Military Review

Generation "5 minus". Roznosortitsa in the domestic sky

107
Generation "5 minus". Roznosortitsa in the domestic skyBy 2020, the Russian Air Force is waiting for a massive upgrade of its fleet of combat aircraft. Only some Su fighters from the military pilots should receive at least 440 units. Among them are the newest T-5 X-generation systems, created on the basis of the Russian-Indian Su-50MKI fighter - Su-30CM, Su-30, front-line bomber Su-35 and multifunctional fighters Su-34М30. The appearance of these machines should significantly increase the combat potential of the Air Force. However, experts express concern that a similar raznosortitsa similar in combat capabilities of machines, by contrast, will lead to the opposite effect.


With the T-50, everything is more or less clear. This machine is the quintessence of everything modern that is in Russian aviation. A fighter that implements a number of innovative solutions related to the development of low-visibility technologies, new structural materials and coatings, artificial intelligence, and the elemental base that take our military aircraft industry to a fundamentally different technological level. And around the Su-30SM and Su-35 there are still more questions than answers. And the main one is why the Russian Air Force should buy several types of aircraft close in combat capabilities at once, when it is possible, but rather it is necessary to concentrate resources on the procurement of one fighter. It is planned to engage in its improvement and modernization, as most Western manufacturers do.

For example, those of the United States, which, with the 2010 of the year, in anticipation of the appearance of the newest F-35, are conducting a large-scale program to refine their fleet, upgrading the F-15 fighter-bombers Strike Eagle. Which today received new optical sighting containers "Sniper", instead of finalizing the standard radar AN / PG-70, pendant radar with synthetic aperture AN / ASQ-236 from the company Raytheon and new aviation weapons appeared. In the course of such modernization, not only the combat characteristics are improved, but also they are extended twice - from 16 to 32 in thousands of hours - resource characteristics. According to the calculations of the US military, the updated F-15E will last 10 – 15 years. This year, the same program began upgrading the X-NUMX F-300 fighter jets, previously planned to replace the newest F-16. Received new multifunctional radar, sighting systems, and before that equipped with new suspended sighting containers "Sniper", in their combat capabilities have become identical to the more expensive F-35E.

DEVELOPMENT LIMIT

A similar development path today is proposed by the Su-30CM fighter, created on the basis of the Russian-Indian Su-30MKI. As part of the state armament program up to 2020, the Air Force plans to receive at least 60 of such vehicles. In terms of its combat characteristics, the Su-30CM is already taking Russian aviation to a new level of combat capabilities. The vehicle has super-maneuverability, a good on-board equipment complex, a radar that provides detection of large-sized sea targets at a distance of up to 400 km with a resolution of 20 m, as well as small-sized targets at a distance of up to 120 km.

Manufacturers of the machine associate a further increase in combat characteristics with the installation of containers with infrared and laser sighting equipment on the fighter to detect and destroy small ground targets. And, despite the fact that this approach will somewhat worsen the other characteristics of the aircraft, nevertheless, it fits into the global trend of modernizing the equipment in service.

For the Russian Air Force, the Su-30CM is good because it is actually a plane from the "shelf" - worked out, proven over the years of operation, and most importantly - mass-produced (the Irkutsk aircraft factory is able to produce fighter jets a year before the 30, which practically corresponds to Soviet production volumes). But there is one significant "but." The technical appearance of the Su-30MKI and their almost complete analog Su-30CM was formed in the middle - the end of 90-s, which, in fact, limits the ability to increase their combat capabilities and maintain the high competitiveness of Russia in the heavy fighter segment in the foreign market. In addition, no one still knows the specification of the on-board equipment of this machine, supplied by the Russian Air Force.

Since the Su-30CM was originally created for Delhi with the use of French, Israeli and Indian equipment, it is very likely that in this form it enters the Russian Air Force. And here you do not need a special conspiracy thinking to suggest what this may be fraught with. The CIA defector Edward Snowden made this clear. As well as the experience of operating Western military equipment and equipment by the armies of Iraq and Libya, which simply stopped working during the military conflict with the United States.

For successful export we need new solutions. The main one, of course, is the T-50, and before it appeared, a radical solution to the issue of updating the Russian Air Force fleet could only be found in the way of purchasing new generation 4 ++ fighters, such as the Su-35.

DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY

Multi-purpose fighter generation 4 ++ MIG-35.

