Military Review

Financial Times on Russian aircraft and air defense systems

98
Now in France is already the fiftieth international air show Le Bourget. Leading aircraft building companies present their latest developments, and potential customers familiarize themselves with the goods offered and choose the right one. As always happens in such cases, it does not do without comparing this or that technique. Perhaps the most original comparison was made by the Financial Times publication, which did not become confined to the characteristics of Russian and American aircraft alone and expanded the scope of the issue in accordance with the actual situation.




Probably one of the reasons for this was the fact that Russian and American fighters of the latest models have never met in air battles. Their competition, as noted by the author of the publication in the Financial Times, takes place exclusively on aviation exhibitions. For this reason, it is very difficult to determine which winged aircraft is better than others. In addition, all countries are systematically promoting their products and, as expected, praise them. In support of this thesis, the publication cites the words of a representative of the Sukhoi company, expressed at the MAKS-2011 aviation salon. He bluntly stated that it is impossible to find a better aircraft than the Su-27, and therefore for air combat, if his life depended on it, he would have chosen this particular aircraft.

Since the end of the Cold War, Russia and the United States dominate the market for combat aircraft. Competing among themselves, they strive to demonstrate the advantages of their technology. For example, American manufacturers actively use in advertising high characteristics of electronic equipment and guided weapons. Russian, in turn, advertise their equipment by demonstrating high flight data: maneuverability and thrust-to-weight ratio. Thus, the American aircraft manufacturers are pushing for the advantages of their fighters in long-range rocket combat, and Russian - for high potential in battles at short distances.

In the context of the advantages of aircraft in certain conditions, the Financial Times cites the words of the director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST) R. Pukhov. In his opinion, the times of “classic” air battles with maneuvering at short distances have already passed. In addition, over the past decades, Russian military aviation has significantly lagged behind the US in its characteristics and capabilities. Pukhov noted that such a trend began in the times of the Soviet Union and, as a result, led to a significant increase in the priority of anti-aircraft missile systems. The USSR and Russia understood and understand the importance of this problem, thanks to which the domestic air defense systems of the C-300 family, as well as the new C-400 complex, surpass all foreign analogues. The director of CAST has compared such a balance of aviation and air defense missile systems with boxing: if you have a weak right hand, then you need to train your left and compensate for the lag.



The high performance of the C-300 and C-400 anti-aircraft systems led to a real change in the “rules of the game” in the field of combat aircraft and air defense systems. This was facilitated by a high range of target destruction and the possibility of tracking and attacking several aircraft simultaneously. The author of the publication in the Financial Times notes that C-300 has become a real tool and object of international politics. In 2010, Western countries managed to convince Russia not to supply these complexes to Iran, and now similar negotiations are being held in connection with the supply of Syrian C-300. The West insists on the inadmissibility of the transfer of anti-aircraft systems, and Russia continues to talk about the full implementation of contractual obligations.

Thus, in addition to good aviation technology, Russia can offer a potential buyer and first-class means of protection against it, and this is a great commercial advantage. Another advantage of the Russian military equipment in the Financial Times is its price. So, airplanes that can compete with their American counterparts cost about a third less. With such a difference in price it is not difficult to predict the buyer's decision. Probably, the cost of airplanes and other military equipment became one of the main reasons for the fact that in recent years Russia has firmly retained second place in the ranking of the largest arms sellers, second only to the United States.

The main article of Russian aviation export is aircraft of various modifications belonging to the Su-27 family. Describing the merits and prospects of these aircraft, the author of the Financial Times, called them the precious stone in the crown of the United Aircraft Building Corporation. The Su-27 and Su-30 of various modifications will be replaced in the future by the Su-35 fighters, which are already supplied to the Russian Air Force and will soon begin to replenish the ranks of Chinese military aviation. Then the Russian aircraft manufacturers will complete the T-50 project, but this will happen later, since the new fifth-generation fighter is being tested.



Thus, from the article in the Financial Times it is possible to make quite clear and obvious conclusions. All planes, created or only developed by leading manufacturers, have their advantages and disadvantages. Moreover, the benefits can be both technical and economic. In addition, the lag in one area of ​​technology is often compensated for by breakthroughs in another. A striking example of this: a comparison of Russian and foreign aircraft, as well as anti-aircraft missile systems. Despite belonging to different classes of technology, fighters and air defense systems perform similar tasks and complement each other, which accordingly affects the combat capability of the armed forces.


On the materials of the sites:
http://ft.com/
http://inotv.rt.com/
Author:
98 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Sanamana
    Sanamana 20 June 2013 07: 27 New
    10
    A sober look, you don't read that often
    1. Mitek
      Mitek 20 June 2013 10: 33 New
      23
      Quote: Sanamana
      A sober look, you don't read that often

      Only one thing is not indicated, that only amers will have an advantage in long-range combat from amerovskih aircraft. For the "advantage" is, in my opinion, exaggerated, rests on an integrated approach to aviation. It is not the airplanes that are good, but the global complex of satellites, AWACS planes and the global system that links all this into a single whole. In a battle, aircraft against aircraft, in MY opinion, ours are stronger. And if the country buys our planes or amerovskie, there will be no difference in the event of a conflict with the same amers. Even if we ignore the "bookmarks", the end of the story will be one. Detection from Avax or satellite, guidance of their aircraft and target illumination. Remember the training battles of the American and like the Indians on our 1on1 planes. There sort of like a dry striped fight.
      1. cartridge
        cartridge 20 June 2013 11: 38 New
        37
        The Financial Times quoted R. Pukhov, director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST). In his opinion, the times of "classical" air battles with maneuvering at short distances have already passed.


