Military Review

Aviation inconsistency

89
There are more aircraft types in the Air Force than real tasks for them.


By the 2020 year, it is planned to have two or three types of highly specialized aircraft for each combat mission in the combat structure of the Russian Air Force. Differing in price, new cars have almost the same features and capabilities. On the contrary, the United States and NATO countries are reducing the type to one or two universal combat vehicles.

The Air Force should receive 60 T-50, 120 Su-35S, 60 Su-30SM, 37 MiG-35 fighters, up to 140 Su-34 front-line bombers and 80 Yak-130 combat trainers. Army Park aviation 167 Mi-28N / NM, 180 Ka-52, 49 Mi-35M, 38 Mi-26T will be replenished, up to 500 Mi-8MTV / AMTS. Such large-scale purchases can not even afford the US Air Force.

Service and combat training

By the specified deadline, by the number of types and models of attack aircraft, Russia will come out on top in the world. There will be four types of bombers alone - Su-34, “clean” Su-24, upgraded by Sukhoy Su-24М2 and Su-24СВП-24 design bureau with Gefest and T sighting system SVP-24 installed. Fighters will become even more - Su-27, Su-27СМ, Su-27СМ3, Su-30, Su-30СМ, Su-35, and T-50, passing flight tests. There is also a family of MiG-29, which is replenished by MiG-33 and modernized MiG-29СМТ. In military aviation, four types of combat helicopters are the Mi-24, the Mi-35M, the Mi-28 and the Ka-52.

Aviation inconsistencyAs the officer of the engineering service of the Air Force said, even now, before the start of mass deliveries of new types of aircraft, technical and repair services face major problems in the operation and maintenance of the already received ones. The 4-th center for the training of aviation personnel and military tests (CPA) in Lipetsk operates the old Su-24, the newer Su-24М2, Su-24СВП-24 and modern Su-34. If there is no problem with the Su-24, then the maintenance of the Su-34 is fraught with considerable difficulties. First of all, we are talking about radio-electronic stuffing, radar, aiming complex. Requires special spare parts, trained personnel. The same problem with the 7000-th air base, also received Su-34. For each system of new cars you need your own specialist in repair and maintenance, the representative of the Russian Air Force complained to "VPK". According to him, often new cars are out of order, waiting for representatives of the plant, since the ground technical services do not even understand which side to approach the car. “They say that Su-34 is very similar to Su-27 in terms of airframe, engines and electrics. This is not true. Completely different machines for which it is necessary to prepare their individual specialists in all components and mechanisms. Spare parts are not interchangeable, each type of machine needs its own. And this is only the first swallows. Su-30CM, Su-35, Mig-33 is still ahead, ”the specialist was indignant.

Thus, the diversity of combat vehicles can be a fatal blow to the ground services, for which the Military Training Center of the Air Force "Military Academy named after Professor N. Ye. Zhukovsky and Yu. A. Gagarin" in Voronezh should every year to release several hundred technical officers to service and operate new types of aircraft. In addition, it is necessary to create a stock of repair kits, engines, radio-electronic equipment. Given the impending heterogeneity, the performance of these tasks can be thwarted.

According to Andrei Frolov, editor-in-chief of the branch magazine Arms Export, the purchase of so many different types of combat aircraft, often duplicating each other, is an element of support for the domestic aviation industry: “The implementation of purchasing plans for basic aircraft platforms according to GVV-2020 will increase the cost of maintaining the military fleet -air forces of Russia. All this is done not to please the military, but to support the defense industry. An example is the unsuccessful attempt of the Ministry of Defense to abandon the purchase of the Mig-33 and replace them with the Mig-29, upgraded to the version of "SMT".

These problems have long been recognized in the main command of the Air Force. The fleet is aging by leaps and bounds, so there is a desire to update it at any cost. The industry has something to offer the military. On the other hand, problems are growing not only in maintenance and operation, but also in the combat training system.

“The combat training course, developed jointly by the 4-th center for training aviation personnel and military tests and the 929-th State Flight Research Center (GLITS), is based on the piloting capabilities of the machine, features of weapons and avionics. For example, if the weapons and the Mig-31 interceptor radar are sharpened for long-range interception, then most of the time is allotted for these exercises, and for the near maneuvering battle - by the residual principle. The same principle works in the planning of the combat use of aviation, ”the officer of the Air Force Main Committee specified.

For highly efficient combat use of the aircraft, test pilot GLITSa before the start of mass delivery to the troops test weapons and avionics on all flight modes in difficult and simple meteorological conditions, day and night, finding the optimal parameters. On the basis of the results obtained, the center develops a combat application manual for individual aircraft, units and squadrons, and then a combat training course. At the same time, according to the officer of the Russian Air Force, Su-35 and Su-30SM with engines of a variable thrust vector, have not even completed the flight test program with sophisticated radars. “The first Su-30CMs will soon arrive at the air base in Transbaikalian Domne. On this machine there is neither a course of combat training, nor a manual on combat use. Now in Lipetsk they are doing something, so to speak, “on the knee”. But the main thing is that there is still no understanding what the new car should do. Is it a fighter, interceptor, fighter-bomber? We do not know yet, and the car is already beginning to enter the troops, ”the source continued.

Last year, the army aviation encountered such a problem. Mi-35M from the composition of the center of combat use and retraining of the personnel of army aviation in Torzhok, sent to the North Caucasus, crashed in adverse weather conditions, having caught the mountain. The machine, sent on research flights within the framework of working out a combat program in the mountains, was alerted by ground command to escort a convoy. General military commanders can be understood: there is a high-tech tool, it should work. For bad weather conditions, the Mi-35M, equipped for flying in bad weather and at night, was best suited. But the crew from Torzhok only studied the possibilities of its radio electronics and weapons in the conditions of the mountains. In fact, the helicopter was not ready for combat flight. The result is a catastrophe and loss of life.

Today, the Air Force Command insists on upgrading cash combat aircraft. It is not necessary to re-prepare ground specialists for updated and re-equipped machines, to create repair kits for all components and mechanisms, for a combat training program. Application guidance is easily refined. But the industry is profitable to supply only new cars.

There are already examples of successful modernization according to modern standards: Su-27CM and CM3, Su-25CM and CM3, MiG-31BM. For relatively little money, the Air Force received good modified machines with modern onboard electronic equipment, updated engines. It took about a year to develop all the documentation for training and combat use of the Su-27CM and CM3. “Su-27 we already know well. Put a new radar, upgrade the armament complex for new missiles RVV-SD and RVV-MD and everything is fine. But to tinker with the Su-35, with engines of a variable thrust vector will take a very long time. First we need flight studies, which are now under way in Akhtubinsk, and then only work on combat use. By the most conservative estimates, it is not less than five years. As long as Su-35 is brought to mind, already the PAK-FA will go into a series and everything will start anew, ”a source in the Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force estimated prospects.

Modernization and unification

Since 2010, the US Air Force has launched a large-scale program to improve its fleet. Waiting for the appearance of the newest F-35 US Air Force did not abandon the rest of the strike aircraft. F-15E “Strike Eagle” fighter-bombers received new sniper sighting containers, instead of refining the AN / PG-70 radar with standard radar AN / ASQ-236 produced by Raytheon and new aviation weapons. During the upgrade, the resource is extended twice - from 16 to 32 thousands of flight hours. According to the calculations of the US military, the updated F-15E will last 10 – 15 years.

In the spring of this year, the United States Air Force signed a contract for upgrading the SABR program to the 300 F-16 order, which was previously planned to be decommissioned by the newest F-35. The updated Vipers, which received new multifunctional radar, sighting systems, and before that equipped with new suspended sighting containers, the Sniper, became identical in their combat capabilities to the more expensive F-15E. After completing the modernization program, calculated up to the 2017 of the year, the US Air Force will receive universal combat vehicles capable of how to work on ground targets with high-precision weapons, and conduct air combat.

The British Royal Air Force went the other way, abandoning virtually the entire fleet of old combat vehicles. Until 2020, only Typhoon multifunctional fighters will remain, modified to attack ground targets and fight air defense, as well as F-35. Tornado fighter-interceptors have already been written off, and single-type fighter-bombers will hold out until the 2020 year, until they are replaced by the "Typhoons". The Air Force Command believes that for all occasions there will be enough two types of combat aircraft capable of performing the whole range of combat missions. The German Luftwaffe and the Italian Air Force, which relied on the multifunctional European Typhoon, followed the same path. The French Air Force left in its fleet Mirage-2000 fighter-bombers modernized with the extension of the service life. European countries with a limited budget and some financial difficulties understand that for them a large, diverse type of fleet of combat vehicles is an unaffordable luxury.

“Now the versatility of combat vehicles is achieved by installing additional sighting, navigation and electronic equipment in outboard containers. Modernization firms extend the life of the machine, repair engines and make onboard electronic equipment, power supply systems and sighting systems compatible with outboard containers. An example is strategic В-1В, which, thanks to the installation of sighting containers "Sniper", successfully began to solve the tasks of hitting ground targets, ”said Anton Lavrov, independent military expert, author of books on modern air forces. According to him, sighting containers like the American "Sniper", LANTIRN, and French "Damocles" have now become an indispensable element of modern combat aircraft. “Due to the sighting container with a thermal imager, a high-resolution television system and a laser rangefinder, a strike aircraft can easily hit ground targets with laser and television guidance bombs from a height of several thousand meters. The price of one container varies from one and a half to four million dollars, which is an order of magnitude cheaper than installing the same systems directly on the aircraft. The container can be easily removed and replaced with reconnaissance equipment, converting a fighter-bomber into an intelligence officer, ”Lavrov said.