In the West, this car is already called the Russian 5 fighter, the main competitor of the American F-22 Raptor, behind the eyes. Nevertheless, the Su-35 is still a fighter of the generation “4 ++”, in which the technologies of the fighter of the 5 generation are widely applied. The start-up deliveries of the Su-35 to the Air Force will ensure a smooth transition to the new-generation airline complexes without weakening the country's defense capability due to the mass abandonment of previous-generation planes in service. The Sukhoi Design Bureau calls this fighter an intermediate stage for the development of new generation equipment by combatant pilots. However, the word "intermediate" does not quite correctly reflect the essence of the new machine.

The aerodynamic layout of the fuselage Su-35 is the most perfect of all the predecessors. It differs more rapid forms than the 30-th, and the lack of anterior horizontal tail (GIP). Horizontal rudders on the Indian-made Su-30MKI were responsible for enhancing the maneuverability of the fighter. Thanks to them and the engine with a rotary nozzle, the Su-30 became the best fighter in the world. Figures of aerobatic "Pugachev Cobra" - when the plane is rapidly gaining altitude and at some point, stopping, hangs in the air literally on the tail, and then starts to nose down like a falling leaf, turn around in place around its axis, does not another combat fighter. “Dry” can also, having accelerated, sharply brake the entire plane of the fuselage, standing on the tail, and in such a position to continue flying at the minimum speed at which any other machine would simply fall.

These tactical capabilities are fully used by Indian pilots during joint exercises with the US Air Force and other countries. In the course of one of them, the Indians smashed the Americans to the F-15C / D Eagle. As it turned out, the Russian-Indian machines both maneuvered and saw the Americans better and further, which means they were the first to hit the target.

SUPERMANUVURAL AND SUPER SECONDARY

In addition to improved aerodynamics and a more sophisticated control system, the engine of NPO Saturn - 35C is responsible for the super-maneuverability of the Su-117. The engine was developed on the basis of AL-31F engines installed on Su-27 airplanes, but differs from them in increased 14,5 tons of tons against 12,5 tons, like its predecessor, a long life and lower fuel consumption. This gives the car not only greater speed and maneuverability, but also the ability to take more weapons. This engine will stand on the first serial fighter T-50. It is also called the engine of the first stage. The motor of the second stage, closely approximating the T-50 to the American F-22, is still in development. But, as was noted at the recently held Le Bourget aerospace show in France, it is almost ready.

Speaking of Su-35 engines, Sergey Bogdan, a Sukhoi experimental test pilot, noted that during the first flight the new Su-35 accompanied Su-30MK. This made it possible to compare the traction characteristics of the engines of two aircraft. During the flight, the Su-35 performed overclocking on the maximum unformed mode, and the escort plane pilot had to use the afterburner, periodically lagging behind the new car. This is a very serious advantage, which gives the combatant pilot more opportunities in air combat, the pilot said.

EYES AND EARS OF THE 5 GENERATION

From the 5 generation to the Su-35 and cockpit. She was shown more than once at the MAKS aerospace show in Zhukovsky near Moscow. Unlike the Su-27 and other non-digital aircraft, there are no analog instruments with familiar arrows. Instead of them - two large color liquid crystal screens. On them, as in a regular TV, in the “picture in picture” mode, all the information necessary to the pilot is displayed. Moreover, because of its complexity and volume, it is not in the usual form - the “figures” are indications of height, range, etc., but figuratively. That is, the pilot can turn on the three-dimensional display of the environment: terrain, location of targets. Just like in a computer flight simulator. Some of this information may be transmitted to the protective glass of the helmet. True, he is still in development. Due to this, the pilot is not constrained by the need to constantly look at the instrument panel and will be able to freely turn his head, visually assessing the flight and combat information.

The hydrodynamic actuators of the Su-35 power plant are replaced by electric ones. According to the designers, this not only saves space and weight, but also allows for the introduction of parallel (remote) control into the machine's control. In practice, this means that the role of the pilot becomes less noticeable. That is, the computer decides at what speed and in what modes the car will hit the target and at what point allow the pilot to use weapon. In this case, part of the complex flight regimes - flying at extremely low altitudes with rounding of the terrain - the machine takes over. It will also ensure that the pilot is safe for the fighter to use a weapon or not to bring the plane into an uncontrolled corkscrew.
At the Su-35 for the first time stands the domestic inertia-free navigation system - SINS. This is an electronic-mechanical device, without which no fighter today can not be considered modern. Its task is to collect and analyze all flight information and to ensure the departure and return of the aircraft to its aerodrome. The BINS works in conjunction with GPS and GLONASS receivers, but maybe without them.