        It is always puzzling why, for example, completely strangers to aviation, like, for example, a certain Pukhov who graduated in 1994 from MGIMO, never speak in the army or in aviation, talk about military aviation and its combat use with the appearance of an expert.
        It turns out as in the Krylov fable: "The trouble is, if the shoemaker starts the pies, and the cake-maker starts the boots."
        I would be credible for the opinion of a fighter pilot flying today on Sukhoi’s machines or an interview with an aviation commander or general from the Air Force Group, but how can a person who is not connected to military aviation talk about air combat? I have such people cause misunderstanding and rejection!
        Well, amateurs do not undertake to discuss, for example, how to properly conduct a heart operation. And in military affairs, even in such specific ones as aviation or air defense or nuclear weapons, he imagines himself a connoisseur of anyone, from the glamorous graduate of MGIMO to the foul-smelling migrant.
        In general, the interview given by Pukhov did not inspire confidence in me.
        This is a PR of a self-proclaimed fraud-pseudo-expert and nothing more!
        1. evgenii67
          evgenii67 20 June 2013 12: 05 New
          +8
          Hello everyone! There were times when our aviation achievements were ahead of the Western decade, what now? During the 90s, many factories were destroyed, redesigned to produce pots, valuable personnel were lost, training ... you know, in fact, the country was not able to train specialists, and in the 2000s a similar process was observed. Russia is not the USSR and not a superpower, and financially and militarily we compete with the United States request except that nuclear weapons! But not everything is lost, in our heads we still have the desire to be the first, working on ourselves, work for the homeland, so that everyone benefits.
          1. Botanologist
            Botanologist 20 June 2013 14: 17 New
            0
            Quote: evgenii67
            There were times when our aviation achievements were ahead of the Western decade, what now?


            Can you give me an example? From my service in 1984, Mig saw an American 70 km away, when he was already launching a rocket. Are you talking about "paper" machines?
            1. the polar
              the polar 20 June 2013 17: 42 New
              +2
              "From my service in 1984, Mig saw an American 70 km away, when he was already launching a rocket."
              -------------------------------------
              In how many battles took part, how many times were shot down?
              1. Botanologist
                Botanologist 20 June 2013 22: 53 New
                +1
                Quote: Polar
                In how many battles took part, how many times were shot down?


                Well, essentially there is something to say? Generally served in the Air Force soldier
          2. Black Colonel
            Black Colonel 21 June 2013 14: 45 New
            0
            When every screw included in the construction of a machine of Our State will strive to be high-quality (educated, trained, professional in its field), and at the same time realize that this machine should be the best (and always will be the best) of all machines, then we don’t there will be competitors in no field. Then US, which no one dares to humiliate! am am am
        2. evgenii67
          evgenii67 20 June 2013 12: 15 New
          0
          Quote: cartridge
          In general, the interview given by Pukhov did not inspire confidence in me.

          Well, I don’t know directly, in many ways I agree with him. So, for example, you can be a good coach without being a good footballer, I'm talking about Leonid Slutsky. You can say where does aviation and football, and besides, that aviation and medicine
          Quote: cartridge
          Well, amateurs do not undertake to discuss, for example, how to properly conduct heart surgery
          1. cartridge
            cartridge 20 June 2013 13: 17 New
            14
            And here is a quote from another today's material on "VO" on the same topic called "Su-35 fighter abolished the term" turning radius "- Chinese engineer"

            Tang Yangshi, the deputy chief engineer of the Chinese aircraft manufacturing corporation AVIC, expressed in an interview with the Global Times ...
            The Americans also understand the importance of close combat by equipping their F-22 and F-35 with guns, since in some cases only guns can be used to defeat an air enemy. Tan Yanshi said stealth and super-maneuverability are now the most important requirements for fighters.


            And what do you think is more competent: a high-ranking Chinese aviation specialist or a Moscow talker-grantee?
            1. evgenii67
              evgenii67 20 June 2013 13: 49 New
              -4
              Quote: cartridge
              And what do you think is more competent: a high-ranking Chinese aviation specialist or a Moscow talker-grantee?

              The fact that a Chinese is happy with the "acrobatics" of a Russian plane is so admired by the whole world and has long, the maneuverability of Russian / Soviet fighters, but in electronics we are godlessly behind too has long you can add a rhyme to the word FOR A LONG time that we have had electronics for a long time, in principle, like roads, cars, football and cinema (from KVN "SOCIAL ROCK OPERA", and we actually laugh at the truth, at ourselves) now and education has long been from 90 -x.
              1. the polar
                the polar 20 June 2013 18: 01 New
                11
                "but in electronics we are shamelessly lagging behind and also for a long time"
                --------------------------------------
                You see, it is advisable to prove such statements with facts, but they aren’t there yet, because Russian aviation after the Vietnam war was not tested in combat use anywhere.
                Only in real battles can the fighting qualities of vehicles be compared and evaluated. And as for "electronics", then yes, we are lagging behind in the production and development of microcircuits for consumer and industrial electronics, but in military electronics, which mainly works on matrices, ADCs and logic, we still provide a decent level. The high intellectual level of Russian military electronics is also ensured by excellent software.
                1. evgenii67
                  evgenii67 20 June 2013 19: 14 New
                  -7
                  Quote: Polar
                  You see, it is advisable to prove such statements with facts, but they aren’t there yet, because Russian aviation after the Vietnam war was not tested in combat use anywhere.
                  About how !!!!

                  The results of the air battles of the MiG-29 with the F-15 and F-16 during wars and conflicts

                  In the years 1975-76. 4th-generation F-16 and F-15 fighters began to enter the US arsenal. In the USSR, the MiG-29 (also being a 4th generation fighter) was adopted by the end of 1983.

                  During the Gulf War of 1991 and NATO operations against Yugoslavia in 1999, aerial combat of the MiG-29 against the F-16 and F-15 was noted.

                  According to official data from the United States and NATO, in the course of these wars and conflicts, a total of 15 MiG-16 fighters were destroyed by F-11 and F-29 fighters without loss on their part.

                  According to the official website of the Ministry of Defense of Serbia, Nebojša Ðukanović, who was the commander of 1999 squadron (flying the MiG-127) in 29, confirmed that 6 MiG-29s were lost in air battles.

                  Some aerial battles were publicly and in detail described by their direct participants (pilots) in documentary broadcasts
                  In addition, there were cases.
                  Quote: Polar
                  but in military electronics, which mainly works on matrices, ADCs and logic, we still provide a decent level.
                  And I see how thermal imagers are several times inferior to Western ones, or they work on an Amerskoy matrix, drones - there are no comments at all, but our electronics are the most electronic, perhaps somewhere there is excellent electronics for example Iskander, Su-35 ... ., but still not convincing yet.
                  1. Rus2012
                    Rus2012 20 June 2013 23: 30 New
                    +4
                    Quote: evgenii67
                    somewhere there is excellent electronics for example Iskander, Su-35 ....

