aircraft workshops and they stopped flying, but they were still strong and it would have been difficult to take them out like Germany did. How do you generally see the bombing process as ideal?

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

A mass aircraft with a load of 1500-2500 kg is urgently needed.

Single-engine Yak-130, like Turkish dogwood. But why is there a pilot inside? No pilot - no ejection seat and other life support systems. Instead, use computers; even at our rate, they cost hundreds of thousands of rubles, much cheaper than a pilot. And let the pilot sit in the bunker and control from afar at important moments

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Geraniums for the most part reach and hit their targets. The locations are taken out. Where do the conclusions about their low effectiveness come from? And what should the effect be? The Germans took out entire cities, but the effect was rather weak; the Japanese managed to burn out their aircraft workshops and they stopped flying, but they were still strong and it would have been difficult to take them out like Germany did. How do you generally see the bombing process as ideal?

How did you get it, schoolchildren, zero knowledge, just a lot of understanding, just an emergency.
"Geranium" has a speed of only 200 km/h, the reaction time is prohibitive. Despite the fact that the warhead is only 50 kg, now batteries of this caliber are only left in the RBS.

Single-engine Yak-130, like Turkish dogwood. But why is there a pilot inside? No pilot - no ejection seat and other life support systems. Instead, use computers; even at our rate, they cost hundreds of thousands of rubles, much cheaper than a pilot. And let the pilot sit in the bunker and control from afar at important moments

Because the remote operator can only control up to a speed of 200 km/h and then at low altitudes. Not at all in WWII.

[alexoff]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

"Geranium" has a speed of only 200 km/h, the reaction time is prohibitive.

Whose reaction time? For two months, these geraniums flew to two ports; the videos of explosions in the ports are orders of magnitude larger than the videos of drone interceptions. There are also plenty of explosions of ammunition depots. There are also a large number of broken locations.

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

Despite the fact that the warhead is only 50 kg, now batteries of this caliber are only left in the RBS.

What purpose is not enough geranium? A bunker at a hundred meters depth? You wrote here that besides the transformer booths there is nothing else to shoot at, so list the targets that are inaccessible to the geraniums, better with specifics - the geranium flew in and couldn’t do it.

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

Because the remote operator can only control up to a speed of 200 km/h and then at low altitudes.

Where does this information come from? Did they calculate reaction rates at the institutes? Or was it you who decided on the sofa that the drone will not rise to a high altitude, because they are schoolchildren without knowledge!

So and once again - what kind of bombing would be correct? And what are the goals?

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Whose reaction time? For two months, these geraniums flew to two ports; the videos of explosions in the ports are orders of magnitude larger than the videos of drone interceptions. There are also plenty of explosions of ammunition depots. There are also a large number of broken locations.

If you don’t know what reaction time is, then where are you even going?

What purpose is not enough geranium? A bunker at a hundred meters depth? You wrote here that besides the transformer booths there is nothing else to shoot at, so list the targets that are inaccessible to the geraniums, better with specifics - the geranium flew in and couldn’t do it.

Try to rack your brains, or whatever you think, but why then in general are there so many large caliber ASPs in aviation, if according to your warhead a measly 50 kg is enough?

Where does this information come from? Did they calculate reaction rates at the institutes? Or were you the one who decided on the sofa that the drone will not rise to a high altitude, because schoolgirls without knowledge!

I already understand that you are a schoolboy. As for me, before the sofa I managed to sit in the pilot’s seats of the Mi-2, Mi-8, Mi-24. So I have an idea of ​​what I’m talking about.
And yes, the pilot turns his head when looking around, because the so-called vestibular apparatus helps the eyes. That is why, in order to look around, the pilot needs less than one second. The UAV operator perceives the image with only his eyes, so he is forced to do everything in slow motion. In your spare time, at least read some advice for a novice cinematographer on why you shouldn’t move the camera quickly.

So and once again - what kind of bombing would be correct? And what are the goals?

Yes, easily, a missile strike on the Yavorovsky training ground.

[Comet]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

Losses are incurred when, for unknown reasons, they climb to heights...

In order to ensure the launch of ATGMs along a laser beam from a long range.

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

...or they use the suicidal Western tactic of launching an ATGM from a hover.

But to a modern air defense system it doesn’t matter whether the helicopter is hanging or flying. The coaxial design is very resistant to gusts of wind when hovering, and hovering allows you to avoid getting too close to the air defense system.

[Passing]

Quote: Civil

that the role of bomber aircraft behind enemy lines is performed by UAVs of the Geranium-2 type

There is reality. And there is a mirage. The effectiveness of UAVs and other Lancets is not even a mirage, but an induced nightmare. Geranium is not even able to completely cut out an airfield with several Su-24s from which British missiles are launched at us. Incapable for months. The coordinates are known, what exactly needs to be destroyed is known, but they cannot. This is reality. This is precisely the real effectiveness of Geraniums and other wonderful drones.

Quote: Civil

The role of attack aircraft is performed by Lancet-type UAVs

A successful assault implies a breakthrough, an advance. Objective reality shows that there is no progress. It turns out that somehow it performs assault functions very poorly.

Quote: Civil

Reconnaissance is also carried out by UAVs...satellite constellation

This is the only thing they are definitely good at.

Quote: Civil

cast iron with UMPC is generally quite a heavy UAV. Where is the pilot on the ground?

AI will need a radar to understand the terrain, heaps of sensors and cameras will be needed to assess the space and its position in it, it will need a powerful neural computer, with dozens of neuromodules, which will accommodate that most complex neural network model. At its current level, it's a cabinet-sized rack. Why such complexity, why pay such an exorbitant price? When a simple airplane driver is enough. For these purposes, you don’t need an ace, you don’t need an elite. Practice - takeoff and landing in real life. Work out the simplest tactics on the simplest simulators, even without virtual reality, just a computer with a monitor. It is possible to produce tens of thousands annually at a meager cost. All complex tasks, such as competent implementation of tactics, will be taken on by individual aces at the airfield, or by AI there. The aircraft driver will simply have to follow the interactive prompts.

Quote: Civil

the next step is space-based UAVs, massive and cheap

Here, in terms of price, planes are unstoppably rushing towards destroyers, and they have all the mass-produced and cheap space bombers in their plans. It's not even science fiction, it's fantasy.