In addition, the fighter is promising, designed specifically for the T-50, radar complex with an active phased antenna array (AFAR). This is more 1000 miniature transceiver modules, combined into a single antenna field. The power of each - 10 watts. Such a radar is today only on the F-22. Thanks to him, the Su-35 sees everything that is done in the air and on earth at a distance of several hundred kilometers. Can lead to 30 targets while simultaneously aiming at 10 of them. And, as the designers say, at the same time shelling them all. Literally a fan launching rockets.

Multi-purpose fighter generation 4 ++ Su-35.


NON-ALTERNATIVE FAVORITE

Russia is still lagging behind in creating the 5 generation fighter from the United States. American F-22 Raptor has long been in the army. Nevertheless, the Su-35, the fighter of the previous generation “4 ++”, shows today how much more advanced the Russian T-50 can be. It is for this reason that Moscow was so important to show the Su-35 at the Le Bourget aerospace show. This is both a political component of military-technological rivalry with Washington, and a purely economic one.

The T-50, like the F-22, will not become a tradable export item. The price of one “predator” - 133,1 million dollars, the Russian T-50 will be at least cheaper, but also not cheap. But the Su-35 will cost slightly more than the predecessors of the generation "4". That is, it will be an excellent export product with the “generation 5 minus” tag. With an eye to the main Russian buyers of the Su brand: China, India, Malaysia, Algeria. If we take into account the technological effectiveness of the new machine, then Moscow can fight for the Brazilian market. After all, Su-35 surpasses all European fighters of the “4 +” type such as Rafale and Eurofighter 2000, modernized American fighters like F-15, F-16 and F-18 and can counteract fifth-generation fighters F-35 and F-22A.

“If we compare Su-30CM and Su-35,” said Vadim Kozyulin, a professor at the Academy of Military Sciences, it turns out that the first is just a “bridge” from the old Su-27 to the more advanced Su-35. The second is a truly modern fighter, showing the evolution of Russian military aircraft to the fifth generation of technology. ”

According to the expert, a possible solution to the raznosortitsy problem could be the proposal of the Military-Industrial Commission and Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin personally to consider the possibility of unifying the model line of Su fighters based on what plants in Komsomolsk and Novosibirsk are doing. Or offer Irkutsk to start developing a new model of the promising Su-35 fighter. All this could not only reduce the cost of aircraft for the Russian Air Force, simplify their maintenance, facilitate the development of new aircraft in the army, but also eliminate the competition of our aircraft factories in the domestic and foreign markets.
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/
107 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Achtaba1970
    Achtaba1970 12 October 2013 08: 13 New
    33
    "The aerobatics" Pugachev cobra "- when the plane is rapidly gaining altitude and at some point, stopping, hangs in the air literally on the tail, and then begins to nose down, like a falling sheet, to unfold in place around its axis,"
    It seems to me that this figure is called the “bell”, and the “Pugachev cobra” is: “Sukhoi” can also, having dispersed, sharply brake the entire plane of the fuselage, standing on its tail, and in this position continue the flight at the minimum speed at which any other machine just would have fallen. "
    1. Firstvanguard
      Firstvanguard 12 October 2013 10: 22 New
      25
      It feels like an article for hamsters
      1. Indigo
        Indigo 12 October 2013 13: 24 New
        18
        Mixed in a bunch - (horses) planes, people, modernization, characteristics, sales, money - what will happen if ..., USSR, USA - many letters ..
        affftor - take one topic and chew it up completely ...
        1. timer
          timer 13 October 2013 00: 45 New
          10
          I can not analyze tactical and technical. I don’t know much about the properties of an air technician. But then I’ll write here, I agree with the author of the article as follows:
          1) To engage in the cloning of weapons of similar characteristics, this is squandering state funds. What can and should be modernized, it is necessary to modernize, but at the same time invent a new combat platform (like the T50 analogy), which is an order of magnitude better than the previous one, and move on with it .This is cheaper and does not entail a loss of defense capability of the troops.
          2) I don’t understand something, do we have that besides Sukhoi no one else made salads? In the Soviet Union, each company produced specific products for specific tasks. Why the hell Sukhoi began to make civilian aircraft, it is not suitable for this !! Where is Mig? And the MIG by the efforts of Poghosyan dies without government orders! From this, I conclude that such industrial myopia and distortions do not play into our hands and do not increase defense capabilities, but lead to corruption.
          And the last, I constantly write that to sell advanced weapons must be weighed seven times. This is with China!
    2. Mohomax
      Mohomax 13 October 2013 19: 11 New
      +2
      The Soviet-Russian military accrues generations by plane in a slightly different way than the American ones, the most priorty task for us is to conduct a super-maneuverable air battle and not the invisibility and electronic filling which is also perfect in our planes, if we have a thousand pack fa, we won’t be afraid even of a horde of aliens what Americans
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 13 October 2013 21: 37 New
        +1
        Su-35 aircraft gaining superiority in the air and is more designed for combat with an air opponent. Although its additional capabilities can be expanded.