                    ... namely Iskander, Su-35!
                    More precisely, the capabilities of the electronics, which are also a harmonious combination-coordination-optimization of aero-hydrodynamic processes. The dignity of some overlap with the capabilities of other elements and it turns out an unsurpassed thing beyond understanding!
                    "Necessity for invention is cunning" ...
                2. Rus2012
                  Rus2012 20 June 2013 23: 21 New
                  0
                  Quote: Polar
                  High intellectual level of Russian military electronics is also provided by excellent software.

                  ... and when the capabilities of "hardware" (hardware capabilities of electronics) are not enough, we take the "brainwashing savage logic" of software and algorithms ...
              2. badabing
                badabing 20 June 2013 19: 07 New
                +5
                military electronics have never been "long ago", here is a series of articles on this topic
                http://malchish.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=390&Itemid=33
                the fact that we don’t make our normal TVs is of course bad, but military science has always developed, I am absolutely convinced that if the "90s" happened in the states, the Americans would have perished long ago as a nation, and we are second in sales
                let's be objective, we also have problems, but if we learned to do something, then we will never be able to unlearn it
                Therefore, we are poisoned by all and sundry
              3. poquello
                poquello 20 June 2013 20: 56 New
                +3
                "but in electronics we are shamelessly lagging behind and we can also add rhyme to the word FOR LONG time"

                Precisely, precisely, in c300 sit highly trained monkeys providing guidance on the target.
                1. evgenii67
                  evgenii67 20 June 2013 21: 26 New
                  0
                  Quote: poquello
                  Precisely, precisely, in c300 sit highly trained monkeys providing guidance on the target.

                  well firstly i wrote
                  Quote: evgenii67
                  Perhaps somewhere there is excellent electronics for example "Iskander", Su-35 ....
                  pay attention to the ellipsis hi those. you can add S-300, 400 and more, but again the question, do you think the S-300 is just a chassis with "pipes" where the missiles are located hi
                  1. poquello
                    poquello 21 June 2013 19: 46 New
                    +1
                    [quote = evgenii67] [quote = poquello] Exactly, precisely, in c300 sit highly trained monkeys, providing guidance on the target. [/ quote]
                    Well, first of all I wrote [quote = evgenii67] maybe somewhere there is excellent electronics for example "Iskander", Su-35 .... [/ quote]

                    This is from another letter, but it looks like a little pregnant.
            2. jjj
              jjj 20 June 2013 21: 39 New
              +1
              In combat conditions, when both sides can equally effectively neutralize the advantages of "digital" technologies of detection, guidance and target designation, only high maneuverability and "analog" weapons will help to achieve victory in battle
        3. neri73-r
          neri73-r 20 June 2013 14: 08 New
          +2
          Everyone imagines himself a strategist seeing the battle from the side (s) !!! laughing
        4. urich
          urich 20 June 2013 19: 56 New
          +1
          I agree with the cartridge. That is why, to illustrate the short article, they chose the only example from the interview of Pukhov, which discredits our aviation specifically? The article is sharpened by comparison, and at the same time, when our compatriot craps on their own production, 100% leaves the unenlightened with the impression that ours is worse! This is not so! Ryabov did not think up Kirill! In the furnace of Pukhov!
          1. Mikhail3
            Mikhail3 20 June 2013 20: 15 New
            0
            What does "discredit our aviation" mean? Do we have a good rocket for a fighter? So give an example. And if you can't, how is Pukhov discrediting us?
            In addition, if we have a luxurious, best-in-the-world carrier, why don't we finally make a rocket? With our previous developments, this should be relatively uncomplicated. Moreover, we finally have a factory ... and the fact that it is 90 nm and not 20, it does not matter, this level of miniaturization is already excessive. Let's do it - it will become completely sour for Americans ...
      2. Rink
        Rink 20 June 2013 15: 07 New
        +2
        Quote: Mitek
        It is not indicated only one thing that only amers will have an advantage in long-range combat with Amer aircraft.

        Oh, not a fact! not at all a fact! ..
        Yes, the Anglo-Saxons love light wars with an inferior enemy. Even during the Boer War (in the 19th century), when parts of the regular British army with firearms and artillery fought with the Boer tribes (and almost lost!).
        The English soldiers then even folded a song.
        "For each of your questions, we will answer:
        We have the Maxim machine gun, but you don't! "


        This ideology still owns the minds of Western strategists. Perhaps they liked the machine guns to mow barefoot Africans with spears ...
        But not everything is so smooth, and NATO members themselves doubt the ability to shoot planes from a "safe distance".
        (To be continued..)
        1. Rink
          Rink 20 June 2013 15: 12 New
          11
          ______ Continuation.

          German pilots found that defeating the American F22 was not at all difficult

          .... In mid-June, 150 German pilots and eight 2-engine Typhoons arrived at the Ailson Air Force Base in Alaska for planned exercises in which, in addition to Germany, the United States, Japan, Australia and Poland participated. Eight times during a 2-week exercise, individual German Typhoons converged against solitary F22 during basic fighter maneuvers aimed at simulating close-range air combat. .....
          The results were unexpected for the Germans., and for Americans, perhaps, too. “We were equal,” says Major General Mark Grün. The main thing, says Grün, was to approach F22 as close as possible ... and stay there. ..... ".
          Grün says that the Raptor is superior in combat at a distance out of range with its high speed and altitude capabilities, high-tech radar and AMRAAM long-range missiles. But at close range, which the pilots call "merging," the larger and heavier F22 is at a disadvantage. .......
          These, of course, are not the results that were expected from F22. For many years, the Air Force believed that the Raptor had no equal in aerial combat.

          ........ suggest that most air battles will have to take place over long distances, avoiding close combat. However, in reality, despite the wishes of the manufacturers of military aircraft, most of the battles took place over short distances, which could promise the F-22 not much chance during future conflicts.

          A 2008 study by the Air Force-sponsored RAND research center said that after examining 588 cases of aircraft shot down in aerial combat since the 1950s, only 24 occurred over a long distance when the attacker opened fire on the target out of sight. RAND claims that historically long-range air-to-air missiles were 90 percent less effective than predicted.