China, India, Indonesia immediately ordered the Russian Su-30 with sighting containers associated with the onboard sighting and navigation complex of the aircraft. True, all the containers were not Russian-made, mostly French.

Back in the middle of the 90-s, NATO countries recognized that a unified aviation fleet with highly specialized combat vehicles was too expensive and ineffective. But only in the middle of the 2000-ies, when compact radio-electronic equipment, navigation and sighting systems that fit in the outboard containers appeared, was it possible to implement the concept of a universal combat vehicle.

There is a problem

With all the ambitiousness of the program of re-equipment of the Air Force of Russia in the current version, it seems that it will not be able to radically increase its combat capabilities. Instead of unification and transition to universal combat platforms in 2020, the Air Force will receive hundreds of highly specialized machines for solving a limited number of tasks. Save the situation can only optimize costs and a partial rejection of the procurement of planned in GV-2020 combat aircraft and the modernization of the fleet of existing ones.

Irkut Corporation, which is actively working on the international market, perfectly understands global trends. The Su-30CM purchased for the Russian Air Force can easily become a universal combat platform, all the more so now, on the basis of the 929 GLITS in Akhtubinsk, tests are being conducted on a suspension sighting container developed by the Ural Optical and Mechanical Plant, which should be completed in the near future.

Su-34 and Su-35 are a classic example of highly specialized machines. All the unique sighting system Su-34 now fits easily into a hanging container such as the American Sniper. Despite the declared possibility of using medium-range air-to-air missiles, the Su-34 is unlikely to cope with the air enemy. The KLA and the leadership of the Air Force have so far failed to clearly explain why we need an armored titanium cockpit that protects against small arms and artillery systems on a bomber that operates at an altitude of more than five thousand meters and hits targets with precision weapons without entering the enemy’s air defense zone .

The super-maneuverable Su-35, despite the statements made by the KLA leadership, still has limited capabilities for hitting ground targets, but the Irbis radar and a set of medium-range and long-range air-to-air missiles make it a formidable opponent for airplanes and helicopters.

It is possible to propose to abandon the Su-24 and Su-34 family of bombers as one of the optimization options for procurement, placing the task of attacking ground targets on the Su-30CM with suspended sighting containers developed by the Ural Optical and Mechanical Plant. Now the machine with such weapons is being tested in Akhtubinsk. A similar option is chosen in the British, Italian Air Force and Luftwaffe. They equipped a double version of the European fighter "Typhoon" with a suspended aiming complex, which made the latter a universal machine capable of being an interceptor and a fighter-bomber. Another way is to resume work on the modernization of the Su-27 fleet in the “СМ3” variant, but with the installation of sighting overhead containers. For a small amount of money, the Air Force will receive universal combat vehicles without long tests and fine-tuning. So do the United States, upgrading the park F-15E and F-16.
Author:
89 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Civil
    Civil 26 September 2013 07: 57 New
    +8
    Disagreement is our long-term problem, probably we should not specialize airplanes, but flight units, and we must already equip airplanes for them and train personnel and not vice versa
    1. slacker
      slacker 26 September 2013 09: 00 New
      20
      the diversity of combat vehicles can be a fatal blow to ground services


      What kind of nonsense? Well, transfer everyone to An-2.
      Let him intercept targets over the Arctic Ocean, iron tank columns, gain air supremacy, transfer equipment (previously disassembled into small parts), conduct aerial photography, hunt for submarines and bomb Washington.
      Bullshit that he will do all this extremely badly, but you can forget about the different types of aircraft.
      The author is a stupid person! The article is designed for idiots! Downs approving her!
      1. Jin
        Jin 26 September 2013 13: 39 New
        -4
        Quote: Loafer
        The article is designed for idiots! Downs approving her!


        You yourself dumb, dumbhead! Follow the bazaar. Read the meaning, then blow your muzzle, trilobite, mlyn ... for people like you, there are quotes. What are you the smartest here?
      2. Jin
        Jin 26 September 2013 19: 01 New
        +2
        Quote: Loafer
        The author is a stupid person! The article is designed for idiots! Downs approving her!


        Gentlemen, minusers! Hello to you!

        I would like to talk about my opinion that the person who wrote about:

        Quote: Loafer
        The article is designed for idiots! Downs approving her!


        And my critical attacks on this)

        Quote: Jin
        You yourself dumb, dumbhead! Follow the bazaar. Read the meaning, then blow your muzzle, trilobite, mlyn ...


        Putting your cons, you agree that this commentator, I can’t call him a colleague, is right in that he called the members of the forum, including me, who expressed opinions different from his own idiots and downs?

        What can I say ... Mutually !!! For only and downs so selflessly pass in assent to the stupidest conclusions, not really understanding the topic of the commentator ... Do you want a discussion? I'm ready.
        Sincerely.
        1. VAF
          VAF 26 September 2013 19: 13 New
          +4
          Quote: Jin

          What can I say ... Mutually !!! For only downs, so selflessly pass in assent to the stupidest conclusions, not very understanding the subject of the commentator ... Do you want a discussion? I'm ready.
          Sincerely.


          Excuse me, are you the author of the article? Or did you have a polemic with the Loafer? hi
          1. Alex 241
            Alex 241 26 September 2013 19: 15 New
            +2
            Seryozha welcome.
            1. VAF
              VAF 26 September 2013 19: 18 New
              +3
              Quote: Alex 241
              Seryozha welcome.


              Sanya, hi! Now "read2 you in yesterday" tanks "from Rogozin drinks
              Like armored personnel carriers on Rublevka drinks
              How are you? wink

              1. Alex 241
                Alex 241 26 September 2013 19: 25 New
                +4
                sized_1.jpg [/ img] [/ center]
                Seryozha, well, you know, tanks for me are "sick" in my father’s half tanker laughing OK. Well, we have not only armored personnel carriers, here are the Su-35 Vnukovo-3
                1. VAF
                  VAF 26 September 2013 20: 46 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Alex 241
                  here is the Su-35 Vnukovo-3


                  BM ... big wassat All "business jets2 pushed lol
                  1. Alex 241
                    Alex 241 26 September 2013 20: 52 New
                    +4
                    Yes Seryozha, the highlight of the program, in the second photo below, the terminal is visible on the right, SPACE-ENERGY, to which the notorious Yak-42 was assigned
                    1. Alex 241
                      Alex 241 26 September 2013 21: 11 New
                      +1
                      ..............................................
          2. Jin
            Jin 26 September 2013 19: 16 New
            +1
            Quote: vaf
            Excuse me, are you the author of the article? Or did you have a polemic with the Loafer?


            No, I'm not an author. There was no polemic, Sergey, there was a sensible look at this situevina and, as a result, my comment to him ...
            1. VAF
              VAF 26 September 2013 19: 22 New
              +2
              Quote: Jin
              there was a sound look at this situevina


              Well then, and ... hammer on ... him! +! drinks and cons including wink
              1. Jin
                Jin 26 September 2013 19: 28 New
                0
                Quote: vaf
                Well then, and ... hammer on ... him! +!


                Well, fuck! drinks What a stroller !? I’m not talking about the minus, but about his "voice acting" in a dumb address to the forum users (I don’t think, Seryoga, that you very much agree with him, in his conclusions). He borscht jules-juices), it is necessary to determine in place.
                1. VAF
                  VAF 26 September 2013 20: 13 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Jin
                  that you very much agree with him in his conclusions


                  Yes, I can’t get on him at all (his "conclusions") ... when I appear, then everything is already deleted .. only by scraps request
                  But anyway ... do not pay attention +! drinks
            2. The comment was deleted.
        2. Alex 241
          Alex 241 26 September 2013 19: 14 New
          +3
          Hi Zhenya, my friend, we’ll fix it with minuses. The article touched on a serious problem, a little from personal experience, it was Rzhev’s on the ARP, it just transferred to the MiG-31, and so the CPA (control and test equipment) came from pre-production weapons samples, and did not fit the serial. The commission arrived from Moscow, they sorted it out, but that's another story.
          1. Jin
            Jin 26 September 2013 19: 19 New
            +2
            Sanya !!! drinks Hi, brother! Yes poop minus for the power offensive! drinks
        3. Daduda
          Daduda 26 September 2013 21: 42 New
          +2
          I read the comments, but the discus is not there. And do not generalize, the statement was specifically about the author and his supporters, even you slipped to the excuse that those. the staff is untrained and does not want or cannot, for a number of reasons, take the initiative in servicing different types of aircraft. And the author is indeed as one well-wisher from a parable about a stone on the road, offering to tear the belly button and navel, but to drag the stone uphill. And you just need to dig a hole and bury a stone right on the road, you’ll have to find the right solution, and not listen to a stupid person.
        4. Setrac
          Setrac 26 September 2013 22: 14 New
          +3
          Quote: Jin
          Gentlemen, minusers! Hello to you!

          Phrase
          - "The article is designed for idiots! Approving it - downs!"
          not a DIRECT insult, unlike the phrase
          - "You yourself down, dumbhead!"
          This is due to emotions, but in fact - “both the reaper and the Swiss and the gamer are on the pipe” - we have already passed this and the user “loafer” is absolutely right here how to be down to step on this rake again (universality).
          1. Jin
            Jin 27 September 2013 11: 56 New
            0
            Quote: Setrac
            - "The article is designed for idiots! Approving it - downs!"
            not a DIRECT insult, unlike the phrase
            - "You yourself down, dumbhead!"