[Civil]

Geranium is not even able to completely cut out an airfield with several Su-24s from which British missiles are launched at us. Incapable for months. The coordinates are known, what exactly needs to be destroyed is known, but they cannot. This is reality. This is precisely the real effectiveness of Geraniums and other wonderful drones.

This is reality.

A successful assault implies a breakthrough, an advance. Objective reality shows that there is no progress. It turns out that somehow it performs assault functions very poorly.

Are we talking about aviation?

AI will need a radar to understand the terrain, heaps of sensors and cameras will be needed to assess the space and its position in it, it will need a powerful neural computer, with dozens of neuromodules, which will accommodate that most complex neural network model. At its current level, it's a cabinet-sized rack. Why such complexity, why pay such an exorbitant price?

We are talking about a simple platform for launching missiles or launching missile launchers. A very large UAV, controlled from the ground just like a quadcopter, and no AI is needed there. We need a UAV pilot and someone who will control the launched (dropped) weapons.

When a simple airplane driver is enough. For these purposes, you don’t need an ace, you don’t need an elite. Practice - takeoff and landing in real life. Practice the simplest tactics on the simplest simulators, even without virtual reality, just a computer with a monitor. It is possible to produce tens of thousands annually at a meager cost. All complex tasks, such as the competent implementation of tactics, will be taken on by individual aces at the airfield, or by AI there. The aircraft driver will simply have to follow the interactive prompts.

Why are these kamikazes needed? UAVs are perfectly controlled from the ground and through repeaters.

Here, in terms of price, planes are unstoppably rushing towards destroyers, and they have all the mass-produced and cheap space bombers in their plans. It's not even science fiction, it's fantasy.

When satellites cost as much as an aircraft carrier, now they are launched in batches. UAVs are controlled via Starlink... this is already today.

[Passing]

If you are specifically talking about a cheap platform for glide bombs, then I am on your side. I am against the thesis that light drones, and even Geranium, are capable of changing something in the current situation, becoming a miracle weapon that crushes the enemy
As for controlling a large carrier in the style of FPV drones, without a pilot on board, the idea seems extremely dubious to me both for electronic warfare reasons, and most likely even because of the possible interception of control. Where there are networks and computers, there will be one hundred percent vulnerabilities. And it’s one thing to hack a light drone, and another thing to hack a multi-ton drone, the effect will be striking. So sooner or later our own weapons will hit us en masse and very painfully. Even if not en masse, the main factor is that until the hole is found and closed, the entire fleet of carriers will be laid up. And these are already prerequisites for defeat.
As for cheap satellites, this is a false analogy; they have fallen in price for very specific reasons - less mass, due to progress in electronics, less complexity of the design of the platform itself due to the transition to an unsealed housing for the same reason, significantly longer service life for the same reasons. And the purpose is fulfilled by the same electronics. For bombers with conventional ammunition, this is all secondary; for them, the output mass cannot yet be significantly reduced; for them, it is determined not by progress in electronics, but by progress in the power of conventional ammunition. And he is missing.

[alexoff]

Quote: Passing by

I am against the thesis that light drones, and even Geranium, are capable of changing something in the current situation, becoming a miracle weapon that crushes the enemy

No, they quite can. About 20 geraniums will tear up the Kremenchug oil refinery. The geraniums took out a lot of locations, ammunition depots and much more. Do you think it would be easier if there were no geraniums? The benefits from them are a thousand times greater than from the Black Sea Fleet, and they probably paid less for the geraniums than the Black Sea Fleet consumes diesel in a year. But you, as I understand it, are only worried about enemy aviation, since if it flies, then drones are literally useless, and in general drones apparently don’t fly.

[alexoff]

Quote: Civil

2. The role of attack aircraft is played by Lancet-type UAVs with modifications and multiple variations of FTP UAVs. Since the same air defense systems and air defense systems made attacking the front line by aviation a very expensive task.

This is a shortcoming of the troops as a whole. Front-line air defense systems are generally extremely vulnerable; the presence of adequate electronic reconnaissance and the use of missiles with passive radar systems should multiply by zero any larger MANPADS. The fact that aviation constantly detects radiation from radars that are not very mobile, but at the same time continue to exist, is nonsense. There is no systematic struggle

[Pavel57]

Author - Fighters of the MiG-29 / MiG-35 family are produced at the Sokol aircraft manufacturing plant, where MiG-31 interceptors are also modernized and Yak-130 combat trainer aircraft are produced.

Combat MiG-29 and MiG-35 were produced at MAPO in Lukhovitsy. Yak-130 - in Irkutsk.

In Nizhny there are only training MiG-29s and the first batch of Yak-130s before production is transferred to Irkut

[Sergey Valov]

“Combat MiG-29 and MiG-35 were produced at MAPO in Lukhovitsy” - the bulk of the MiG-29 was actually manufactured at MAPO, but in Moscow at the Znamya Truda plant, Lukhovitsy was then a branch and manufactured the wing and tail. Final assembly was carried out in Moscow, after which the undocked aircraft were transported by trailer to Lukhovitsy.

[Luminman]

A multifunctional machine is still not exactly the path along which aviation should develop. It is not a dead end, but it is not an alternative to either a front-line bomber or a full-fledged fighter. As in a funny saying - either put on panties or take off the cross...

[Vita vko]

Quote: Luminman

not exactly the path along which aviation should develop. He's not dumb

Ask any engineer which device is more efficient and reliable. If without taking into account the brand, he will answer, of course, what was done to perform strictly defined functions. Moreover, the fewer functions a device has, the more economical and reliable it is. Of course, you shouldn’t stoop to a noticeable “crowbar”. Theoretically, in some air operations, several tasks related to combat work against air and ground targets may arise at once. But for this it is necessary to act in isolation from the main forces, in operational depth and practically autonomously. It’s just very doubtful that any of the commanders will want to risk extremely expensive weapons and send the multifunctional Su-57 there, not knowing where, to destroy something not knowing what.

[bayard]

Quote: Vita VKO

Ask any engineer which device is more efficient and reliable. If without taking into account the brand, he will answer, of course, what was done to perform strictly defined functions. Moreover, the fewer functions a device has, the more economical and reliable it is.