        The Su-30cm is sharpened to work on the ground, for this, it also retained the front horizontal tail, which, although it increases radio visibility, but reduces the load on the glider when flying at high speed at low altitude. And the second pilot-operator with a huge flow of information is clearly not superfluous here.

        If Su30,35 can be said to be universal, although with an emphasis on each in its own area, then the Su-34 is more a bomber than a fighter.

        The T-50 plane is good at least where, but at its price it is unlikely to be massive. That is - not a replacement for the SU-30mk and Su-35, but an addition to them.

        Where am I mistaken?
  2. Lech from our city
    Lech from our city 12 October 2013 08: 13 New
    +8
    For a large-scale war, of course it is better to have one or two types of aircraft - less problems with the supply of spare parts. Training pilots, etc.
  3. My address
    My address 12 October 2013 08: 45 New
    10
    Soo, soo. Where are the front-line MIGs? It's like in the navy only cruisers, and in the land of armored vehicles only tanks.
    Well, the article is not quite - for example, the "Hydrodynamic (!) Drives ..." are mentioned.
    1. Kibalchish
      Kibalchish 12 October 2013 10: 44 New
      13
      The momentum is almost destroyed by Poghosyan, unfortunately. Damned lobbyism! Now they release only deck-based Mig-29K for two Hindu aircraft carriers.
      1. Fin
        Fin 12 October 2013 11: 55 New
        21
        Quote: Kibalchish
        The momentum is almost destroyed by Poghosyan, unfortunately. Damned lobbyism!

        This article is SU lobbying against the MIG. But they do not need to be opposed, they have different tasks, they complement each other. Of the new SU models - 30,34,35 where is the assortment? Previous models will not get them anywhere, they will serve.
        And the MIGs still ordered for Kuznetsov.
      2. orizonti
        orizonti 12 October 2013 15: 30 New
        0
        The moment he destroyed himself, but forget about the different offices, this time there is one UAC and several new offices are working together on new projects, since individually no one can pull, for example, a new strike UAV.
        1. timer
          timer 13 October 2013 00: 58 New
          +9
          Yes, no hell like that, yes in 90gg. everyone was bent, I’m not arguing. I am not against Pogosyan as such, he’s done well. He turned out to be cunning and pulled the lion volume of financing onto Sukhoi. If POGOSYAN appeared in the MIG, the MIG would flourish. (albeit good) - to save Sukhoi from ruin, and not the development of the aviation industry as an integral economic component of the military-industrial complex. If we do not yet have the military industry, then people in the Moscow Region are simply obliged to maintain an equitable balance in the aviation industry, and dry and instant and beria, etc. develop within the framework of the state rearmament program. And categorically not allow in principle competition between them both within the country and when participating in world procurement tenders!
          1. Ingvar 72
            Ingvar 72 13 October 2013 18: 29 New
            +4
            Quote: timer
            The thing is different-Poghosyan was pursuing his so-called selfish goal (albeit good) -saving Sukhoi from ruin,