            I respect your opinion, but it is not absolute, agree. In my understanding Insulting straight or crooked, it doesn’t matter, remains an insult, the rest is demagogy and questions of diplomacy, no more ...

            Sincerely.
    2. Botanologist
      Botanologist 26 September 2013 09: 46 New
      21
      Let's decide what we want - ease of maintenance or performance characteristics of the product? Americans are trying to replace all types with a penguin - let's see what happens. I think it's bad. For the bomber will never become a fighter, not to mention the attack aircraft.
      Each plane - for those tasks that are needed in battle. And it’s hard for a wagon to be everywhere and everyone. Therefore, ground services should not be spared, but specialists should be trained. And then we’ll complain to our own head.
      1. Don
        Don 26 September 2013 16: 20 New
        +7
        Quote: Botanologist
        Americans are trying to replace all types with a penguin - let's see what happens. I think it's bad. For the bomber will never become a fighter, not to mention the attack aircraft.
        Each plane - for those tasks that are needed in battle. And it’s hard for a wagon to be everywhere and everyone.

        Exactly. They already seem to be going to write off the A-10 attack aircraft. In their opinion, his task will be able to fulfill the F-35. It's hard for me to imagine.
      2. VAF
        VAF 26 September 2013 17: 22 New
        11
        Quote: Botanologist
        Let's decide


        Greetings, dear! drinks Koment .. good And especially ... "decide" wink .

        The article is so-so .... I don’t write about the level, the mood is good, there are a lot of “blunders”, it’s understandable, writes the person who is in aviation ... at best, I saw only on .. pictures.

        1. Let him forget about the T-50 in the list ..... so many years will pass by the time he "becomes" in service that by this time only Su-35 and Su-30SM will remain, well, maybe they will survive 12 Su-27SM3 and 4 Su-30M2.

        So where is a large number belay

        2. About the FBA, everything is the same ... Su-24, only in the Guards, units fly ... a few more years and that's all ... sorry, but age and how is it no problem with them ???? What else.
        M2 and Hephaestus .. yes M2 did about 40 pieces (while the Great Misha was fighting), this is the first time. When Misha won, but the same cars ... a maximum of 10 years, just as long as everything 34th will not deliver.
        So there will be a single front-line bomber.

        3. Again, the author draws into the list of the Yak-130th ????? fool

        4. But what about the “Wishlist” from UOMZ ..... I’ve heard them for 20 years, and how many more will these Wishlist ????

        Bottom line: I advise you to see (even from the photo) weapons. which is used on our aircraft (and by the way, that on the Yak-130, that on the Su-34) wassat
        Again, all the same S-8, S-13 and ... all types of cast iron recourse that's where the PROBLEM !!!
        You can "sob" with emotion looking at "rivals" of the Polygon type, where the Su-34 from diving AFTERNOON in the PMU with the RPV "launches" the S-13 from a distance of 3 (!!!!!) km, under the joyful "squeak and screech" of the TV reporter ...... weep, not fellow scream.
        1. Botanologist
          Botanologist 26 September 2013 20: 10 New
          +2
          Quote: vaf
          Greetings, dear!


          Mutually! drinks
          Yes, the planes are already sort of doing, but with an ambush weapons request
          And what about the T-50 years for 5 we can’t handle the system?
          1. VAF
            VAF 26 September 2013 20: 17 New
            +6
            Quote: Botanologist
            And what about the T-50 years for 5 we can’t handle the system?


            According to T-50-5: the full cycle (ground) of the avionics and airborne missile tests has ended (we can already speak bully - it already has everything — and the adapters and APU and AKU, and everywhere and in the “fast compartments” and in the “main distribution centers” there are external ones.
            There will be a photo soon. The Air should rise either at the end of this week or at the beginning of the next.
            While everything works .. "as the doctor ordered"! good
            1. TSOOBER
              TSOOBER 26 September 2013 21: 07 New
              +1
              Thank you Sergey for the news! We are waiting for the photo! good
            2. Botanologist
              Botanologist 26 September 2013 21: 35 New
              +1
              Quote: vaf
              full cycle ended



              drinks
          2. Avenger711
            Avenger711 26 September 2013 20: 57 New
            0
            A series before 2020 is unlikely.
        2. Very old
          Very old 26 September 2013 22: 24 New
          0
          So it turns out, quo vadis?
    3. Fin
      Fin 26 September 2013 10: 01 New
      11
      Quote: Civil
      Disagreement is our long-term problem,

      I am not an expert, but for some reason I did not notice a global problem.
      All planes are based on the previous ones, only sighting systems, radars, etc. are changing. This is about the same as in the "Lada" air conditioning, automatic transmission set, and everything else is the same, only new. No technicians qualified? And what (who) prevents you from gaining how much you need and to produce them for training, and not by posters. What bases certain types of airplanes will receive are known. Not enough spare parts? Of course the first step will not be missed.
      The problem is more organizational than technical.
      Correct what is wrong.
      1. VAF
        VAF 26 September 2013 17: 03 New
        10
        Quote: Fin
        Correct what is wrong.


        Correcting drinks
        Quote: Fin
        only sighting systems, radars, etc. are changing. This is about the same as in the "Lada" air conditioning, automatic transmission set, and everything else is the same, only new.


        In the root, it’s not true .. they don’t change, but they’re “being finalized”, because the plane also has a power supply system and may simply not “pull” the new radar, and it would be very simple to “throw out” the Sword from all the crackers and stick the Bars or Irbis and forward ... onto the tanks wassat

        According to the "Lada" .. try to put a "condition" on the VAZ-2106, even with a 1,6 engine (not to mention 21063 or 21061) where ... "go" and most importantly .. how lol

        Quote: Fin
        No technicians qualified? And what (who) prevents you from gaining how much you need and to produce them for training, and not by posters.


        But this is just about yesterday’s topic about the unsinkability of a stool! soldier

        Who ozagnat all the Air Force and the training system of drugs and ITS ???? Successful re-formation ... wassat Well, well .... Glory to the Great Sonzelik ... inspirer and organizer of all our ... victories crying
      2. klimpopov
        klimpopov 26 September 2013 19: 13 New
        +2
        Where to cook specialists? But now, instead of aviation schools, we have cadet corps ...
        1. VAF
          VAF 26 September 2013 19: 16 New
          +2
          Quote: klimpopov
          Where to cook specialists?


          Klim, hi! At furniture factories named after the Great Taburetkin! fellow
          1. klimpopov
            klimpopov 26 September 2013 19: 23 New
            +1
            So even in order to work at a furniture factory, you need to study ... And then the plane.
            How sad and sad. If new equipment arrives, future cadets should also come to educational institutions that will be trained to operate this equipment. After all, this is obvious ... that's just not everyone can see ...
            Hi Seryozha! I have not seen you here for a long time
    4. yanus
      yanus 26 September 2013 12: 23 New
      -2
      Oh, they don’t want technicians and engineers to study and work again. Lazy people ...
      But the discrepancy in technology, of course, is serious.
      1. Fin
        Fin 26 September 2013 12: 31 New
        0
        Quote: yanus
        Oh, they don’t want technicians and engineers to study and work again. Lazy people ...

        Bad offer. An order for training came and drove off.
        And the second way is to type in schools for 2 years and release ml. l-mi or warrant officers.
        The organization here is bad and nothing else.
        1. Firstvanguard
          Firstvanguard 26 September 2013 13: 52 New
          0
          IMHO the article is designed for hamsters having very vague ideas about technology. You might think that the operators did not provide technical documentation regarding fool
          About the inconsistency in general is nonsense, in the USSR in one air unit they coped with a similar number of aircraft types. Moreover, the scheduled maintenance of new machines has been greatly simplified.
          1. VAF
            VAF 26 September 2013 17: 07 New
            +6
            Quote: Firstvanguard
            IMHO the article is designed for hamsters having very vague ideas about technology


            It’s you yourself so ...... "affectionately" ... you know our wassat

            Quote: Firstvanguard
            You might think that the operators did not provide technical documentation regarding


            You will be surprised, but they still use and retrain on some types of adopted armaments according to the FLIGHT DESIGN documentation, not to mention the TECHNICAL DESCRIPTIONS (there is no technical documentation in aviation, this is me ... just in case .. for hamsters laughing )
            1. Jin
              Jin 26 September 2013 19: 14 New
              +3
              Quote: vaf
              You will be surprised, but they still use and retrain on some types of adopted armaments according to the FLIGHT DESIGN documentation, not to mention the TECHNICAL DESCRIPTIONS (there is no technical documentation in aviation, this is me ... just in case .. .for .. hamsters laughing)