Absolutely right. This is especially important in wartime conditions or in conditions of a military threat. So, with the beginning of the Northern Military District, the RF Ministry of Defense was faced with the “unexpected fact” that a war requires the massive use of aviation. That it is necessary to periodically rotate air regiments to rest the pilots, evaluate the experience gained and practice new combat techniques. In short, aviation turned out to be offensively LITTLE. And taking into account our Geography and the need to maintain aviation in all directions, because time and neighbors are restless, the number of combat aircraft urgently needs to be doubled (at a minimum), or better yet tripled (as an optimum). Measures are already being taken, the formation of 9 new air regiments has been announced... I hope that this is only the first step.
And since the question has arisen about an urgent increase in the number of combat (and all other!) aviation, then an important question is: what aircraft to build/order? As the author correctly noted, multifunctional aircraft are too expensive, complex and take longer to build/more difficult to maintain/operate. At the same time, combat use showed that specialists are needed for war. Apparently, this is why most of the new regiments will be on attack aircraft - the Su-34M, which have shown themselves very well and continue to show themselves. And of course, we need to produce those aircraft that our industry can produce en masse in large series with minimal dependence on imported components.
There is also an economic component here - considerable money is allocated for the Northern Military District and the deployment of the Big Army, but it must be spent judiciously and with maximum useful return. A specialized aircraft is indeed much cheaper than a general purpose aircraft. So, in prices from the middle of the last decade, the Su-34 cost only 28 million dollars. , despite the fact that it is much larger, heavier than both the Su-35S and Su-30SM, carries two-ton cabin armor, the most critical parts of the center section/fuselage are armored, and the actual weight of the equipment for working on ground targets is much higher, than their universal counterparts. At the same time, the Su-30SM cost $30 million+, and the Su-35S cost only $35 million. Therefore, it is not surprising that when choosing “which aircraft to build” to increase the strike capabilities of the Russian Armed Forces, the choice clearly fell on the Su-34M. . . Although in the comments on VO many advocated for the Su-30SM2. Not realizing that the engines, avionics and radar from the Su-35S, Su-30SM2 will cost more than the Su-35S itself! Simply because it has a slightly more complex airframe (PGO), a two-seat cabin (and this is a lot) and in general provides for a much higher degree of versatility (SLA, SOFT). At the same time, the Su-34M, despite the new composition of avionics and probably also new engines, will rise in price to a much lesser extent. Plus, a large order series will have a positive effect on its cost.
As for the rest... It is urgent to launch into series (I hope this has already been done, because there were reports about that, but without details) of the MiG-35S, because there are two factories where they can be produced, the lines and rates/volumes of their production have been prepared with the right approach can beat the total volumes of Sukhoi Design Bureau plants. And here we are no longer talking about specialization (the MiG-35S is multifunctional), but about the possibilities of industry, without compromising the production of Su-57, Su-35S\SM, Su-30SM2 and Su-34M, to provide dozens of medium-weight MFIs to the troops with AFAR and excellent performance characteristics. In terms of functionality, when performing specific tasks on a theater of operations, it will not be inferior to other MFIs, and perhaps even surpass it in some ways, while the cost of its operation is 1,5 times lower than that of heavy vehicles. This whole set of advantages and advantages (cheaper operation, less capriciousness to basing conditions with approximately equal combat capabilities for 70 - 80% of combat missions) indicates the need to order and build from 300 to 500 such vehicles (conventionally, 10 full-strength regimental sets - 3 each -4 squadrons each). I am sure that such machines are urgently needed by many of our allies and partners. Our production capacities must be developed so much that without much delay we can re-equip the air forces of friendly countries in the shortest possible time.
There will be orders. And all the costs of such a production deployment will pay off.
About the Su-57 and its two-seat version.
Of course, the best solution would be to follow the path of the MiG-35S developers, when a single airframe without any changes can be equipped with single and double cabins. But the Sukhoi Design Bureau went its own way, despite India’s insistent requests to make a two-seater cabin... And lost the anchor customer for 200-300 aircraft. Now, I don’t think it’s worth rushing out and making a modification with a tandem cabin... It's no longer worth it... Tandem.
But a two-seater cabin modeled after the Su-34 cabin is worth it.
Not only for the MFI fighter, but for the MPA attack aircraft (and not only). The enlarged Su-57 airframe with a wide cabin will provide sufficient comfort and convenience to the crew (ergonomics are important), and a wider and “deep” weapons bay will allow it to carry two hypersonic anti-ship missiles. And in the wing flaps near the wall of the air intakes there are two RVV SD (or 2 RVV SD + 2 RVV MD). The engine for such a modification could well be the Izdeliye-30, but the promising R-579V-300 would be better. Its characteristics will make it possible to obtain an MPA strike aircraft and a “medium missile-carrying bomber” with a range and capabilities higher than that of the Tu-22M3 (in the missile-carrying version, of course). In addition, he will also be able to stand up for himself. At its base (if necessary and later) it will be possible to make a heavy long-range escort fighter. In the USSR they dreamed of this - to escort Strategic Aviation aircraft.
But today there can only be work on such an aircraft - it is more important to launch the Su-57 into wide production.
And the Yak-130M should be launched into production as a light attack aircraft (the Su-25\39 would be much better, but this is no longer possible) and let it carry the UPAB with the UMPC, processing the front edge. This will relieve some of the Su-34 for more complex and important tasks.

[JD1979]

Quote: bayard

Absolutely right. This is especially important in wartime conditions or in conditions of a military threat. So, with the beginning of the Northern Military District, the RF Ministry of Defense was faced with the “unexpected fact” that a war requires the massive use of aviation. That it is necessary to periodically rotate air regiments for pilots to rest

Completely false. Precisely because the Aerospace Forces has assembled a zoo of a couple of normal machines and a bunch of useless ones, and the situation has arisen that highly specialized machines and their pilots sit on the ground and do nothing, while the pilots of normal machines work their butts off - there are few of them and there is no one to replace them.

Quote: bayard

At the same time, the Su-30SM cost $30 million+, and the Su-35S cost only $35 million. Therefore, it is not surprising that when choosing “which aircraft to build” to increase the strike capabilities of the Russian Armed Forces, the choice clearly fell on the Su-34M

Because someone absolutely doesn’t care about aviation. Ordering absolute garbage))) The most idiotic aircraft of the 21st century, built on the principles of the middle of the past.