          It remains to be seen whether the Raptor and its AMRAAM missiles can change this trend. If long-range combat tactics fail, F22 pilots will suddenly find themselves fighting at close range with the latest fighters made in China, Russia or other competing countries. And if the experience of German pilots says something, then such a battle, the vaunted F22s may well lose.

          Source (translated into Russian) http://mixednews.ru/archives/21616,
          in the original - here http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/07/f-22-germans/
          1. Rink
            Rink 20 June 2013 15: 18 New
            +5
            The most interesting thing is that the Americans have already stepped on this rake.

            The experience of fighting in Vietnam showed that the use of F-4 Phantom fighter aircraft, armed only with Sparrow and Sidewinder missiles, proved to be untenable. Even the obsolete MiG-17s with vigorous maneuvering managed to evade missiles, phantoms came into the tail and shot them with powerful cannon weapons. It is no coincidence that the US Air Force was urgently required to equip the F4 with an M61 “Volcano” cannon of a 20 mm caliber.

            Source http://topwar.ru/18835-luchshiy-v-mire-istrebitel.html


            ... and continue to step on the same rake.
            It is evident that I really want to fight, but I really do not want to get in my own face.
            To fight with the Papuans, having machine guns.
          2. djon77
            djon77 22 June 2013 12: 24 New
            0
            that is, you want to say that the typhoon is not inferior to the raptor in maneuverability? only the raptor’s problem is super maneuverable, but the typhoon somehow doesn’t. Journalists most likely consciously missed at what speeds this was done and what tasks were set. As far as I know, NATO members there is such an exercise when one sits down on the tail, and the pursued person tries to shake it off. these are all elements of some standard pilot training program
        2. Mikhail3
          Mikhail3 20 June 2013 20: 17 New
          +3
          WITH TRIBES ?! It’s good that the Boers do not hear you. However, a bullet in the forehead - it does not hurt ...
          1. Rink
            Rink 21 June 2013 10: 56 New
            0
            WITH TRIBES ?! It’s good that the Boers do not hear you. However, a bullet in the forehead - it does not hurt ...


            What are you speaking about?
            Along with the Boers in the Transvaal and the Orange Republic, countless Africans fought. So if the number of dead Boers is known at least approximately (they say about 30 thousand only children and women), then how many blacks (African-Africans, that is) from different tribes died - without any count.
        3. Black Colonel
          Black Colonel 21 June 2013 14: 59 New
          -1
          fought with the Boer tribes
          In fact, the Boers are descendants of immigrants from Germany, Holland, Denmark and France. They have formed their own Afrikaans language on this mixture. So the Boers are not a mumbo-jumbo tribe, but the same white citizens who, like once in North America, did not want to live under the heel of the British crown.
        4. a
          a 21 June 2013 18: 49 New
          -1
          Quote: Skating rink
          Yes, the Anglo-Saxons love light wars with an inferior enemy. Even during the Boer War (in the 19th century), when parts of the regular British army with firearms and artillery fought with the Boer tribes (and almost lost!).


          Boer tribes ??? strongly said .. laughed at your ignorance for a long time. The Boer War is not a war of the British with some Boer tribes. this is a war with the Boers. Boers are descendants of European immigrants in southern Africa. Boers are European, white. and they’re definitely not living in tribes :)) learn history so that next time you don’t get into such embarrassment :)))
          1. djon77
            djon77 22 June 2013 12: 26 New
            0
            as far as I remember then, the Zulus tribes fought with the British
      3. to4kavserdce
        to4kavserdce 20 June 2013 17: 01 New
        +1
        I completely agree!!! "Sober look! You don't often read this" =)))) in his words wassat
  2. Eric
    Eric 20 June 2013 08: 12 New
    +9
    But what about Mikoyan-Gurevich? This is a forge of light front-line aviation, it will hurt me to tears, if we leave their school .....
    1. Roll
      Roll 20 June 2013 09: 09 New
      -11
      wassat A light fighter should be single-engine, which was proved by amers on f-16, f-35, the Chinese on ji 10b and fs-1. Carrying two engines is expensive and expensive, and for most tasks for light fighters, one engine is enough.
      1. Mikhail Topor
        Mikhail Topor 20 June 2013 09: 30 New
        13
        if one single engine fails, catapult and lose a combat unit? immediately controlled thrust vector and two engines give a huge advantage in maneuverability.
        1. Roll
          Roll 20 June 2013 09: 58 New
          -3
          wassat For a light fighter, price is most important, and it is cheaper for a single-engine and single-engine aircraft, then the cost of one flight hour in peacetime is important, then single-engine is better. For ordinary tasks, shooting down UAVs, cruise missiles, bomber planes, helicopters, one the engine is enough for the eyes. As for engine failures, how many f -16s have them, ji 10b. In addition, engine failure is not the most frequent breakdown and does not always lead to bailouts. Therefore, the concept of an instant dead end branch in aviation. Two engines are the destiny of heavy fighters.
          1. Mikhail Topor
            Mikhail Topor 20 June 2013 11: 45 New
            +8
            Sorry, the author, but the statement on the modern Internet about the dead-end of the aviation branch in weight is incommensurable with the calculations of kbeshnik-product developers. whoever ever visited developers when making conceptual decisions knows that an incredible number of factors are being evaluated (economic, technical, technological plan), incommensurably more than indicated by the post above.
          2. Containers
            Containers 21 June 2013 23: 50 New
            0
            Well then, why did the incredibly powerful, advanced, conceptually more advanced F-16 lose the MiG-29 with a score of 1:49 in the early 90's?
      2. Cynic
        Cynic 20 June 2013 13: 49 New
        +2
        Quote: Rolm
        what they proved ... the Chinese on ji 10b and fs-1.

        Well said
        Truth is nothing that
        Russian consultants from TsAGI and MiG Design Bureau participated in the creation of the aircraft [5]. The fighters use engines of NPO Saturn of Russian and Chinese (licensed) production.