              Seryoga, hello, it is unlikely that you will surprise him ... You yourself know, there are "not surprised" - "a great many", but surprising ones to: "you can grin," even more ...
    5. Dnepropetrovsk
      Dnepropetrovsk 26 September 2013 23: 45 New
      0
      This is what a generalist pilot should be, to perform the functions of a fighter, interceptor, attack aircraft, and bomber.
      1. Dnepropetrovsk
        Dnepropetrovsk 27 September 2013 00: 16 New
        0
        The problem is not in highly specialized aircraft, but in the training of flight personnel.
  2. Canep
    Canep 26 September 2013 08: 16 New
    +6
    Lack of competition will lead to stagnation and lagging of the industry. Su and MiG, Il and Tu must coexist in combat units.
    1. KG_patriot_last
      KG_patriot_last 26 September 2013 11: 29 New
      +3
      Moreover, in the same article, aircraft are called either of the same type, or highly specialized. The larger the fleet and producers, the greater the chance of surviving a big war.
  3. VadimL
    VadimL 26 September 2013 08: 19 New
    +3
    Difficult situation. With such an abundance of types of machines, their maintenance and supply of spare parts is much more difficult. And there will be problems with the training of crews.
    I would prefer to saturate the Su-30SM Air Force and, possibly, a small amount of Su-35 (for trial operation). Meanwhile, slowly bringing to mind the T-50. And let the T-50 appear a little later than you want, but it will be a solid reliable aircraft + proven tactics of its application + combat training programs for pilots + streamlined supply and maintenance scheme.
    As for bomber aircraft, the SU-34 is an entirely acceptable option. Still, a front-line bomber is not a highly specialized vehicle. In combat conditions, such aircraft have to solve a fairly wide range of tasks, often with strong opposition to enemy air defense (this is what some consider armor to be an excess).
    The Yak-130, in my opinion, is needed in moderation for training pilots.
    Helicopters are harder. The scope of their tasks is so diverse that it will be limited to 1-2 types.
  4. Zerstorer
    Zerstorer 26 September 2013 08: 29 New
    +2
    It’s necessary to get away from such a large park. But the use of multi-purpose should be recognized as insufficient by the criterion of cost-effectiveness. The best solution, in my opinion, is to create specialized aircraft on the same base (an example of the MiG-25 interceptor and reconnaissance bomber + air defense work).

    Multipurpose AK - AK capable of solving different tasks in one flight.

    A multifunctional AK - AK is capable of solving several problems, while for the solution of each problem, a modification of the original AK is performed.
  5. Fofan
    Fofan 26 September 2013 08: 44 New
    +9
    It can be proposed to abandon the Su-24 family bombers as one of the options for optimizing procurement

    as optimization options, it can be suggested that the Su-24 has not been produced since 1993, i.e. more than 20 years.
    and in this form the whole article is written. the author is constantly tweaking a little bit, after which he draws biased conclusions.
  6. Zerstorer
    Zerstorer 26 September 2013 08: 51 New
    +7
    According to the correctness of the arguments in the article

    "By the indicated date, Russia will come out on top in the world in the number of types and models of strike aircraft." But what about India? There the park will be even more motley.

    In the United States, too, not all aircraft of the same type have one avionics. Modernization is also different. Then how do we count the F-22 Block 10/20/30/40 (similar to F-16 and F-15)? Are these different planes? No. Also for the MiG-29 and Su-27 families.

    Yes, many weapons are purchased, including in order to support the defense industry. (Is it happening somewhere else?) It’s just that the need has already ripened for us to replace obsolete samples, and we cannot produce new ones in the required quantity. So you have to modernize the old, otherwise there will be nothing in the troops. Hence the conclusion - it is necessary to develop the production base, and only then withdraw the retirement of obsolete models. You can also try to combine the design bureau, but excessive centralization is also bad here, as there will be no competition.
  7. AlNick
    AlNick 26 September 2013 08: 56 New
    +8
    Quote: Zerstorer
    the diversity of combat vehicles can be a fatal blow to ground services, for which the military training and scientific center of the Air Force “Air Force Academy named after professor N. Ye. Zhukovsky and Yu. A. Gagarin” in Voronezh should produce several hundred every year technical officers for the maintenance and operation of new types of aircraft.


    In the USSR, in addition to the aforementioned academy, 7 more higher schools (Riga, Kiev, Daugavpils, Irkutsk, Kharkov, Voronezh, Tambov) and 6 secondary (Kaliningrad, Vasilkov, Kirov, Achinsk, Perm, Lomonosov) schools were trained in the USSR. In general, it is worth talking separately about the number of graduated officers.
    So in 1980, the first graduation in the higher profile of only one Daugavpils VVAIU amounted to (over 4 specialties - SD, AB, AO and REO) more than 550 people. Prior to this, when training cadets in the secondary profile, there were even more graduations.
  8. Bongo
    Bongo 26 September 2013 09: 04 New
    +8
    Such large-scale purchases can not even afford the US Air Force.
    The problem is largely contrived. Starting from the middle of 90-x, new aircraft were practically not purchased. The age of most aircraft prevailed over 20-years. Many types of combat aircraft, from those listed in the article are to be written off in the near future. If our country wants to preserve its independence, the purchase of modern aircraft is vital.
  9. Ruslan
    Ruslan 26 September 2013 09: 22 New
    +3
    when the su-34 appeared, in those materials that I read then, it was positioned as a replacement, not only for the su-24, but also for the tu-22m3. hence, further it must be used and applied for these purposes. about other cars. Su-27,30,35 almost the same type of machine. What is difficult to create for them one radar, airborne engines, engines? it is simply inability and unwillingness to work and plan. I can’t formulate specific and clear requirements for each specific aircraft, only the vague “does not meet modern requirements”, and the military-industrial complex stupidly does not give a damn about these problems, the main thing is to sell. and such a problem not only in aviation, but in general in all branches of the armed forces, applies to practically all types of weapons. the funniest and worst thing is that this problem has existed since imperial times. I remember reading how armadillos were built for the fleet according to one project. as a result, the three ships of the series were completely different from each other in size, displacement, armament and even power plants it seems. there’s nothing to say about the USSR: t-64,72,80 will speak for themselves; the same parsley with sau: acacia, hyacinth, revenge; aviation again; what a disagreement in zrk; I am generally silent about the fleet: how many copies were broken around the aircraft carriers, each new series of ships and submarines was completely different from each other. sometimes you read about the Yusov fleet, you can only hear: harpoon, standard, tomahawk, volcano-phalanx. 30 years already, if not more.
    it’s bad that we never had, a single organization that would bend both mine and the military-industrial complex, so that they would not pull the blanket over themselves, which would plan the development of the army for 30 years, for example, and define standards for military equipment, taking into account further modernization and Mo requirements, low cost of operation, etc. we would have turned the mountains, just because the entire military-industrial complex would have worked on one tank, armored personnel carrier, sau, helicopter, fighter, bomber, destroyer, pl, a series of missiles for one air defense missile system and so on. would not have to spray power. sorry.
  10. Bongo
    Bongo 26 September 2013 09: 48 New
    +6
    There is no sense in the modernization of aircraft which, according to 20-25 years, there is no waste of money. A striking example is the modernization of the Su-27 in the Su-27CM. On aircraft 86-87 years of release was replaced by avionics. In this case, the residual life of the airframe of these machines is relatively small, on some machines significant corrosion, and therefore overload restrictions were imposed. Much of the machines are not combat, due to the failure of the blocks. This is despite the fact that most of the aircraft of this type is based at the Dzemgi airfield, close to KnAAPO in Komsomolsk. The quality of aircraft engines “overhauled” along the line of “Oboronservis” for these machines does not cause anything but profanity in technicians.
  11. Nikitin
    Nikitin 26 September 2013 09: 55 New
    +2
    A bad dancer, it is known that always interferes.
    At first, the industry was accused of excessive export orientation, and now when it turns out that the army cannot serve modern equipment, and there is no one to fly it either. It is time to reverse the Serdyukov reforms and restore the military engineering academy.
  12. basil200
    basil200 26 September 2013 10: 01 New
    0
    For some reason, the car industry also has so much disagreement, it suits everyone.
    1. Max otto
      Max otto 26 September 2013 11: 16 New
      0
      At one time, the Wehrmacht burned out on such a dissonance in tanks of all kinds and modifications, does this mean something to you? Remember how it ended?
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 26 September 2013 11: 47 New
        +5
        The Wehrmacht was deprived of fuel and additives when cooking steel. Hence the problems with fuel and lubricants, with armor, maintainability and the number of cars produced. If not for this, the Luftwaffe would crush us with its reagents.
      2. Avenger711
        Avenger711 26 September 2013 12: 02 New
        +2
        The Wehrmacht, even if it got burned, although it’s stupid to separate its problems from the problems of Germany as a whole, it was only at the launch of a series of unnecessarily expensive cars already during the war, and the appearance of these machines forced the Allies to move and invent even not so much T-34-85 with the IS-2, it’s not anti-tank tanks, like all sorts of “Shermans” with expensive 17 pounds of which there’s not much use for other purposes. But even if instead of 5k “panthers” 10-15k “grooves” -IV were built, then this kodla would still require more people and wonders in the battle “groove” at that time would not show.
        1. Max otto
          Max otto 26 September 2013 16: 20 New
          +1
          I don’t argue with you, in general, of course, the problems were systemic, and it’s stupid to separate the tank troops from everything else, just give an example: let's say some crap for a tank, suppose a transmission case. How many human hours are needed to produce 60 products in 15 versions? And imagine how many same human hours are needed to produce just 60 products of one modification (30% less, i.e. faster). And there are also mistakes in logistics, you are waiting for node 91123.23 near Kharkov, but he left near Leningrad, and you received 91123.23a (the loaders mixed up, not only civilians, they were also prisoners), and your company is still waiting for 2 weeks (faster No way, partisans, their mother).
          1. Avenger711
            Avenger711 26 September 2013 16: 54 New
            +1
            The number of modifications of Soviet weapons is also large, but it was also Lend-Lease.
            1. Max otto
              Max otto 26 September 2013 19: 26 New
              0
              I know you never give up, that's a good trait hi
              But there is a difference, modifications of 2-3 cars, and modifications of 5-8 cars in service. And there is also a difference when the same type of machine is assembled in heaps and scattered. Yes, God bless them, with tanks, that this was a rather negative moment in the troops, you do not deny.
              Back to the planes. Such a large number of different types of machines in the Russian Air Force is for economic reasons, well, they should not be thrown away, plus disorder and reeling in the leadership, well, no one has led this type of troops for a long time, like the army as a whole. Therefore, manufacturers riveted all sorts of things at random, maybe someone will buy. And now he takes the Russian Air Force, because with a bare well ... you can’t sing at all. By the way, I did not notice that they have now decided on the type of aircraft.
              1. Avenger711
                Avenger711 26 September 2013 21: 55 New
                0
                The Wehrmacht had in 1944-45 Pz-IV / V / VI / VIB, StuG-III / IV, Jg Panther, Hetzer in small quantities Nashorn, JgTiger, Fedya. All self-propelled guns except the "Fed" on the basis of serial tanks.