Quote: bayard

it is necessary to urgently launch into series (I hope this has already been done, because there were reports about it, but without details) MiG-35S

I hope this will never happen - and those who drown for this will be quietly sent to... retirement, remember the past and not talk nonsense.

Quote: bayard

And the Yak-130M should be launched into production as a light attack aircraft

I would really like you to personally fly on it for an attack))) before the first MANPADS. Maybe then my brain will start working.

[bayard]

Quote: JD1979

Sioux 34M

The most idiotic aircraft of the 21st century, built on the principles of the middle of the past.

That’s why this “anachronism” takes out the entire North Military District on itself. And how many crews its armored cabin saved, and the armoring of the fuselage prevented the loss of aircraft. If Ahura-Mazda hadn’t brought us, they would have listened to smart guys like you and ordered the multifunctional Su-34 instead of the Su-30. The losses would seem to be many times greater.

Quote: JD1979

VKS has assembled a zoo of a couple of normal machines and a bunch of useless ones

They came to their senses after the Five-Day War, rushed to order, but the developers didn’t have any new models - the market didn’t decide. So they began to hastily order what they had, including export modifications of the Su-30M2. Because for the five-day war, combat-ready aircraft were assembled throughout the country, one at a time. Even from the Far East.
So they began to buy everything they could. And the Su-34 also went into service with avionics in the early 90s. It was modernized during production.

Quote: JD1979

and a situation has arisen that highly specialized vehicles and their pilots are sitting on the ground and kicking ass,

Are you talking about the Su-24M2? So it’s time to write them off long ago, but the “would” won’t let me. Sending them on missions now will result in losses. They don’t have armor... so despised by you. And new weapons systems cannot be adapted to them. And no one will start modernization before decommissioning. In addition, the warehouses have already run out of AL-21Fs, so they are holding on to the remaining service life and engine repairs.

Quote: JD1979

There are few of them and there is no one to replace them.

That’s why the order for the Su-34M has been increased; who else will replace the front-line bombers?

Quote: JD1979

MiG-35S

I hope this will never happen - and those who drown for this will be quietly sent to... retirement, remember the past and not talk nonsense.

Young man, we have TWO aircraft factories with lines ready for the production of the MiG-35S (or the latest modifications of the MiG-29). Are you suggesting that they stand idle during the war and the shortage of aircraft? Or “modernization of production” and restructuring of production lines, replacement of equipment and development of a new technical process, would you suggest?
At whose expense ?
By what date?
With what result?
These two factories are capable of producing from 50 to 100 aircraft per year. The plane is good and can quickly fill new fighter regiments. It is multifunctional, therefore it is more preferable for striking ground targets than the Su-35S or Su-30SM.
Why
It can afford a higher coefficient of combat stress, is less demanding of basing conditions, can take off from road sections, and even from prepared dirt strips. And its operation costs 1,5 times less than that of heavy machines.
Or do you desire the imminent appearance of the Su-75?
It definitely won't happen soon. It’s not even in metal yet. Neither static tests have been passed, nor the first take-off, nor a suitable engine (AL-41F-1S for the first stage, this is a so-so solution). Even if it appears and takes off, it will be tested and refined for another 10 years... And the VKS all these years without LFMI? On some heavy ones?? This entire period - until the arrival of the Su-75 - those same 10 - 15 years, the MiG-35S will serve the Motherland. And a new single-engine and unified one will appear - rearm/retrain the LFMI regiments, and the MiG-35S themselves can either be put into reserve (young) or supplied to partners/allies - this is normal.
Nonsense... Moreover, hopeless nonsense, there was a bet on heavy MFIs alone. And for stupidity, Life always hits you hard with Practice. Here it has arrived. Here comes the realization.
Our factories simply physically cannot satisfy and saturate new air regiments in a short time with heavy aircraft of the SU brand. But we still need to bring the existing ones to a sane numerical strength, moving to a three- and / or four-squadron composition. So the MiG-35S will come in handy here. There is simply no other alternative.

Quote: JD1979

Quote: bayard
And the Yak-130M should be launched into production as a light attack aircraft

I would really like you to personally fly on it for an attack))) before the first MANPADS. Maybe then my brain will start working.

Oops ... , yes, you’re not even talking about booking???
So on the Su-34 you were hindered by armor, but then suddenly you needed it on an attack aircraft? And how can we understand such twists of consciousness?
Without knowledge of the subject and the capabilities of industry, judging such things is just public stupidity.
We have less than 200 Su-25SM left in service. They are already old, although they have been modernized. And the best solution would be to organize the production of their modernized version. The Army Aviation wanted this, and its allies/partners asked... Lukashenko even proposed organizing the production of the Su-25 in Belarus, with the help of Russian enterprises... But in the current realities, this is hardly possible. But a light and cheap attack aircraft is needed. Because there should be a lot of them, but the few remaining of us are knocking out the last resource. And since the Su-25 is not possible, then an alternative is needed - light, cheap, with short inter-flight training, capable of performing many sorties in a row for a long time. There is only one candidate - the Yak-130M. With engines increased in power by 25%, costing 7 - 8 million dollars. and is in serial production. That is, production can begin right now.
The key point is right now, because the resource of the Su-25 is not endless. And there are few of them.

Quote: JD1979

before the first MANPADS

In order not to fall under MANPADS, there are already UPAB-250, UPAB-500, and soon they promise UPAB-100 - with UMPC. They won’t send him with NURS to iron the trenches. Even the Su-25 now only approaches this from a pitching up position. So, these light attack aircraft will provide high combat tension (providing a large number of combat sorties over a given time) in a specific theater of operations. They will charge two tons per flight. And this is 4 UPAB-500 or as many as 8 UPAB-250... and if you count UPAB-100... there would be enough space on the hangers.
The Yak-130M as an attack aircraft is an opportunity for a quick and cost-effective solution to the issue in the current conflict.

Quote: JD1979

remember the past and not talk nonsense.

And yes, Dima, apart from stupidity and bile, you have nothing reasonable/sane/useful... didn't offer. So - empty ringing with drops of bile. And of course - stupidity.

[Comet]

Quote: bayard

we have TWO aircraft factories with lines ready for the production of MiG-35S (or MiG-29 of the latest modifications)

There is no radar for it. SCHAR no longer suits anyone.