        Not ?
        And FC-1 ...
        Here, in general, as they say, without comments!
        laughing
        1. Roll
          Roll 20 June 2013 16: 02 New
          -4
          wassat And what difference does it make who participated in the development and whose engines there. They pay us for engines full-weight bucks, entered into a firm contract, if we refuse to supply RD 93 engines, we will get fines. And they didn’t help for thanks, we need to survive. In fact, the Chinese planes, their price and operation is cheaper than instant 29, And the ability to shoot down cruise missiles, helicopters, UAVs are the same. So they are teaching us, and we are shooting down Georgian UAVs at an expensive moment, although the Chinese FS-1 would also have coped with this task, but cheaper.
          1. Cynic
            Cynic 20 June 2013 16: 20 New
            +2
            Quote: Rolm
            What's the difference who participated in the development

            None.
            That's just _
            Who said meow?

            Quote: Rolm
            A light fighter must be single-engine, as proved ...

            Like your words?
            So to whom did the Yusovtsy and the Chinese prove that a light fighter should be single-engine?
            And from this place you can read more
            1. Roll
              Roll 21 June 2013 07: 53 New
              0
              wassat To people who know how to count loot, how much does a flight hour cost for GI 10v, and instant 29 ???
    2. valokordin
      valokordin 20 June 2013 09: 41 New
      +3
      It seems that Poghosyan will destroy Mikoyanovsk office and become a complete monopolist.
      1. lx
        lx 20 June 2013 10: 29 New
        +4
        MIG is already under Poghosyan - he is also the head of the UAC, where the MIG is included. He, of course, made a fuss and took the most delicious orders from the MIG, but the MIG really collapsed without him - having annual service orders of at least $ 10 million with a beggarly pay, the MIG was declared bankrupt and sold to the UAC for 1 ruble.
        1. 17085
          17085 28 July 2013 21: 04 New
          0
          And where is the respected professor, he would open your eyes to who destroyed the MiG ("Israel aircraft industries" ("IAI", the main office is located at Ben Gurion airport), "Elbit system Ltd" (Haifa)) Well, no destroyed, but milked thoroughly.
    3. Remko
      Remko 20 June 2013 18: 51 New
      +1
      Azerbaijan was denied the sale of MiG aircraft, although this money could go to the development of new types of aircraft.
  3. igor36
    igor36 20 June 2013 08: 13 New
    +5
    In order to get an electronic filling at the level of the best world standards, modern production of electronic components is necessary in which we are seriously behind.
  4. Venguard
    Venguard 20 June 2013 08: 22 New
    +3
    the article did not live up to expectations, about nothing, only blah blah blah Russians have s-300 AAA save who can
  5. Fofan
    Fofan 20 June 2013 08: 26 New
    +2
    Yeah. n ** do not toss bags .... http://www.naztech.org/su27
  6. Net
    Net 20 June 2013 08: 49 New
    +8
    The development of air defense at a faster pace was due not so much to a lag in aviation, but rather to the endless plans of the West to destroy our cities with nuclear bombings, the Dropshot plan and others.
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 20 June 2013 12: 21 New
      +3
      Quote: Netto
      The development of air defense at a faster pace was due not so much to a lag in aviation, but rather to the endless plans of the West to destroy our cities with nuclear bombings, the Dropshot plan and others.

      The Financial Times quoted R. Pukhov, director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST). In his opinion, the times of "classical" air battles with maneuvering at short distances have already passed. In addition, over the past decade, Russian military aircraft in its characteristics and capabilities have significantly lagged behind the American one. Pukhov noted that such a trend emerged in the days of the Soviet Union
      This R. Pukhov is probably another NGO member. If only I wondered what made the Americans intensify the pace in the 80s to develop a new fighter if they were ahead of the USSR with the F-15.
  7. Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 20 June 2013 09: 02 New
    +3
    Imaginary objectivity of a Western publication. When they want to cast a shadow on our weapons, they always find an expert with a Russian surname. As if prompting the reader that this person is the best versed in the weapons of his country.
  8. igor_ua
    igor_ua 20 June 2013 09: 14 New
    +1
    Bullshit, not an article. Empty abstracts contradicting each other. So what exactly was Ross behind. aviation? Announce the entire list!
  9. alexkross83
    alexkross83 20 June 2013 09: 16 New
    +3
    As long as we have such aviation, air defense systems will always be considered with us and even one opinion will be opposed to seven ....
  10. dizelniy
    dizelniy 20 June 2013 09: 26 New
    +9
    The life path of the "analyst" Pukhov and his education make it possible to strongly doubt the conclusions that air combat will be reduced to long-range missile attacks with the advantages of the side with the corresponding higher capabilities. For a correct assessment of the possible tactics of an AI in modern battles, it would be good to take part in them sitting in the cockpit of a fighter or on the command post. The announced tendency has been lobbied for many years. With the massive introduction of UR, the IA abandoned the cannons on board the fighter, for which they had to pay with losses in local conflicts, in which most of the victories were won in the course of maneuverable WBs. The massive use of aviation in a "big" war will be characterized by the implementation of the entire range of support measures to which electronic warfare will also take over. Interference will be placed from zones, battle formations, unmanned aircraft, collective and individual means. In such a situation, in a significant part of the military base, the enemy will be detected at visual visibility range. The transition to a maneuverable military base in such conditions is natural and inevitable. The super-maneuverability demonstrated by our aircraft is the strongest toothache for "partners". They urgently need to change the entire fleet of IA if they want to talk on equal terms. A good "gift" for all participants in the events would be the appearance of a BB rocket with the ability to launch at near-zero speeds. Shouts: "... boss, everything is gone, the client is leaving ..." or ordered, or corny, from not knowing the question.
    1. Mikhail Topor
      Mikhail Topor 20 June 2013 09: 39 New
      +2
      I share your point of view, colleague. Pukhov is a theoretician and lathers extremely flat. WB begins at long distances in most cases it goes into dog fights. In the conditions of mountainous terrain, low cloud cover, maneuverability is almost the most important factor in victory. Pukhov did not say a word about EW, whose technologies are also developing and are not standing still.