                The USSR had T-34-85, IS-1/2, SU-76, imported Shermans, already 4 types of base vehicles, even if light tanks and all kinds of Churchill were discarded. Plus different self-propelled guns at their base. That is, the discrepancy is comparable. In addition, with the departure of Pz-III, the transition to STuG-IV became forced, as the transition from SU-152 to ISU-152. And Hetzer was the only way to get the Czechs to work without much effort, and not to introduce the Pz-IV production there.
  13. Wedmak
    Wedmak 26 September 2013 10: 06 New
    +7
    There is still Su-30СМ, Su-35, Миг-33 ahead, ”the specialist was indignant.

    What do you mean outraged? New equipment arrives in the troops, it is clear that it is not immediately possible to arrange the production of spare parts and it is necessary to train service specialists. Why resent something? What kind of specialist are you if you can't figure out new technology without an uncle from the factory?
    Despite the declared possibility of using medium-range guided air-to-air missiles, the Su-34 is unlikely to cope with an air adversary.

    Choi is that? With a Raptor or F-15 / 16 of the latest modification, he certainly is unlikely to cope, but setting the bashing of an accidentally caught A-10 or helicopter is easy! But this is still a bomber, it must be covered by the very Su-35, which the author insults so much for the poor possibilities of working on the ground.
    And we do not need to be equal to the fleet of aircraft in the USA, France and other Europe. Our territory is huge, the terrain is different. All of these types of new aircraft will come in handy.
    1. Jin
      Jin 26 September 2013 13: 53 New
      +5
      Quote: Wedmak
      What kind of specialist are you if you can't figure out new technology without an uncle from the factory?


      Colleague, the speech is that we are doing everything again, like ours. The author writes that, for example, the Su-27 is different from the Su-34, even “different machines” writes ... But how to understand them if they are different? With a screwdriver, a sledgehammer and such a mother? No, not an option ... at all! God forbid the plane serviced by such a technician is robbed then what? Does the technician himself need such a responsibility? Then, as is usual with us, they will do the extreme of it, saying: "Nah climbed, if you do not know?" This is necessary to learn, but at the same time they do not learn, so they are waiting for "uncle from the factories." Moreover, the tendency for military specialists to be freed altogether from "everything except direct duties." They put everything on the representatives of the factories and not only in aviation, so I said they wanted the best, but what grew up ... In short, don’t twist, and the dances on the rake continue ... we give a straight hapaka! sad
    2. Don
      Don 26 September 2013 17: 46 New
      +1
      Quote: Wedmak
      Choi is that? With the Raptor or F-15/16 of the latest modification, he certainly is hardly likely to cope

      But I can’t understand at all why this Su-34 will not be able to cope with the F-15 or F-16 ?! On the Su-34 radar with a viewing range of 120 km. On the Su-34 can be R-77 (up to 175km) and R-27 (up to 130km), and on the F-15 AIM-120 (up to 105km) and AIM-9 (up to 18km). And this despite the fact that if the radar is improved and the R-37 and KS-127 are adopted, then its capabilities will increase even more.
      1. VAF
        VAF 26 September 2013 18: 13 New
        +5
        Quote: Don
        But I can’t understand at all why this Su-34 will not be able to cope with the F-15 or F-16 ?!


        Because it .. "Wishlist"!

        Quote: Don
        On the Su-34 radar with a viewing range of 120 km. On the Su-34 can be R-77 (up to 175km) and R-27 (up to 130km),


        The most important thing in your comment .. CAN, but not .. stand, but this is a significant difference wink

        This is where you saw the R-27 with a launch range of 130 km ????? belay
        you read "ryachitalki" ????? wink all about AE and ME bully
        So it may be in your Artyom, ... I don’t argue, but in our country ... call me ... "banana is dumb" wassat

        Quote: Don
        what if we improve the radar and adopt the R-37 and KS-127


        Well ... and this is real ... you incurred .... this is from the series "if my grandmother had only one thing, then ... she would have fallen ... grandfather" lol

        To date, the Su-34 can only R-73 and ... all soldier and then .. without "participation" .. "advanced locator" wassat
        1. Don
          Don 26 September 2013 18: 56 New
          -1
          If without your incomprehensible irony, then I did not see a single fact at all. For instance:
          Quote: vaf
          The most important thing in your comment .. CAN, but not .. stand, but this is a significant difference

          Why not? Why do you think so?
          Quote: vaf
          This is where you saw the R-27 with a launch range of 130 km

          Quote: vaf
          So maybe you have in Artyom

          Well, why in Artem? In Artyom just 90km. On different sites in different ways. 130 km in Wiki, on airwar.ru 80 km, on bastion-karpenko.narod.ru R-27R 58km, R-27ER 80km, R-27EA 130km. And what is it not enough? I haven’t written anywhere that the Su-34 will easily hit the F-15 or F-16, I wrote that you can’t call it a pure bomber.
          Quote: vaf
          Well ... and this is real ... you incurred .... this is from the series "if my grandmother had only one thing, then ... she would have gone ... grandfather

          By this I wanted to say that there is a development prospect.
          Quote: vaf
          To date, the Su-34 can only R-73 and ... all

          What are you? And then the natural question begs, but why is it suddenly R-77 and R-27 can not.
          1. VAF
            VAF 26 September 2013 19: 11 New
            +5
            Quote: Don
            Why not? Why do you think so?


            Because I know soldier

            Quote: Don
            On wiki


            Then, without comment .... For some reason, your Wiki does not write. that AE and EM rockets were produced only by a limited-experienced batch bully and all

            Quote: Don
            By this I wanted to say that there is a development prospect.


            What-what .... but "prospects. Yes also ..development" wassat we have .. enough lol , especially reinforced by 2uria-slogans "about the best and unparalleled and .. shown only at closed shows wassat
            How old are you ???? belay What do you believe in fairy tales?

            Quote: Don
            And then the natural question begs, but why is it suddenly R-77 and R-27 can not.


            Not a very correct question. but I’ll answer ... because at the moment the CIT! soldier
            And so .... go to Voronezh or Lipetsk and "talk" with the people, if there is such an opportunity wink
            1. Don
              Don 27 September 2013 16: 25 New
              0
              Quote: vaf
              Because I know

              Sergey, with all due respect to you, this is not an answer. I can also write what I know. At least give a reference.
              Quote: vaf
              Then, without comment .... For some reason, your Wiki does not write. that AE and EM rockets were produced only by a limited-experienced batch

              I brought other sites. You can still search. Something about the experimental party did not read.
              Quote: vaf
              What-what .... but "prospects. Yes also ..development"

              Quote: vaf
              And so .... go to Voronezh or Lipetsk and "talk" with the people, if there is such an opportunity

              I would love to go to Lipetsk to AB, but unfortunately I can go there only on a business trip to NLMZ and it is unlikely that they will let me go to AB, and someone will tell something. Of course, you are a good specialist, if I am not mistaken, you wrote that you used to fly a Su-24, but at the same time you are a pronounced pessimist. All this can be judged by your comments. I remember a year ago you wrote that if at least one Su-30SM would arrive, and then, as usual, slogans. In all comments, you clearly see the denial of any positive shift. I'm not saying that you need to shout - cheers are all good, but it will only get better, but there are clearly shifts for the better.
              Quote: vaf
              Not a very correct question. but I’ll answer ... because at the moment the CIT!