Quote: bayard

And its operation costs 1,5 times less than that of heavy machines

Hmm.. Are there any known calculations that confirm this?

[bayard]

Quote: Comet

There is no radar for it. SCHAR no longer suits anyone.

I'm talking about AFAR, which has been ready for 2-3 years already. I know about the sabotage with the closure of the developer, the issue is being resolved, it took more than 1,5 years for this to happen. As a last resort, the Belka, truncated in terms of the number of modules, can stand up.

Quote: Comet

Hmm.. Are there any known calculations that confirm this?

The results of these calculations are known.
The engines have a service life of 4000 hours, do not smoke, plasma ignition. And they consume 1,5 times less fuel than heavy ones. For the other systems, everything is fine too - this is exactly what we worked hard on - on greater resource and ease of maintenance. Compared to previous MiG-29s, labor costs for maintenance were reduced by 4 times. Normal plane. And it can/should be launched in a large series right now. This is the only way to quickly increase the number of military aviation of the Aerospace Forces. Any other decisions are wrong and in conditions of war/military threat can be classified as Treason, Sabotage, Sabotage and subversion.

Remember all the complaints that were made against the MiG-29. All of them have been eliminated. The radius is sufficient, the radar is AFAR, the engines do not smoke, are more powerful and have a service life no lower/higher than the AL-41F-1S. And this is an MFI, which is very good for striking the ground and surface enemies (there are several types of anti-ship missiles in the arsenal). What else is needed for happiness?
Two factories with at least a regimental complement per year. If they try very hard, then after some time - up to two regimental sets per year. Normal, full-fledged regimental sets of 3-4 squadrons, and not the current ones cut to 24 pieces. in a regiment... like in an American squadron! We will arm our allies.
With AFAR and new explosive missiles, it and the F-35 with Rafale will be a worthy opponent. All operators\former operators of the MiG-29 already have all\almost all the infrastructure to service them.
During WWII, Germany fought the entire war on Messers and Focke-Wulfs, and we on Yaks and La, not because we didn’t have anything better (we did!), but because the industry could produce these machines massively In war, mass production is necessary. What the Industry can do without much restructuring of existing technical processes.

[JD1979]

"Many letters - little meaning"....

Quote: bayard

That’s why this “anachronism” takes out the entire North Military District on itself. And how many crews its armored cabin saved, and the armoring of the fuselage prevented the loss of aircraft. If Ahura-Mazda hadn’t brought us, they would have listened to smart guys like you and ordered the multifunctional Su-34 instead of the Su-30. The losses would seem to be many times greater.

Seriously? Just like that, all of it? Lying is not good boy))) Especially to yourself. This “donkey” carries exclusively its 39 tons of heavy weight along with fuel and 1 ton of combat load in the form of 2x 500k from the wing, and then to the front end and back very quickly. And since this bad machine is absolutely defenseless against everything, so that it would not be shot down on every flight, others on the universal Su-35 and Su-30SM worked tirelessly so that this donkey could safely drop its bombs.))) And something 2nd place after the Su-25 is not helped much by the armor, they shoot it down. And the pilots die. They probably forgot to tell you))) that all this armor only works against MANPADS or fire from hand weapons from the ground, and if something normal arrives, then that there is armor, that there is none. May 12 Did armor help EMNIM? Su-34 and Su-35 and helicopters were equally grounded. Can you justify your words about significantly greater losses or are you shaking the air?)

Quote: bayard

They came to their senses after the Five-Day War, rushed to order, but there were no new models

Again nonsense... A lot of years have already passed since that moment. Even since 2014, it was possible to significantly increase the production of Su-35 and Su-30SM and forget about everything else, because it is useless in the conditions of even such air defense as exists in/in Ukraine now. And the super-new Su-34 is absolutely the same as the Su-25, Su-24 and its production wasted money - from spending on the aircraft itself with its subsequent maintenance, to spending on pilot training.

Quote: bayard

Are you talking about the Su-24M2?

No, I’m talking about everything except the Su-35, Su-57 and Su-30SM, although the latter is inaccurate)

Quote: bayard

That’s why the order for the Su-34M has been increased; who else will replace the front-line bombers?

That’s why... I’m already tired of writing about nonsense in aviation... And who should change... World statistics and experience will help you. Such garbage as attack aircraft with ancient FABs and NARs remains only in Russia, the rest value their money and the lives of highly qualified and very expensive specialists - pilots.

Quote: bayard

Young man, we have TWO aircraft factories with lines ready for production of the MiG-35S

Young man, don’t talk nonsense, it hurts. When they say they stand, it actually turns out there are walls and a roof; it’s not always about the roof. Suppose I take your word for it and there really are workshops with all the equipment for... ASSEMBLY. You’re not going to tell me now that airplanes are actually produced in the assembly shop?))) And your people there are also sitting at a low start? Prepared and ready to start right now? And who paid them their salary all this time without work? ))) Well, now for the sweet stuff)) Can all the manufacturers of every part on the plane produce enough of them to be enough for 50-100 cars, including engines? Or did someone lie a little here? Something tells me that a maximum of 2-3 cars per year. Therefore, there is no need to fill it here. Mig-29(35) RIP time is lost, the kidneys have failed, mineral water will not help. And thank the eggs in the Moscow Region they understand this. Therefore, no movements are being made in this direction.

Quote: bayard

Oops... but you didn’t even talk about booking???
So on the Su-34 you were hindered by armor, but then suddenly you needed it on an attack aircraft? And how can we understand such twists of consciousness?

Oops, you got your finger in the same place again))) I started talking again about the fact that the new, newest, BEST, training Su-130 has on board... divine NOTHING. Nothing that would allow the pilot to use anything other than his eyes to detect targets))) And therefore, everything that he can use, again oops - NARs and FABs)) Oh, and he also has no protection except for “flares”, which are not They work from the word absolutely. And so how are you flying?)))

Quote: bayard

In order not to fall under MANPADS, there are already UPAB-250, UPAB-500, and soon they promise UPAB-100 - with UMPC. They won’t send him with NURS to iron the trenches

Exactly what NARami))) It’s the trenches))) He’s not capable of more. Well, here's an urgent question. Why then ARMOR, if normal weapons allow you not to enter the range of MANPADS and MZA, but they still don’t work against large V-V missiles and air defense systems?)))) Is the logic broken?)))