      The issue of choosing a weapons supplier has never been an economic issue, or a question of the performance characteristics of products. This is always an exclusively political issue. Not a word about this. Analysts, heh
  11. Kair501
    Kair501 20 June 2013 09: 27 New
    +2
    it’s interesting where are the Americans better than a long-range battle system (namely missiles and not tracking systems) as far as I know, they don’t have anything like the r-37 with a range of 300 km and a promising ks-172 with a range of 400 km, the best they have is aim-152 with a range of 270 km
    1. rolik
      rolik 20 June 2013 10: 52 New
      +2
      Quote: Kair501
      so far there is nothing like the r-37 with a range of 300 km

      There is also the P-73, the configuration could be called normal if it were not for the appearance of a number of innovations (a rocket engine with a variable thrust vector, elevons on fixed tail stabilizers and control front planes). In terms of maneuverability and accuracy, the P-73 surpassed all its Western counterparts, modern from the AIM-9L / M Sidewinder to the Israeli rocket Python 3.
      And the R-37 when using an active guidance radar is capable of destroying targets at a distance of up to 300 km.
  12. LaGlobal
    LaGlobal 20 June 2013 09: 29 New
    +1
    GREETINGS TO ALL!

    I do not agree with the opinion of the author about:
    over the past decades, Russian military aviation in its characteristics and capabilities has significantly lagged behind the American
    .

    This is not true, so reason! From ancient times - WE ARE THE BEST IN THE PRODUCTION OF MILITARY TECHNOLOGIES (and all that is included in it) !!!

    We have such design bureaus as the USA.
  13. Svarog
    Svarog 20 June 2013 09: 30 New
    +2
    I don’t understand what kind of objectivity some are talking about here? Well, the amers admitted that we have better anti-aircraft systems, but it was difficult to come up with something, just look at the parameters of the systems. But about the planes they say this, if we throw away all the unnecessary scribble: "American planes are the best and most expensive. The Russians make them only at very short distances, but this is not relevant, since we shoot them all from afar. And they buy them only because they are cheap .. "and where is the sober look?"
    Meanwhile, the recent Israeli attack on Syria could be interrupted precisely by fighters in close combat, as they flew at low altitudes, outside the range of other air defense systems.
    1. vdenisov56
      vdenisov56 20 June 2013 18: 54 New
      +1
      Right! The article is about air defense of countries with a small territory. In the vastness of Russia, Canada, China and the United States, the concept of long-range and short-range fighting is mixed. But in the sky of Syria long-range air defense systems will operate, and in the near air defense. Guidance problems will be solved by electronic warfare.
      And none of the HOLDs will ever sell the latest aircraft, air defense systems and electronics to each other. Yes, and buy too.
      AIR SALONS - for regional leaders and their opponents.
  14. dizelniy
    dizelniy 20 June 2013 09: 34 New
    +4
    Quote: Rolm
    Light fighter should be single-engine, as amers on f-16 proved

    If you paid attention to the configuration used by this aircraft, then the constant presence in the suspension of two PTBs of 1500 l each is striking. This indicates that the concept of the aircraft does not comply with its objectives. With complete dominance in the air, this is excusable, but in a war of equal opponents it will lead to a breakdown in the implementation of the BZ.
  15. FunkschNNX
    FunkschNNX 20 June 2013 09: 44 New
    +2
    "The days of 'classic' air combat with short-range maneuvers are over." one-on-one is possible, but with large-scale actions, everything will inevitably end in a "dog dump" in which "Drying" will blow any NATO aircraft.
    1. Roll
      Roll 20 June 2013 10: 06 New
      +1
      wassat Well, firstly, some Western planes will undoubtedly blow drying, but the question is, will they want to fight with the dryer, will launch rockets and tear at it at maximum speed on the shaver. Similar tactics were used by German aces in World War II, if the fight was profitable for them, they fought, and if not, due to the higher speed of the mesers, they wound up safely. Very effective tactics.
      1. FunkschNNX
        FunkschNNX 20 June 2013 11: 43 New
        +1
        The first salvo is still a question of what damage they will be able to inflict, but the second will not have time. And in Sushki, the range of missiles is not inferior to the enemy.
  16. AK-47
    AK-47 20 June 2013 09: 52 New
    0
    ... American aircraft manufacturers are pushing for the advantages of their fighters in long-range missile combat, and Russian - for high potential in short-range battles.

    Sadly, if this is so, you can not live to short distances.
    1. Odysseus
      Odysseus 20 June 2013 13: 18 New
      +3
      Quote: AK-47
      It’s sad if this is so, you can’t survive to short distances

      If you somehow equalize in EPR, the capabilities of radar, electronic warfare and external target designation, you can survive. Otherwise, they will shoot like partridges, and "feints in the sky" will help like a dead poultice.
  17. Dwarfik
    Dwarfik 20 June 2013 09: 57 New
    -1
    Kind! I do not agree in one paragraph on the backwardness of the Russian Air Force in qualitative terms from the Americans, in quantitative terms - yes, but in qualitative - if you please, gentlemen, the Americans are in good luck! We have a strong military science, including in the Air Force, and you have fluent brains from the USSR.
  18. PValery53
    PValery53 20 June 2013 10: 18 New
    0
    Mr. R. Pukhov (it is good that not Comrade Sukhov) in a pseudo-independent article covertly "supported" amerovsky aircraft manufacturers. That's right, - "who pays, he calls the tune" ...
    1. ksan
      ksan 20 June 2013 19: 10 New
      0
      I agree with PValery53. Strange as it may seem, but Mr. Pukhov constantly "hates" practically everything Russian, with the exception of some of Serdyukov's actions to "reform" the army. Read this amusingly))
  19. korvin1976
    korvin1976 20 June 2013 10: 39 New
    +1
    I have the same doubts creep in over the fact that Western planes are superior to ours in long-range combat. Take for example (figures taken from the ceiling):
    Our aircraft are equipped with P37 missiles with a range of 300 km, and let's say a radar with a range of 400 km
    Western equipped missiles with a range of 270 km, and a radar of 500 km.
    What is the advantage of western technology in long-range combat? Is that he will see a stranger before ours? And then what? Our hand is farther. As a result, the range of the radar on Western technology is intended only to see and ....... run away. I’m certainly not an expert, and do not judge strictly, but everything turns out like that. Moreover, if we consider that our technology has better maneuverability and speed, then it turns out completely absurd. Let’s say that missiles are launched at a distance of 150 km, and the planes fly apart, and then the basic mathematics course, it will not be difficult to calculate the approximate outcome of the battle, and although this is an approximate calculation, the predominance in any case is on the side of our equipment.
    1. Locksmith
      Locksmith 20 June 2013 17: 11 New
      +3
      Quote: korvin1976
      Our aircraft are equipped with P37 missiles with a range of 300 km, and let's say a radar with a range of 400 km
      Western equipped missiles with a range of 270 km, and a radar of 500 km.