              Firstly I didn’t understand why it’s not correct? Secondly, I did not understand what CIT is. And thirdly, everywhere on the sites, and in the comments of other people, on other sites, they write that the R-77 and R-27 can be posted, and you write that you can not. Explain for at least one reason.
  14. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 26 September 2013 10: 07 New
    0
    The different types of aircraft have economic and partially political reasons. The solution to the problem lies in the same planes. Although from the point of view of the operators, the situation is apparently awful. But at least there will be plenty to choose from when the problem is going to be solved. Reminds a situation with tanks on the eve of the Second World War.
  15. smiths xnumx
    smiths xnumx 26 September 2013 10: 28 New
    +2
    Different plants need to live. And so if you try on in comparison with the late Soviet realities ..
    Su-35S- "transitional" Air Force fighter, to replace the old Su-27
    Su-30SM - conditionally "fighter-bomber", niche Mig-27 and Su-17 of the 80s. Although the MiG-29SMT was planned for such a niche, and, perhaps, it will complement the MiG-35
    Su-34 is a front-line bomber, replacing the Su-24 and, in part, the Tu-22M3. Plus Su-34, IMHO, de facto our "EW attack aircraft" and "SEAD fighter." What are the Su-35 and Su-30 are not competitors to him.
    PAK FA- after 2020 will replace those su-27s (late release) that did not replace the su-35s
    PAK DA- will replace the Tu-95th
    PAK SHA - replacement of the Su-25
    Mig-29e go without replacement, either LFI or Su-30 / 35S will play their role.
    Yours! hi
  16. PavelOPG
    PavelOPG 26 September 2013 10: 42 New
    -6
    Will it come in handy? so let’s buy a thousand cornmen. will bomb all at night. and what narrow specialization after all. and the night butterflies will be planted laughing . which is simpler and cheaper? one airplane and outboard equipment or a bunch of planes?
  17. Rakti-kali
    Rakti-kali 26 September 2013 11: 02 New
    +7
    The Air Force should receive 60 T-50, 120 Su-35S, 60 Su-30SM, 37 MiG-35 fighters, up to 140 Su-34 front-line bombers and 80 Yak-130 combat trainers. The Army Aviation Park will be replenished with 167 Mi-28N / NM, 180 Ka-52, 49 Mi-35M, 38 Mi-26T, up to 500 Mi-8MTV / AMTS.

    There will be four types of bombers alone - the Su-34, the “clean” Su-24, the upgraded Sukhoi Su-24M2 Design Bureau, and the Su-24SVP-24 with the installed SVP-24 sighting system of the Hephaestus and T company. There will be even more fighters - Su-27, Su-27SM, Su-27SM3, Su-30, Su-30SM, Su-35, as well as the T-50, undergoing flight tests. There is also the MiG-29 family, which will be replenished with the MiG-33 and the upgraded MiG-29SMT. There are four types of combat helicopters in the army aviation - Mi-24, Mi-35M, Mi-28 and Ka-52.

    Yeah ... The author forgot about the MiG-31 and Su-25 family. That's just ...
    1. Bombers - the Su-24, regardless of whether it’s M2 or SVP, or without a “surname” at all - this is ONE type, which is also planned for replacement with the Su-34, which will also take part of the tasks from the Tu-22M * . Yes, and a clean twenty-four is planned to be soon written off or modernized.
    2. Fighters - Su-27, Su-27SM, Su-27SM3, again one family. Their modernization is caused by the lack of new types of aircraft against the background of a significant subsidence of the total number of fighters in the Russian Air Force.
    3. T-50 - will not become the basis of the fleet in any case, even rich Americans with a steaming printing press could not make the Raptor the basis of their Air Force. Accordingly, the Su-30, Su-35 family will become the workhorse of the Russian Air Force. And these types have a lot in common.
    4. The Mi-35, of course, is a palliative, 24-ki produce a resource and are written off, and they’re morally outdated, and new types replaced them “per hour on a teaspoon”, and so as not to lose attack helicopter aviation (as well retain personnel at Rostvertol and maintain positions in foreign markets occupied by Mi-24) began deliveries of this pepelats. As soon as the Mi-28 is enough 24 and 35 will leave the Air Force.
    5. Yak-130 replacement of albatrosses and pairs of machines of the main types in educational institutions and units - clean water is the work to reduce inconsistency.
    6. About the MiG-29 family. Personally, I can’t imagine what niche this “heavy light fighter” occupies now. In the form in which it exists - you can give it to the fleet - on the principle of "God be with you, that we do not care."
    Conclusion - the existing disagreement in types is a consequence of the policy "army of the military-industrial complex of the military-industrial complex" carried out before the collapse of the USSR and actually the problems generated by this very collapse. And to change the situation quickly does not work out - at the present time, no country in the world is capable of carrying out rapid rearmament, because the cost of modern aircraft has already reached very extreme levels.
    And even in the ideal case, it will not work out to be limited to 2-3 types - Russia is not Britain, if the United States does not protect us.
    Z. S. All of the above is nothing more than my IMHO.
    1. knn54
      knn54 26 September 2013 13: 42 New
      +3
      - The Air Force has not yet been able to clearly explain why an armored titanium cabin is needed to protect small arms and artillery systems from fire on a bomber that operates at an altitude of more than five thousand meters and hits targets with precision weapons without entering the enemy’s air defense zone.
      And if the plane flies at an extremely low altitude, taking into account the terrain. The Israeli Air Force is successfully using this tactic.
      And the Su-34 can be used to combat enemy submarines, i.e., in naval aviation.
      -Rakti-Kali: About the MiG-29 family.
      Mig-35 is the "commercial" name Mig-29K for the SV, in turn, Mig-29K is the Mig-29M for the Navy. There is a GAME in words and numbers - the Yankees have a F / A-18 Hornet (Hornet) carrier-based fighter: F / A-18B, F / A-18C, F / A-18D, F / A-18L, F / A-18 HARV, F / A-18E, F / A-18F, after all SIMPLY 4 ... 7 different types of aircraft. And three modifications of the F-35, in fact three different cars ... are we misleading the enemy?
      PS This opinion is not a specialist.
  18. Algor73
    Algor73 26 September 2013 11: 09 New
    +1
    Such disagreement in peacetime still went wherever, but in war, when problems with the supply of spare parts? Yes, and in peace, the author writes that "... often new cars are out of order, waiting for representatives of the plant, since ground technical services do not even understand which side to approach the car." They say that the Su-34 is much like Su-27 on a glider, engines and electrics. This is not true. Completely different machines for which it is necessary to train their individual specialists in all components and mechanisms. Spare parts are not interchangeable, each type of machine needs its own. And this is only the first signs. Su-30SM, Su-35, Mig-33, ”the specialist was indignant,“ ... During the USSR, there were a lot of equipment for each modification, technicians were thoroughly trained, and there were much fewer modifications. And now? 20-30 aircraft of each modification (at best) and each batch is different from the previous one, the technique is incomparably complicated. I agree with the author. It is necessary to develop suspension equipment to fulfill specific goals.
  19. 116rus
    116rus 26 September 2013 11: 28 New
    0
    FUCKING PR hi
  20. USNik
    USNik 26 September 2013 11: 46 New
    +3
    Not an article, but a complete, unclouded lib libroid, a creature calling itself a journalist.
    The Air Force should receive 60 T-50, 120 Su-35S, 60 Su-30SM, 37 MiG-35 fighters, and up to 140 Su-34 front-line bombers ... Even the US Air Force cannot afford such large-scale purchases.
    Those. only 417 (+ -) combat attack aircraft (and that will be greatly stretched in time), and how does this statement compare with the purchase plans for 1500 F-35s alone, the cost of which is much higher than all our machines !? In general, the author k0l in mathematics!
    “... The Su-30SM will soon arrive at the air base ... But the main thing is that there is still no understanding of what the new machine should do. Is it a fighter, interceptor, fighter-bomber? We don’t know yet, and the car is already starting to enter the troops ”
    Where did he find such an interlocutor? Apparently he took an interview in the madhouse ... SU-30SM is an all-weather strike fighter-interceptor. The purpose of such machines is clear to everyone except the afftor forgotten in the shafts:
    the US air force will receive universal combat vehiclescapable of how to work on ground targets precision weapons and lead an air battle... British Royal Air Force ... Until 2020, there will only be multifunction fighters "Typhoon", modified for strike against ground targets and combat air defense... The French Air Force is leaving in its fleet modernized with an extension of its life fighter-bombers Mirage-2000
    In general, this NATO minion, in the frenzy of scribbling this article, to the point of trembling knees, does not like our voluminous and comprehensive modification of a large number of technology of the previous generation, putting it on a par with the vaunted and wildly expensive stealth. And from the realization that the armaments will soon be deployed on the head superior to the entire NATO arsenal, the messenger generally began an uncontrolled communication mission presented in the form of this article.
    1. Don
      Don 26 September 2013 17: 55 New
      0
      Quote: USNik
      SU-30SM is an all-weather strike fighter-interceptor.

      Well, why is it a purely interceptor? It is possible to place free-falling bombs on it, NUR, anti-ship missiles X-35, anti-radar missiles X-58, X-31 air-to-surface.
  21. report4
    report4 26 September 2013 12: 00 New
    +3
    To be honest, even reluctant to comment on this scribble. What is not an offer, then either a stupid training manual or an advertising brochure. It can be seen that he wrote a "cool military analyte."
  22. Basileus
    Basileus 26 September 2013 12: 02 New
    0
    From the entire list of different aircraft only - fighters based on the Su-27, MiG-29, and bombers Su-24 and Su-34. Four types. The fact that technicians cannot solve the problems of modern electronics is already a problem of a different plan.
  23. Avenger711
    Avenger711 26 September 2013 13: 31 New
    +3
    I don’t know what kind of “specialist” the Su-34 is indignant, but in terms of rudeness and shifting its direct duties (unless, of course, it’s a person who is relevant to the case, and not anyhow anyone), this is comparable to Rychagov’s famous assault on Stalin, who allegedly forced him, Rychagov, the People’s Commissar of Aviation, who was directly responsible for receiving the equipment, to fly on coffins. If the maintenance of the machines has not been established during such a time, then the guilty parties must be brought to court for wrecking, or at least removed from their posts, they may not be just fools, but we don’t have a difference for what reason the personnel are endangered and the combat effectiveness of the Air Force is reduced.