Quote: bayard

The Yak-130M as an attack aircraft is an opportunity for a quick and cost-effective solution to the issue in the current conflict.

Again, fantasies))) Firstly, there are no more powerful engines, no project to create an attack aircraft, or even intentions to do something with it. So where did you get the idea that it’s FAST and CHEAP))

Quote: bayard

And yes, Dima, apart from stupidity and bile, you... didn’t offer anything reasonable/sane/useful. So - an empty ringing with drops of bile. And of course - stupidity.

You suggested NOTHING at all that could REALLY be done))) Except stupidity) And the sarcasm comes from the fact that all the solutions have been KNOWN for a long time, tested and evaluated. But... we need to go our own way over rakes and corpses. They didn’t write only about the divine-analogues-no SPV-24 HEPHAESTUS))) About which, after 24.02.2022/10/XNUMX, the Moscow Region and all propaganda channels and bloggers are silent with their tongues stuck in))) They are probably afraid that if they stutter, then this Hephaestus will be thrust into them to the fullest interface connectors))) But now about the planning batteries, which previously also zealously smeared (because they are American) in opposition to Hephaestus (because OUR) sing like nightingales))) Well, yes, this is different, you don’t understand))) And when smart people said that this Hephaestus of yours only works against the Bedouins, they threw crap at me. As a result, history has again shown head on that your path is often short and painful and we have FABs with UMPC) And recently we discovered America again for the XNUMXth time, this time using an AWACS aircraft in conjunction with air defense, which the rest of the world has been using for a long time ( well, those who claim leadership) and were very surprised how well it turns out to work. I wonder how many more wonderful RE-DISCOVERIES we will see)

[Sergey Valov]

“We have TWO aircraft factories with lines ready for the production of the MiG-35S (or MiG-29 of the latest modifications” - one in Lukhovitsy. And where is the second?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

That's like any engineer and I say that you are absolutely wrong. Economical and fewer functions does not mean more reliable and useful. Increasing design complexity, as a rule, leads to a reduction in loads on individual elements and reliability increases. Just like adding functions, it often increases the survivability of the product and its usefulness in general.
An abstract example, off topic, can be considered using the example of a car. The more complex fuel injection system, compared to a carburetor, increased both the vehicle's utility and reliability. Likewise, a 16-valve engine runs quieter and more smoothly than an 8-valve engine.
There are, of course, extra functions like an exhaust catalyst. But airbags seem to be an extra feature, but they increase safety significantly.
Many mythical, seemingly folk, wisdoms are not wisdom, but on the contrary, they are nonsense.

[Passing]

It is an extremely controversial statement that narrow specialization is more effective for the military field. In production, we can artificially isolate processes and already there, in static conditions, use highly specialized devices super-efficiently. In war, this is sometimes impossible, this is a complex task where everything is interdependent, and some multifunctionality may even be fundamentally more important, albeit formally and more expensive, because it will ensure the completion of the task, but a set of highly specialized devices does not. In one case there is victory, in the other there is defeat. But this is not an axiom. It all depends on the specifics. IMHO, it is incorrect to directly translate industrial practice to a completely different level system.
As for reliability, the thesis that the simpler the better is also not entirely true. In a global sense, everything is exactly the opposite.

[Rome]

In war it’s like in business: “demand creates supply”
When you need to regularly use, for example, 500 strike vehicles (200 at the front, 200 at rest on rotation and 100 compensation for losses, and compensation for losses is constantly needed!) And there are constant battles in the air, to cover strikers, and you constantly need to keep air defense at the front, for example also 200 machines and constantly compensate for losses, then the production of two specialized machines will be much more efficient, since each of them is cheaper than a universal one and most likely will be more effective in its specialization!
But in low-intensity battles, universal vehicles are more profitable, because in the event of an enemy raid, you can deploy more fighters, or, in the absence of an air threat, concentrate on strike missions with all aircraft.
In fact, aviation needs fighters capable of operating on the ground, albeit with somewhat reduced capabilities (station wagons) and inexpensive specialized attack vehicles, there are always not enough of them

[Vladimir_2U]

The author seems a little confused. Because what the author offers are functionally stripped-down versions of universal machines, and not highly specialized machines at all.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

The author proposes functionally stripped-down versions of universal machines, and not highly specialized machines.

Or maybe we are in vain reproaching the author for this? "Stripped" versions of multifunctional machines are the use of "common" components and assemblies, materials; which can facilitate the production of different modifications at the same plant(s), rapid modernization and the emergence of new modifications... and possibly cheaper production of both multifunctional and “highly specialized” samples!

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

Or maybe we are in vain reproaching the author for this?

I don't blame.

[JD1979]

There will be no acceleration or reduction in cost. There will be wasted money and resources and a bunch of useless junk that can only be used as targets for training air defense crews. The production of such a stripped-down aircraft is not much faster than a full-fledged one, and if it is also modernized to a normal one, then the price and time will increase almost twice as compared to the production of a normal aircraft at once (taking into account the development of the modernization project(s), approvals, tests and other things).

[ism_ek]

There is another problem with multifunctionality - it is a long training for the pilot. Even if we persist and increase aircraft production 10 times, where will we find pilots? What to do with those who want to escape to the west?
The history of manned combat aviation has come to an end. Yes, to drop bombs from the UMPC, manned aircraft are still needed, but “plywood biplanes” are enough here.

[Dutchman Michel]

Quote: ism_ek

There is another problem with multifunctionality - it is a long training for the pilot

Any multifunctionality is a myth and a waste of money

[KCA]

Now you are writing from a computer or smartphone, you can simultaneously launch a game and watch a movie, a myth and you wasted your money?

[ism_ek]

Quote: KCA

Now you are writing from a computer or smartphone,

Smartphone and computer, you buy for a lot. And everything that flies over the LBS with the current development of air defense systems automatically becomes consumable.
A conscript going into the army will most likely take a push-button telephone, because his smartphone will be taken away from him on the very first day.

[KCA]

Why fly beyond the LBS with modern technology development? Missiles, gliding bombs, even SU-25 and helicopters make 3-5 sorties every day, they don’t look like consumables, consumables are NURS for them

[ism_ek]

Quote: KCA

every day 3-5 flights

it's just not about anything. During the Second World War, attack aircraft flew several thousand sorties per day during the offensive. And they bombed not only the battlefield, but also junction stations, bridges 100...200 km deep

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

When the BMP was able to combine a gun sight and an ATGM, making the sight multifunctional and getting rid of the additional metal box, was it a waste of money?