            You're right. But now it’s not the 90th, and it’s time to recall the MIGs. MIG is a light fighter, and it is light fighters that gain air supremacy during large-scale military operations. And it's cheaper than DRY. The number of troops is not enough.
      3. t-95-70
        t-95-70 12 October 2013 16: 45 New
        +2
        Well, they remembered Poghosyan, now it’s clear that the MIG destroyed Poghosyan.
      4. Avenger711
        Avenger711 12 October 2013 18: 50 New
        +7
        The MiG was destroyed long before Poghosyan, enough to write nonsense and blame the flaws of MiG-29 on Poghosyan, who never found a mass market.
        1. aviator65
          aviator65 13 October 2013 23: 00 New
          +2
          Do you accidentally confuse a fighter with consumer goods? MiG-25 was also not massively sold, so what? And the MiG-31 is not for sale at all! Is this an indicator of their inferiority? What are the flaws of the Mig-29?
  4. tomket
    tomket 12 October 2013 08: 51 New
    20
    Apparently, the first two identical letters Su are misleading on these types of Samoets, because it has been repeatedly said that, for example, Su-34 and Su-35 are not at all competing with each other over the battlefield. in addition, pointing at the United States, let's not forget that they have more than one Raptor in service, the fleet there is very, very mottled, and typhoon and rafal go to the troops by no means a single option, airplanes from different tranches of supplies differ , not to mention the spark and a single-seat aircraft.
  5. tomket
    tomket 12 October 2013 08: 55 New
    23
    I recall a story when the Luftwaffe pilots in the year like 1999 said they wanted to leave the MiG-29 in service, and they don’t need Typhoon. To which they were told, MiG is certainly a good fighter, but you see, we need to develop the aviation industry, create jobs, support enterprises, so you’ll fly on what we say and be silent so to speak. I think here we need to take an example, to develop industry and load enterprises, and to unifiers and guardians to keep silence for saving national money.
    1. Simple
      Simple 12 October 2013 19: 18 New
      +2
      In the 1994 year, Russia proposed that Germany equip the German Luftwaffe 200 (two hundred)
      MiG-29 priced at 20 millions of mark each.
    2. Nick
      Nick 13 October 2013 01: 28 New
      +5
      Quote: tomket
      I think here we need to take an example, to develop industry and load enterprises, and to unifiers and guardians to keep silence for saving national money.

      And all the same about economy and economy ... It is more profitable to load an enterprise in large series, products become more reliable and high-quality, cheaper in production and operation. To drive a unique raznosortitsa with similar characteristics is to ruin the quality, profitability, and rear services, which are crazy to ensure the operation of 20 models instead of two or three ... Especially in a special period. Sorry for the pun ...
  6. aszzz888
    aszzz888 12 October 2013 09: 05 New
    +2
    Airplanes are good, choose to taste!
    Updating the fleet is simply necessary, and the sooner the better. And how many SUHikh, MiGs will determine the time and foreign policy factors with competing and leading countries.
  7. MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 12 October 2013 09: 08 New
    14
    I’m not an expert in aviation, but as a layman I will not give a damn about Su or Mig .. I want our military pilots to fly on new modern fighters and there are a lot of them .. I want to see and hear them in the sky above my head I’m 20 years old I have never seen or heard the flight of our fighters in my MOTHERLAND, ATTENTION ALREADY BEFORE THE FLIGHTS WERE PERIODIC (at high and low altitudes) And I was calm and proud that they protect me! That's it..
    1. maxvet
      maxvet 12 October 2013 10: 09 New
      +3
      overhead I fly from Borisoglebsk quite often, both single and in pairs, and late in the evening (in the dark). Now the helicopters were flying up (I hadn’t noticed before, maybe some of them were being thrown)
    2. bes513
      bes513 12 October 2013 12: 05 New
      +5
      Since 2010, they began to fly very actively, including at night. Just like in childhood in the 80s. Then su24 flew over us, since last year also su-34. Planes go towards Voronezh, from where they guess yourself.
      1. kva555
        kva555 12 October 2013 21: 56 New
        +2
        I live next to Shaikovka since 1999.
        MUSCAS flied once a month and sometimes not always. Now it’s 2-3 days without flights! And it pleases !!!
  8. marat1000
    marat1000 12 October 2013 09: 10 New
    10
    The article has a lot of mistakes
    1. BARKAS
      BARKAS 12 October 2013 15: 25 New
      +1
      The article is generally nonsense!
  9. savantol
    savantol 12 October 2013 09: 16 New
    +9
    This is all good, but the number of new aircraft in the regiments wants to be the best ..... the industry is not coping, this is clearly the number of "effective managers" exceeds the number of specialists. Something like this.
  10. Soviet_Union
    Soviet_Union 12 October 2013 09: 16 New
    +3
    The inscription "Priority of development" and next to the photo - the 35th "Migar", and an article about Sushki.
    Is MIG not promising?
    1. berserk1967
      berserk1967 12 October 2013 12: 45 New
      +6
      The article doesn’t say a word about the MIG-35, but why then put his photo?
  11. saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 12 October 2013 09: 21 New
    +4
    According to the expert, a possible solution to the raznosortitsy problem could be the proposal of the Military-Industrial Commission and Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin personally to consider the possibility of unifying the model line of Su fighters based on what plants in Komsomolsk and Novosibirsk are doing. Or offer Irkutsk to start developing a new model of the promising Su-35 fighter. All this could not only reduce the cost of aircraft for the Russian Air Force, simplify their maintenance, facilitate the development of new aircraft in the army, but also eliminate the competition of our aircraft factories in the domestic and foreign markets.
    I somehow disagree with the author, the Su-30SM is generally a two-seater airplane, and can perform the function of a combat-training one, among other things, and also when working on the ground, the second crew member will not be superfluous, and competition is needed.
    Board number 55 black on a video in Lipetsk, at the MAX 2013 it was presented by the Averyanovs.
    1. VAF
      VAF 12 October 2013 13: 36 New
      17
      Quote: saturn.mmm
      I somehow disagree with the author, the Su-30SM is generally a two-seater plane, and can fulfill the function of a training-fighting one, among other things,