    But the crew from Torzhok only studied the possibilities of its electronics and weapons in the mountains. In fact, the helicopter was not ready for a sortie.


    And did the crew give up everything that was supposed to be? And it turns out interestingly, the crew could not fly, and the helicopter is to blame, which is somewhat more complicated than a car.

    . During modernization, the resource is doubled - from 16 to 32 thousand flight hours.


    I’m wondering, do they have a centimeter steel glider? The Su-35 resource claimed is only 6000 hours, with a flying time of 200 hours a year, this is enough for 30 years, how do Americans plan to spend an additional 16000 hours in 10-15 years? It seems like ordinary nonsense, which is already just too lazy to check on Google.
  24. NC1982
    NC1982 26 September 2013 13: 40 New
    +1
    And the situation with unification of the aircraft and assigning one type of various tasks to me reminded me of the situation with mobile phones 4-6 years ago, when they pushed a camera, GPS, radio-TV, player, game console, etc. into the receiver (let's say a fighter). , the output was: the camera is G. but (you can only take a picture on the avatar in the notebook), the radio hisses, the TV does not show, the music grunts - the sound is terrible, it is impossible to play on such a screen (resolution and screen size are depressingly small), at the battery from such a set “fucked up” and capitulated in dozens of minutes! The same thing here: The fighter was equipped with the functions of a bomber, an attack aircraft, set the task to gain superiority in the air and at the same time work almost like an infantry ... The only thing that phones could do well at that time was to make calls, which was what they were originally intended for. bully
    1. il grand casino
      il grand casino 26 September 2013 13: 57 New
      0
      Well, if you follow these analogies ... it turns out that soon the planes will become truly unified. After all, the phones could (the diseases described above were cured) ...)))
      1. NC1982
        NC1982 26 September 2013 14: 27 New
        +2
        Well, firstly, planes are more complicated than telephones))
        and secondly, I would not say that I’m cured, I personally shoot on the phone, use the navigator and listen to music in exceptional cases, and I prefer to take pictures on Sony Alfa, listen to the iPod and navigator in the car separately ...
        Z.Y. So as not to think, I have a smart HTC phone =)
        1. il grand casino
          il grand casino 26 September 2013 14: 37 New
          0
          No, it’s better to take a picture on a DSLR and a hedgehog is understandable (even though I canon and love it more) ... but I even used a 2008 mobile phone to create commercial photos, the need made ... normal. It is quite possible to work, especially if the hands are not from one place))) about listening to iPode my friend the sound engineer would argue with you, but I'm not special so this is not my topic))) GPS ... oh and I was tormented with him on phone, your truth.
          P.S. On the topic - I do not think that it is possible to unify planes efficiently ... at least in full.
          1. NC1982
            NC1982 26 September 2013 14: 44 New
            0
            so I’m talking about what, why is this fuss with a mobile phone (retouching, eliminating noise, etc.), if you can take a SLR and click ?! So here: why to build a ground attack aircraft from a fighter, if you can take just a ground attack aircraft? He will work on assignment without additional processing and will do it beautifully.
            1. il grand casino
              il grand casino 26 September 2013 14: 52 New
              0
              Oh, I would like your DSLR ... to click and that's it)))) After clicking, everything just starts. But this is so flood)))
        2. Basileus
          Basileus 26 September 2013 14: 40 New
          0
          I’ll leave the topic, but why do you need an iPod? Any modern smart produces a very good sound, especially with high-quality headphones.
          1. NC1982
            NC1982 26 September 2013 14: 51 New
            0
            I don’t know why, it’s a complete set with a set of favorite tracks, he’s already years old, I’m probably used to it - I’ve gotten together in a park or just run, threw it in my pocket, put in my headphones and go ahead)) and smarts ... unless Sonya give a decent sound, for example, the gnummas will never be able to.
  25. Avenger711
    Avenger711 26 September 2013 14: 59 New
    +2
    equipped with the new “Sniper” hanging sighting containers, in their combat capabilities became identical to the more expensive F-15E


    And different flight data, primarily the range and bomb load, which even the F-15E is not very large due to the need to haul hanging tanks, shall we consider it?

    The KLA and the Air Force leadership still have not been able to clearly explain why an armored titanium cabin is needed to protect small arms and artillery systems from fire on a bomber that operates at an altitude of more than five thousand meters and hits targets with precision weapons without entering the enemy’s air defense zone .


    It is in the erotic dreams of a cowardly layman that airplanes can shoot anyone without entering the air defense zone. But the reality rather reflects the downed Tu-22M3 in the Five-Day. SAM and fighters will quickly drive any attack aircraft below the radio horizon. Plus, active opposition to the setting of all kinds of interference and the purpose for which to beat only with carpet with iron (bearded men in the forest).

    another way is to resume work on upgrading the Su-27 fleet to the “SM3” version, but with the installation of aiming hanging containers. For little money, the Air Force will receive universal combat vehicles without lengthy testing and refinement. This is what the United States is doing when modernizing its F-15E and F-16 fleet.


    The first bomber from birth, the second became a bomber in fact. Now the United States is spreading with a fair amount of F-15 fighter modifications and 180 F-22 without experiencing a serious need for powerful air defense. But why make a bomber out of a Su-27 is a mystery to me. Let's face it, a bomber can fly to a potential theater of war if necessary, while the need for airplanes at the most likely points of conflict is small, because the Russian army as a whole is an order of magnitude, or even 2, stronger than local tie-eaters. Fighters, however, are carrying out work to cover a vast territory, and in the event of any incidents, they are needed here and now, that is, they are needed before the fig.

    In large air forces there is no sense in unification at the level of units, even with the same materiel. Training fighters to bombing, and bombing aerial combat will require additional costs, including very expensive guided ammunition. And you know, it’s not the best idea to beat the resource of the most complicated engines with OBT only in order to sneak up on the target, and bite it, give a tear. And hanging up on a PGO fighter, increasing its resistance, so that it does not shake at low altitudes, is also an unnecessary expense. And if the plane in part is not just supposed to be used for air combat, then it makes no sense to occupy the suspension with containers, increasing the visibility of the machine and resistance.

    Examples of successful modernization by modern standards already exist: Su-27SM and SM3, Su-25SM and SM3, MiG-31BM. For relatively little money, the Air Force received good modified cars with modern avionics, upgraded engines.


    Are they so small? In fact, all the avionics had to be thrown away, or the modernization by itself, like the Su-25, set up the ILS, added something there, otherwise the same cabin with the “alarm clocks” of the devices.

    [
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 26 September 2013 15: 20 New
      +1
      But why make a Su-27 bomber a mystery to me.

      But what about the obsolescence of the Su-24? There is no getting away from this. And the Su-27 platform is very advanced, it can be modified for a long time.
  26. Avenger711
    Avenger711 26 September 2013 14: 59 New
    +3
    “The first Su-30SM will soon arrive at the airbase in the Transbaikal Domna. There is no combat training course for this vehicle, nor a manual for combat use. Now in Lipetsk they are doing something, so to speak, “on their knees”. But the main thing is that there is still no understanding of what a new machine should do. Is it a fighter, interceptor, fighter-bomber? We don’t know yet, and the car is already starting to enter the troops, ”the interlocutor continued.


    1) In Lipetsk, this is what they should do.
    2) And where do these instructions come from until they are written in Lipetsk? The plane is not a TV, in addition to the technical description, the manuals for it include recommendations on tactics. The developer here is powerless, he only makes an airplane, according to the terms of reference, which is again compiled on the basis of operating experience and conclusions that in order to solve problems it is necessary to achieve such and such indicators.
    3) Let's not deliver anything at all then. And do not care that the limited combat capability is better than generally sitting on the ground.
    4) And what is included in the task of the part of the aircraft? If air defense is provided, then the aircraft should be operated to solve these problems.

    But tinkering with the Su-35, with engines of variable thrust vector will take a very long time. First we need flight research, which is currently underway in Akhtubinsk, and then only work on combat use. According to the most conservative estimates, this is not less than five years. Until we bring the Su-35 to mind, PAK-FA will go into series and everything will start anew.


    1) It has always been that a new model comes when the old only reaches maturity.
    2) EMNIP weapons tests on the Su-35 have already begun.
    3) If the Su-35 is causing such concern, then why the hell should I require him to work on the ground? It would be better to solve the problem of replacing the Su-27P than to complicate the situation by adding functions that are secondary to the machine, for which you will have to complete 100500 flights and write a bunch of manuls.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 26 September 2013 15: 23 New
      +1
      Is it a fighter, interceptor, fighter-bomber?

      Su-30 - a multi-functional fighter-bomber? A la F-15E SE.
  27. Avenger711
    Avenger711 26 September 2013 15: 11 New
    +1
    Regarding the Su-35 and its relationship with the Su-30 and Su-34, then everything is not so simple, the difference between these machines is almost 20 years. In such circumstances, when designing the Su-35, it was just logical to shake everything up, and the new engines were clearly made with an eye on the T-50, because there are currently no serial AL-31s for 14+ tons of thrust, the modifications presented on the resource inferior to edEliy-117, and how much it is already possible to torment him. At the same time, you still need to somehow repair the old Su-27s, and the Su-30s and Su-34s are built on them. The Su-34 generally went into production in the 2006th, albeit with attempts, while the Su-35 was not there at all. And no one will redesign the 34th to put into it even more powerful, but larger engines.