[Vladimir80]

Potentially, the most “economically profitable” carriers of aerial bombs with UMPC can be

If we are talking about economic benefits, then we need to learn from the Americans - for more than 100 years they have been boosting the economy through wars in other (!) countries. And if we are talking about economic benefits in the style of our Finnish owners (Elli, Antoshi and Denis), then it is more profitable to sell aircraft factories for scrap metal, sit on an oil pipeline and wait until we “replace all imports” with Central Asian guest workers.
P.S. Air bombs with umpk are not a panacea or a wunderwaffe, but only a consequence of the lack of normal long-range and accurate MLRS.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Guest workers have never been profitable, and never will be. They convert the money they receive into foreign currency and take it back to their homeland. And those who attract guest workers face a classic crisis of overproduction. Local money is exactly the same as what the migrant workers brought in, and there are not enough funds to purchase the product produced. That is, in fact, we have low-access housing and cars.
Foreign tourism produces a similar effect. The currency leaves the country and is not spent inside. But in “smart” books from English authors, foreign tourism is advertised openly or covertly.

[parusnik]

Russian Defense Ministry, it’s high time to pay attention to the author’s articles. Did they hire you for work?

[Dutchman Michel]

I would like to draw the attention of the respected VO public that a fighter-bomber in Ukrainian will be: vinishuvach-bomber

[Alex 1970]

How simple is it and why didn’t anyone think of this before this article? In Zen they write the same garbage under the headings: “The secret of the old Jew”, “Taught by the old plumber”, etc., it seems that an old Jewish plumber from the market wrote here.

[Feodor13]

Two processes: renovation of stored (somewhere and somehow) Mig-25,29,31 ..
and the creation of a heavy UAV with a bomb-throwing function...
- will not differ much in time.

Reactivate and prepare the aircraft; this is not the T-62 to use as artillery.
And the “Hunter” is already on its way, and its modifications are probably already being studied.

Therefore, the introduction of out-of-service aircraft into the Northern Military District is a solution... doubtful.
Although maybe someone here can calculate the time frame for both processes.

[svp67]

At the same time, the Su-34 and Su-35S, freed from routine tasks, will put pressure on Ukrainian air defense and aviation

And where is the place for numerous Su-30s?????

[Yuras_Belarus]

But I’m confused in the classification, for example, of airplanes. In the Anglo-American system, everything is clear almost immediately: F - fighter (fighter), FB - fighter-bomber (fighter-bomber), B - bomber (bomber), A - attacker (attack aircraft), C - cargo (transport) and so on Further. The numbers respectively show which of the aircraft was sooner or later put into service, and not created at home. And here the devil himself will break his leg.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Yuras_Belarus

In the Anglo-American system, everything is clear almost immediately: F - fighter (fighter), FB - fighter-bomber (fighter-bomber), B - bomber (bomber), A - attacker (attack aircraft), C - cargo (transport) and so on Further.

Somewhere far away, F-111 and F-117 are trying in vain to find signs of a fighter. Next to them, the F-10 fighter that is replacing the A-35 is thoughtfully scratching its head, trying to find the letter A in its name.

Quote: Yuras_Belarus

And here the devil himself will break his leg.

He-he-he... with our classification you can break your head even within the same family. For example, the current Su-30 tree or the Soviet MiG-23/27 tree (with all sorts of transitional MiG-23B and BN).

[Vladimir80]

Quote: Feodor13

And "Hunter" is already on its way

Yeah, we just have to live to see this happy future, and then we’ll give them a whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...

[JD1979]

Delirium on delirium, delirium drives. How is this garbage moderated?

[bk0010]

Oh, author...

For example, what percentage of the cost of the Su-35S is its powerful radar and other avionics elements?

The Su-24's sighting and navigation system accounted for a third of the price. Due to the transition to PAR/AFAR, I think that now it is at least half.

Why have we returned to the topic of UMPC bomb carriers?
Yes, because this task will be very, very in demand in the foreseeable future.

I think not: now they will add the old cast iron, and the new one will be made immediately adjustable and with an accelerator.

Formally, the MiG-23 could operate against ground targets, and the MiG-27 against air targets, but in fact it is enough to compare the range of ammunition of these aircraft to understand how much the capabilities of the MiG-27 in terms of hitting ground targets exceeded those of the MiG-23, and as for the conquest air supremacy, the MiG-27 did not have a radar station (radar), which clearly did not allow it to be used to solve this problem.

Wow! This is the whole point: previously, radar did not allow operation on the ground and in the air at the same time. Therefore, fighters could operate on the ground with unguided ammunition (bombs, NURS). This is a fighter-bomber concept. They did it poorly: they smeared because of the high speeds. Or they were equipped with something like the Kaira, which made it possible to operate with guided ammunition, but sharply raised the price, which made the aircraft uncompetitive compared to a normal bomber. That's why they got rid of fighter-bombers (no, the F-15E is not a fighter-bomber). Then fighters were equipped with more advanced radars, which were useful not only for gaining air supremacy, but also for working on the ground. And optical systems (for the Mig-29 it was the main one, and the radar was auxiliary). Modern strike fighters appeared. It is impossible to build fighters with a simplified radar: they can easily be killed by fighters with a normal radar, as was shown in 1982 in Syria.

And this can be done through the production of relatively inexpensive, highly specialized samples of military equipment

They can only work in ideal conditions, otherwise they will be killed. They will have to organize escorts like aircraft carriers, but are they worth it? Won't they be fat?

[SovAr238A]

Quote: bk0010

Oh, author...

For example, what percentage of the cost of the Su-35S is its powerful radar and other avionics elements?

The Su-24's sighting and navigation system accounted for a third of the price. Due to the transition to PAR/AFAR, I think that now it is at least half.

Why have we returned to the topic of UMPC bomb carriers?
Yes, because this task will be very, very in demand in the foreseeable future.

I think not: now they will add the old cast iron, and the new one will be made immediately adjustable and with an accelerator.