      Michael, I absolutely agree with you! +! drinks

      And the afftor is the fattest MINUS! I won’t even explain why ... I’ve already put on these "media and airspecials" fool .

      I would like to “see” how the “author” will perform a B / Z on the Su-35C to destroy the enemy’s manpower and armored vehicles covered by military air defense systems in night mode, PMV, r / l contrast targets wassat

      "Unifier" .. m .. you know fool

      Even in the “Upper Headquarters” they understood everything and in the rear cockpit on the Su-30SM they will put not a pilot of the operator, but a pure navigator who can work with P \ locator or LTPS !!!

      1. leon-iv
        leon-iv 12 October 2013 13: 57 New
        +2
        So etozh Litovkin with NVO. He is special throughout))))
        And the Su-30 fits perfectly into the Navy.
      2. Orion
        Orion 12 October 2013 17: 00 New
        +2
        Quote: vaf
        I would like to “see” how the “author” will perform a B / Z on the Su-35C to destroy the enemy’s manpower and armored vehicles covered by military air defense systems in night mode, PMV, r / l contrast targets

        I would like to ask if it is possible to complete these tasks on the Su-34?
        1. VAF
          VAF 12 October 2013 18: 08 New
          +7
          Quote: Orion
          Is it possible to complete these tasks on the Su-34?


          This is what it is for!
          And also the Su-24M (and 2 and Hephaestus), with proper preparation, can be tried on the Tu-22M3, but it is with the PROPER (as a pilot. And navigator), Mig-29 with the ed. 9-13C, (mapping mode in mm range), Su-30M2 (but only with X-59T missiles with APK-9, although for such purposes they should be fired with such missiles ... this fool ).
          All the others ... with a very big stretch (mandatory marking, mandatory "highlighting" of the target) and very likely combat losses.
          1. Orion
            Orion 12 October 2013 18: 36 New
            +1
            Thank. If I’m not mistaken, do they plan to decommission all versions of the Su-24 by 2020?
            1. Avenger711
              Avenger711 12 October 2013 18: 52 New
              0
              Apparently the Su-24M2 will still remain, but there are few of them.
      3. Nayhas
        Nayhas 12 October 2013 21: 01 New
        -8
        Quote: vaf
        I would like to “see” how the “author” will perform a B / Z on the Su-35C to destroy the enemy’s manpower and armored vehicles covered by military air defense systems in night mode, PMV, r / l contrast targets

        The author is right in one thing, the assortment does not allow giving a mass plane to the troops. In the Su-30/34/35 line, the Su-34 is frankly superfluous, instead of intensifying work on the subject of hanging sighting systems and increased ammunition, we try to rivet the Su-30 and Su-34. I understand that it’s beneficial for Poghosyan, but to hell with this country? Instead of releasing the plant for Su-35 (if they decided to build the Air Force on it), NAPO is trying to "massively" produce the unnecessary Su-34 ... As a result of the crumbs both there and there ...
        1. Nikone
          Nikone 12 October 2013 21: 30 New
          +3
          "Unnecessary Su-34" ... !!! ???? However...)))))))))))
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 12 October 2013 21: 39 New
            -11
            Quote: NikOne
            "Unnecessary Su-34" ... !!! ???? However...)))))))))))