    In general, it is necessary to introduce the new one and somehow support the old stuff, which in Soviet times, might have already been allowed to be scrapped.
    1. Don
      Don 26 September 2013 18: 34 New
      +1
      Quote: Avenger711
      In general, it is necessary to introduce the new one and somehow support the old stuff, which in Soviet times, might have already been allowed to be scrapped.

      I completely agree with you, but I would not say that this is a direct junk. Compare the years of the start of operation of our machines and the USA
  28. Don
    Don 26 September 2013 18: 29 New
    +1
    The author is all inclined towards the fact that it is necessary to do not highly specialized, but multifunctional machines. In fact, the new aircraft of the Russian Federation are such. It amazes me that the author turns out to be highly specialized in Su-34 and Su-35C. Firstly, the Su-34 cannot be called a pure bomber, it is clearly a fighter-bomber. It can accommodate R-77 and R-27, which are not inferior to American air-to-air missiles. Now for the Su-35S. This is a multirole fighter. How can it be highly specialized if it can accommodate X-31, X-29, X-59, ZM-14 (Caliber) and KABA ?! The author made clearly erroneous conclusions for himself.
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 26 September 2013 20: 51 New
      +1
      It is not difficult to make an attack plane from a fighter, they always did, in the end the war on the earth is solved, but it often turned out to be bad.
      Su-34 because of the weight of the mediocre fighter.
      1. Don
        Don 27 September 2013 10: 57 New
        0
        Quote: Avenger711
        Su-34 because of the weight of the mediocre fighter.

        I agree, but still the Su-34's main tasks are not a fighter. He can still act as a fighter, but he can’t do without cover. And so do everyone. Israel, for example, strikes F-16 under the guise of F-15. France and the UK believe that they can do with multipurpose Typhoons. Of course, they are suitable for attacks on terrorists in Mali, but for operations against opponents more interesting, who have air defense and air forces?
  29. The comment was deleted.
  30. Odysseus
    Odysseus 26 September 2013 19: 05 New
    +4
    The problems in the article are serious, but the conclusions are no good.
    1) Maintenance is really a difficult situation, but what does the aircraft have to do with it! Who carried out all military reforms and ruined the entire system of training engineering personnel? This is where the root of the question is. You need to restore the training system for engineers and pilots then there will be no problems with personnel.
    2) A variety of types. The author is disingenuous with the Su-24, Mig-29, Su-27 and Mig-31 in most of their modifications pulling "orphans for the sake of." There is simply nothing more. As soon as a new technique appears, they will be written off.
    3) Mig-35 or Su-35. This is really a controversial issue. The USSR could afford 2 4 + mass fighters, there is no RF. In my opinion, the choice of the Su-35 was wrong. The Mig-35 as a platform for an intermediate type is better, and here Another thing is that Sukhoi has a lot of orders. They would have lived quietly without the Su-35. As a result, the Mig-35 still has to be ordered so as not to lose the Mikoyan Design Bureau and get export orders. But this is a small problem. I don’t think that 40-50 Mig-35 maintenance is just too heavy. And the plant in Lukhovitsy will not be able to give more in an acceptable time in its current condition.
    4) Su-30SM and Su-34. Here, the problem is also in collapse after 1991, as a result of which the Su-27IB (Su-34) program was delayed for 2 decades. Like the Mig-29M and Su-27M. Of course, after such a long time, many technical and even conceptual decisions made in the Su-34 already raise questions. But the author suggests treating dandruff with guillotine. The aircraft is being finalized, mass-produced, now stopping its production for the Su-30CM would be crazy. What to do at the same time Novosibirsk plant? And most importantly, how will this help solve the problem of unification, because 30 aircraft are already in units? I'm not talking about the fact that he has a range / load greater than that of the Su-30SM, and the notorious container for the Su-30 is not ready yet.
    1. VAF
      VAF 26 September 2013 20: 54 New
      +2
      Quote: Odyssey
      but the conclusions are no good.


      Odyssey, only ++++++! drinks

      And the conclusions ... it is necessary for the author to "give" the right to quote ... insert into the article ... it will look very different !!! soldier
  31. Su-9
    Su-9 26 September 2013 19: 37 New
    +2
    The article raised the right question. Disagreement in technology did not lead to anything good anywhere. In conditions of limited resources (and now not the time of the USSR), the variety of types in the worst way affects the combat training of units. If we decide on the priority that BP is the main thing, then we need to limit the number of types. If the priority is the development of industry and design bureaus, then go ahead - as many types of weapons as possible. Regarding technicians that can easily serve different "similar" types:
    First - ZIPs are still different.
    Secondly, the technician must be type certified. How long and how expensive is it? - Has anyone thought? And then, try another sergeant or train instructor. And if it’s sensible, it’s still a blame for a civilian in most cases.
    Thirdly, from personal experience. There was such an airplane, Mig-23. I am talking about the end of the 80s, when the type was already well studied. And in the parts where the MiG-23M was (for some reason we had 2 old men, and one even flew, the MiG-23ML and MiG-23MLD were in such an order that could only be called a "mess." Although nominally it was one plane. Zips didn’t fit and were pulled away by other planes. Technicians were strictly specialized in type (gunsmiths, electricians, engines, etc.) and they were specifically lacking ... The actual number of combat-ready planes was maintained at 50% due to malfunction in types “And the real 2nd class pilots were still less, since we didn’t start teaching them. Not to mention the fact that the units with the MiG-23BN were generally a separate caste. Of course, there was one type in the front units and there wasn’t one like that.
    In general - the more types, the more difficult it is to operate on them.
    1. Jin
      Jin 26 September 2013 19: 42 New
      +3
      Quote: Su-9
      The article raised the right question.


      Greetings, from me. + And now read the beginning of comments, there is another opinion ... What do you have to do with the heap, and you and I, and the guys from "our garden": d * aoun and d * ebily.

      Fine? drinks
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 26 September 2013 19: 46 New
        +2
        Zhen’s comments show who knows this “kitchen” from the inside, and who just went for a walk.
        1. VAF
          VAF 26 September 2013 21: 08 New
          +2
          Quote: Alex 241
          the comments show who knows this "kitchen" from the inside, and who just went for a walk.


          laughing +! drinks

          1. Alex 241
            Alex 241 26 September 2013 21: 17 New
            +2
            Each landing from the place where they leave with their feet is considered successful laughing
    2. sivuch
      sivuch 14 October 2013 18: 58 New
      0
      UV.Su-9
      And what kind of regiment are you writing about and which series were 23-11M?
      And about BN -You didn’t make a mistake? Just in the Soviet Air Force they either didn’t exist at all, or they were miserable, but mostly -27th
  32. tomket
    tomket 26 September 2013 21: 09 New
    +3
    the author is either really stupid, or is trying to return the Gorbachev-Yeltsin era when, under the guise of concern for people's money and concern for the health of pilots, for example, regiments of front-line bomber aircraft were completely destroyed. Now to the list. It is surprising why the author did not remember that in America, for example, aviation is not written off from the Air Force and transferred to the National Guard? further, he doesn’t wring his hands on the fact that in the same place besides the Air Force and the National Guard, sailors and the Marine Corps possess their own air fleet. That would be where to turn on saving national money !!! Well, besides, the author, in an effort to attribute the whole benefactor to the Americans, forgets that they, for example, not only have F-15с and f-15E different from each other as modifications, because they have differences within the same modification depending on the blocks. But there is no one, two types and that’s it! According to the author, apparently it is necessary to put under the knife all the su-24 modifications appeared M. Well, it’s ridiculous from that excessive burden that will fall to our poor Motherland with the adoption of the 30 MiG-35! It’s scary to think of an overwhelming burden!
  33. nazgul-ishe
    nazgul-ishe 27 September 2013 03: 31 New
    0
    You need a good carrier, and what decides to hang on it decides the situation. Amers may have appeared, it is not for nothing that they transfer all trash to the joystick.
  34. Zomanus
    Zomanus 27 September 2013 08: 20 New
    -1
    Yes, we must definitely cut it. And cut the vacated area for other tasks. For example, short-range and medium-range AWACS aircraft, deck-based, EW aircraft and anti-submarine aircraft. And then, as in the Second World War, some bombers and fighter jets with attack aircraft ...
    1. tomket
      tomket 28 September 2013 02: 57 New
      +1
      and what to cut it? unfortunate two tens of a moment 29cmt? you taste that, for example, the British when they began to bomb Libya, because of the lack of typhoons they had to expose themselves to Britain, after all, they were also reduced. but they also started at first with unification, the jaguars wrote down, and then it turned out that we won’t start flying. evil is lacking on such guardians of contracters. You see, they don’t write off nichrome aviation, they simply transfer it to the national guard in the second line. Do we have a second line? There is no nichrome, we have huge shining in the first hole.
  35. Woldemar
    Woldemar 1 May 2014 22: 28 New
    0
    “We already know the Su-27 well. To put in a new radar, to upgrade the armament complex for the new RVV-SD and RVV-MD missiles, and everything is fine. But tinkering with the Su-35, with engines of variable thrust vector will take a very long time. "
    With such statements, everyone would still fly piston planes with hanging containers. And you do not need to relearn.
    In my opinion, an unnamed rank from the Air Force is trying to prove that progress in aviation is bad. How is he going to master the T-50? - you also have to relearn.