Formally, the MiG-23 could operate against ground targets, and the MiG-27 against air targets, but in fact it is enough to compare the range of ammunition of these aircraft to understand how much the capabilities of the MiG-27 in terms of hitting ground targets exceeded those of the MiG-23, and as for the conquest air supremacy, the MiG-27 did not have a radar station (radar), which clearly did not allow it to be used to solve this problem.

Wow! This is the whole point: previously, radar did not allow operation on the ground and in the air at the same time. Therefore, fighters could operate on the ground with unguided ammunition (bombs, NURS). This is a fighter-bomber concept. They did it poorly: they smeared because of the high speeds. Or they were equipped with something like the Kaira, which made it possible to operate with guided ammunition, but sharply raised the price, which made the aircraft uncompetitive compared to a normal bomber. That's why they got rid of fighter-bombers (no, the F-15E is not a fighter-bomber). Then fighters were equipped with more advanced radars, which were useful not only for gaining air supremacy, but also for working on the ground. And optical systems (for the Mig-29 it was the main one, and the radar was auxiliary). Modern strike fighters appeared. It is impossible to build fighters with a simplified radar: they can easily be killed by fighters with a normal radar, as was shown in 1982 in Syria.

And this can be done through the production of relatively inexpensive, highly specialized samples of military equipment

They can only work in ideal conditions, otherwise they will be killed. They will have to organize escorts like aircraft carriers, but are they worth it? Won't they be fat?

Isn't the F/A-18 with numerous variations an example of an ideal multi-functionality?
Only we did it poorly, because the element base and algorithms were not good

[Comet]

Quote: SovAr238A

Isn't the F/A-18 with numerous variations an example of an ideal multi-functionality?

Of course not! As an interceptor, this plane is no good.

[bone1]

What is a highly specialized aircraft like? - it can’t take off or land?

[storm]

the concept of multifunctionality also affected ground combat vehicles; of course, “anti-aircraft tanks” have not yet appeared,

The T-80BVM has already been equipped with an electronic warfare station to combat UAVs; there is only one step left before installing mini-missiles and canisters against Kamikaze UAVs.

[FRoman1984]

Why produce some simplified Su-35U if there are enough old Su-27s? And there are hundreds of MiG-29s.

[Conjurer]

However, the number of multifunctional combat vehicles will always be limited, since their complexity and cost will only increase over time...

That is, one Su-35 type (universal) vehicle will become more and more expensive than a pair of special Su-34 and Mig-31 types. The author makes a bold statement.
Multifunctionality, in general, appears when it becomes possible to combine the functions of two different objects and get benefits. Not before. This is true in all technology, both military and civilian.
In wartime, they simplify equipment when production fails to compensate for its losses, and the required quantity is squeezed out by simplification even with a deterioration in properties, because the alternative is clear. And the very concept of cost reduction is interpreted as a reduction in the labor intensity of production with only one goal - to increase the quantity produced. That is, it’s not about the money, but about the number of pieces.
And in peacetime, an increase in the amount of equipment due to specialization leads to an increase in the costs of its maintenance and maintenance of serviceability, plus an increased price of products, all other things being equal, due to a decrease in serial production. That is why the versatility of military equipment is constantly increasing, especially in peacetime.

[Sergey Valov]

Unfortunately, you have everything mixed up in one pile.
“combine the functions of two different objects and get benefits at the same time” - absolutely true.
“both in the military and in the civilian” - not so. Requirements for military and civilian equipment often do not coincide. For civilians, efficiency and benefits dominate; for the military, the ability to complete the task comes first.
“Cost reduction is interpreted as a reduction in the labor intensity of production.” - absolutely true.
“in peacetime, an increase in the amount of equipment due to specialization leads to an increase in the cost of its maintenance.” - No. Specialization does not necessarily increase quantity. As an example, if the Air Force needs 100 interceptors and 100 attack aircraft at the same time, then in any case it will have to maintain 200 aircraft.
“the versatility of military equipment is constantly increasing, especially in peacetime” - no. No one creates military equipment for peacetime, it is created for war, taking into account the most diverse options for combat use.

[SovAr238A]

To simplify work on the ground with a large number of launches, systems for dropping dozens of missiles from a conventional military transport aircraft have long been invented.
And even simplified “I-B” are not needed for this.
Standard "VTA", dropping dozens of missiles, using standard and universal containers, simply redesigned to accommodate dozens of standard missiles.
The Americans call this system “Fast Dragon”.

[maximace]

Quote: Bad_gr

Quote from maximace

Russian S300 missiles are invulnerable. They have never been able to intercept them and are the only ones used to hit civilian targets.

So ask yourself the question why Ukrainian air defenses even shoot down Iskander hypersonic missiles (if you believe the same Ukrainians), but for some reason they cannot shoot down an air defense missile from the S-300 complex.
And the second question is, why use an expensive missile to strike a residential building, when any other cruise missile would cope with a similar task much better and would fly more accurately, at a strategically important target, and not at someone’s apartment.

This is what I am writing about. The author writes garbage.

[Tank destroyerSU-100]

Multifunctionality is a regurgitation of the theory that we will fight exclusively with the notorious “international terrorism,” when they thought that a handful of multifunctional vehicles would perform all the tasks in the fight against tramps in flip-flops with AKMs and RPGs at the ready. And as soon as they encountered a more or less modern army, the notorious multifunctionality did not work. It turns out that “the reaper, the Swede, and the player on the pipe” are too valuable, and their numbers are scanty.
After all, why did the Su-24 and Su-25 appear in due time? Yes, because the conflicts showed that the Su-7b, which imagined that it would bomb a little, destroy a little, all in one bottle, did not show effectiveness either there or there. To bomb, 2,5 tons of load is not enough, but to destroy it, the REO is not strong enough and the air-to-air weapons are a bit thin. And the adversary, look, A-4, A-6, A-7 - specialized attack aircraft, and even armored ones. And also the F-105, which is a more ground-attack aircraft than a fighter.
And the sweet couple F-15, F-16 was positioned as an air superiority aircraft (F-15) and a ground support aircraft (F-16). Then, of course, both aircraft began to be multifunctional.
But that's after.
Why did they switch from the MIG-23BN, a fighter-bomber, to the MiG-27? Because the targeting and navigation systems turned out to be insufficient to, again, bomb a little, destroy a little. The MiG-27 was already designed purely for ground attack missions.
Therefore, a return to aircraft with highly specialized functionality is inevitable.