      Western measurements have always pinned me, they measure our ESR hike taking into account the operation of our aircraft’s radar, but they show their ESR taking into account the radio silence, what the hell are they going to aim their missiles in the radio silence mode? ? They in every possible way simulate EPR hoars even fly with a Lunel-type prism so that no one knows the real EPR of roars, but how will the rattle launch missiles without radar? Yes, until the rocket flies about it all the air defense of the country and knows where it flies and where wink
      1. Kirgudum
        Kirgudum 20 June 2013 23: 49 New
        0
        what the hell are they going to aim their rockets in radio silence mode
        - Probably using anti-radar missiles, and missiles with infrared seeker.
    2. korvin1976
      korvin1976 21 June 2013 09: 34 New
      +1
      Probably minuscule minusts who did not study at school, but primer and algebra smoked, it happens ...
  20. dizelniy
    dizelniy 20 June 2013 10: 47 New
    +2
    When comparing the Air Force, it is necessary to take into account the whole range of criteria: combat capabilities, personnel training system, repair and rehabilitation base, medical and medical and rehabilitation support, the state of the control system in its stationary and mobile component, electronic warfare equipment, communications, the compliance of the Air Force structure with the tasks, technical condition equipment and airfields, provision with spare parts, fuels and lubricants, etc. Unas in this sense, everything is in the process of becoming, as you recall, broke firewood. Now it is necessary to focus on the training, education and preservation of the flight personnel. You need to fly according to the most difficult tasks, group aerial battles with fighters should become the main criterion for assessing the readiness of IA, time does not tolerate.
  21. sys-1985
    sys-1985 20 June 2013 10: 56 New
    +1
    Let them be counted in grams! About long-range combat - is it in a row? Detection systems (maybe yes ?!) but let me ... how will they hit our aircraft over long distances ???
  22. Kirgudum
    Kirgudum 20 June 2013 11: 51 New
    +1
    What a wild delirium
    In addition, over the past decades, Russian combat aircraft in its characteristics and capabilities have significantly lagged behind the American
    -?

    In terms of a number of the most important characteristics — maneuverability, range, and flight speed — the latest Russian planes are ahead of the American ones, remember at least the training battle in Langley between the Su-27 and the F-15, which ended in losing the US to the AFFID - and the Su-35 is BETTER than the Su-27!

    And what about the Russian ultra-long-range air-to-air missiles K-37M, with a range of over 220 km? The Americans simply do not have anything like this! Their most advanced AIM-120D AMRAAM has only 180 km, versus 220 in Russia!
  23. Good fellow
    Good fellow 20 June 2013 13: 10 New
    +1
    I will notice. Very often when simulating air combat (in words: they say our radar is stronger, and our missiles are "longer") they forget about electronic warfare - suspended containers. Which just allow you to converge in close combat. For, of course, the declared detection of targets at a distance of hundreds of kilometers by radar is not yet a victory. Finding a target is one thing, but taking on auto tracking, so to speak, capturing a target is another. And here, the distances are several times less when the electronic warfare units are working. I remember somewhere the story of a pilot who went to the target (if I’m not mistaken, the knowledgeable will correct it) and relayed by radio that the interference did not allow the missile's homing head to capture the target, although the target was visually detected, which could only be shot down with a cannon ...
  24. Marconi41
    Marconi41 20 June 2013 13: 14 New
    +2
    The article clearly indicates one parameter. Not a single modern American aircraft has ever opposed a Russian modern aircraft in real databases. Further on, everything is a solid theory into which some objective facts are not laid down, for example: pilots raid, their combat training, etc.
    Besides, if a combatant Russian pilot (senior lieutenant) tries to perform, say, "pancake" or "cobra" on a combatant SU-35, then this will be his last flight in the next 5 years! In the struggle to reduce the accident rate, it will be torn like a tuzika!
  25. roskaz
    roskaz 20 June 2013 13: 35 New
    +1
    the technique is different, something is better, something is worse, the main thing is that no felt boots would sit at the helm !!!)))
  26. Letnab
    Letnab 20 June 2013 14: 26 New
    +4
    If you read about the use of the Su-27 and MiG-29 in the WB, you can remember about Eritrea, if I'm not mistaken ... There often the Su-27 won due to the longer time spent in the air, the MiG-29 is simply simply forced to use fuel were leaving than Sushki and used ...
    In Serbia, remember, the Serb Mig-29s went astray by NATO, but again, not in direct combat clash, but after the guidance was provided by AWACS, which the Serbs lacked.
    Those. it turns out that the use of the entire complex of detection, guidance and tracking enhances the work of fighter aircraft. And dog dumps are possible rather under the same conditions in providing the necessary information, and in guidance. Either there is one, or it is absent on both sides at the same time. I hope the current military aviators will not be underestimated :) ....
  27. shamil
    shamil 20 June 2013 14: 40 New
    -1
    sense in demonstration flights to perform a cobra or pancake showing thereby the capabilities of technology if an ordinary pilot cannot apply it in battle or everyone is taught these techniques. Who will answer?
    1. Locksmith
      Locksmith 20 June 2013 17: 17 New
      -1
      Quote: shamil
      sense in demonstration flights to perform a cobra or pancake showing thereby the capabilities of technology if an ordinary pilot cannot apply it in battle or everyone is taught these techniques. Who will answer?

      The technique is not in place, it is quite possible to write a program for getting out of a missile strike by performing the "chakra" or "cobra" automatically - the aircraft has electric servos that the pilot does not control directly, but under the control of an onboard computer - like car security systems - there are no restrictions , at least in radio-controlled models there has been a toggle-switch for 8 years already, and the airplane turned the "barrel" - beginner modelers cannot perform it for a very long time, the experience is not enough, and the equipment is easy !!
    2. PValery53
      PValery53 20 June 2013 21: 08 New
      -1
      How much will the execution of "pancake" or "cobra" help our fighters in battle? - Rather, it is a decrease in maneuverability (mobility) ...
  28. Grishka100watt
    Grishka100watt 20 June 2013 15: 07 New
    +1
    R. Pukhov. In his opinion, the times of “classic” air battles with maneuvering at short distances have already passed.

    We heard it already ..... oh yes ... McNamara ...
  29. soldier's grandson
    soldier's grandson 20 June 2013 15: 51 New
    +1
    time will tell who is right and better
  30. shinobi
    shinobi 20 June 2013 16: 36 New
    +3
    At all times, mattresses have sharpened their aircraft for war where the enemy either does not have its own air force and air defense, or it is from the generation before last. Well, or completely destroyed. The main US military concept is "distance warfare", but it is effective again only in case of complete backwardness Not lagging behind the enemy's armed forces in any industry. For example, a little hackneyed example. The Vietnam War. Their fighters in terms of avionics were better equipped, ours had the best flight performance characteristics. And the very first battles nullified all the advantage of remote warfare. aimed launches of the S-75 returned bombers from the stratosphere to the ground, where they were shot down from quite old cannon complexes. As a matter of fact, for our "specialists" such as Citizen Pukhov, I would recommend paying attention to the assessments of independent experts of the same Americans. take a closer look at such grief experts.
    1. Black Colonel
      Black Colonel 21 June 2013 15: 46 New
      0
      Actually, I would recommend our "specialists" like Citizen Pukhov to pay attention to the assessments of independent experts of the same Americans. And the guys from the FSB take a closer look at such grief experts.
      Unnecessarily.
  31. saved
    saved 20 June 2013 17: 50 New
    +1
    Of course, it’s great that the first one was discovered and the first one launched from a long distance, however, the rocket does not fly at the speed of light and the pilot has enough time to dodge the attack, while all the same, the planes come closer and if everything was so rosy, they shot (with a rocket) killed then there would be no guns on planes. So it is not for nothing that they are afraid of our DRY.
  32. sergey158-29
    sergey158-29 20 June 2013 18: 08 New
    +1
    With all due respect to Russian designers, the industry, which was almost destroyed immediately, cannot produce products better than competitors hi
  33. ksan
    ksan 20 June 2013 18: 27 New
    +1
    [quote = evgenii67] [quote = cartridge] And what opinion do you think is more competent: a high-ranking Chinese aviation specialist or a Moscow talker-grantee? [/ quote]
    The fact that a Chinese is happy with the "acrobatics" of a Russian plane is so admired by the whole world and has long, the maneuverability of Russian / Soviet fighters, but in electronics we are godlessly behind too has long You can add a rhyme to the word LONG TIME.
    Not so "godless", the element base is yes, but our electronics engineers do not worse "things" on imported components. For example, Americans have worse radars)
  34. uzer 13
    uzer 13 20 June 2013 18: 51 New
    +1
    It is necessary to take advantage of the cost of Russian technology and gain a foothold in the arms market, because over time the price ratio may change. As for claims that the times of maneuverable combat have passed, this is not entirely true. It’s stupid to bet on long-range missiles, and then by chance to be in close proximity to the SU-35. This option can well be organized. The advantage of American aircraft in terms of detection distance is easily compensated for in the same way as they use themselves — a container with a radar and a pair of long-range missiles are suspended on the aircraft.
  35. APASUS
    APASUS 20 June 2013 19: 03 New
    +1
    It is nice to know that even the foreign press writes adequate articles, and not just custom ratings - where the "first hundred" is always behind the Americans!
  36. Yun Klob
    Yun Klob 20 June 2013 19: 23 New
    +1
    The problems are not only in the quality of the aircraft, but also in their quantity. In the course of hostilities, with general average losses, even 1: 1, it will be impossible to establish mass production of modern aircraft to restore and increase their numbers, even under the guidance of effective managers. Accordingly, just before the outbreak of hostilities, the question should be raised about the early deployment of the most modern types of weapons and, above all, aviation, the navy (as the least maintainable structures) and their components.
  37. Black
    Black 20 June 2013 19: 48 New
    +1
    The Su-35 is bad in that it is not yet in the army, and the Raptor may be weak in hand-to-hand combat, and the enemy is not yet there. That's good. We are comparing yet incomparable.
  38. jury08
    jury08 20 June 2013 20: 54 New
    +2
    Somewhere in the articles slipped information that the computer at the Chinese copied fighter at 15 !! times more productive than the Russian original !!! - then what to talk about!
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 20 June 2013 23: 47 New
      +1
      Quote: jury08
      a computer from a Chinese copied fighter in 15 !! times more productive than the Russian original !!! - then what to talk about!

      ... and you, dear colleague, prove why such prolificacy is needed ...
      1. Ammane
        Ammane 24 June 2013 01: 21 New
        0
        For Full HD.
    2. Cynic
      Cynic 24 June 2013 15: 46 New
      0
      Quote: jury08
      computer at the Chinese copied fighter at 15 !! times more productive than the Russian original !!!

      What is more productive?
      Please, if it does not, it’s very interesting, otherwise it turns out ours fly using 8080, well, at best, Z80.
  39. jjj
    jjj 20 June 2013 22: 43 New
    +1
    About the "long distance" battle. MiG-31 technologies were introduced not even yesterday. And the experience of application is summarized, and the conclusions are drawn
  40. Andriy
    Andriy 21 June 2013 23: 40 New
    0
    Do not forget also that the pilot will be warned about the exposure of his radar aircraft, with information about the enemy, irradiating him and his location, about the launch of a rocket on his plane. And I want to add that in addition to the radar, there is an OLS on domestic fighters, which allows you to secretly detect the enemy and secretly attack him with a rocket with infrared seeker. The enemy pilot will be shot down before he realizes that there is a kind of attack.
    1. gridasov
      gridasov 9 August 2013 00: 00 New
      0
      Naivety is amazing. Radars operate in a certain range of electronic transmission and reception. magnetic disturbance. Going beyond or expanding this range changes the parity.