            Why is the Su-34 radically better than the Su-30SM?
            1. JIaIIoTb
              JIaIIoTb 12 October 2013 22: 18 New
              +8
              SU-34 front-line BOMBERS (heavy attack aircraft in the fleet).
              Su-30SM multi-purpose heavy fighter.
              That's actually the whole difference)))
              They are not better than each other, they are completely different. And absolutely perfect.
              1. Nayhas
                Nayhas 12 October 2013 23: 49 New
                -11
                Quote: JIaIIoTb
                SU-34 front-line BOMBERS (heavy attack aircraft in the fleet).

                The term "front-line bomber" became synonymous with "dinosaur" back in the late 20th century. To bomb from low altitudes under the fire of the MZA and MANPADS is a sign of poverty and underdevelopment of the industry. Thank God this does not apply to Russia so far, of course, there are difficulties and there is nothing to brag about, but there is room to grow and there is someone to help with this.
                1. Alex 241
                  Alex 241 12 October 2013 23: 54 New
                  +6
                  Quote: Nayhas
                  bombing from low altitudes under the fire of the MZA and MANPADS is a sign of poverty and underdevelopment of the industry.
                  And to be shot down at an altitude of 3000m is a sign of coolness, a strike from MV and PMV is the main tactical technique, because the plane is in ground interference.
                  1. Nayhas
                    Nayhas 13 October 2013 08: 09 New
                    -6
                    Quote: Alex 241
                    And to be shot down at an altitude of 3000m is a sign of coolness, a strike from MV and PMV is the main tactical technique, because the plane is in ground interference.

                    And in order not to be shot down by 3 km. pre-air defense is carried out. It is possible to "climb on the rampage" an ancient Russian tradition, but in aviation this only leads to unnecessary losses
                    PS: With regards to PMV. At the PMV, the main danger is MANPADS that hit either the tail of the aircraft or the central part, so there is no sense in booking a cabin. In conditions of wars such as the "Afghan" or "Chechen", it’s wiser to work from heights outside the MANPADS and MZA coverage areas, for which the Su-30SM with a hanging sighting container will fit (I hope someday it will appear).
                    1. svp67
                      svp67 13 October 2013 08: 16 New
                      +4
                      Quote: Nayhas
                      PS: With regards to PMV. At the PMV, the main danger is MANPADS that hit either the tail of the aircraft or the central,

                      It remains only for the “people's avenger” with MANPADS to catch a glimpse of the aircraft at the MV and PMV, to carry out all the manipulations to prepare the MANPADS for the “BATTLE” and aim at the target ... Practice shows that they are far from always in time.

                      Quote: Nayhas
                      It is possible to "climb on the rampage" an ancient Russian tradition, but in aviation this only leads to unnecessary losses

                      As far as we know, this is the “new” Israeli tradition. Your own Air Force act the same way - they cling to the ground ...
                2. JIaIIoTb
                  JIaIIoTb 13 October 2013 00: 50 New
                  +4
                  Good. He is also a carrier of nuclear weapons. Cruise missiles.
                  So intelligible?))))
                  In addition, his bomb load exceeds the load of the Su-30 twice.
                  In addition, the enemy’s air defense takes place at ultra-low altitude and at supersonic.
                  This "dinosaur" is capable of a lot of things, for example destroy an aircraft carrier. Not alone, of course, well, the aircraft carrier is not the only one who goes around.
              2. PLO
                PLO 13 October 2013 13: 38 New
                0
                SW. Bast shoe, don't take Comrade Nayhas too seriously
                To me personally, he claimed that the problem of the Su-34 is that he small radar request
                even then I had doubts about its adequacy)
      4. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 12 October 2013 21: 21 New
        +1
        Quote: vaf
        Michael, I absolutely agree with you! +!

        I wish you good health. Thanks for the support.
  12. Gregazov
    Gregazov 12 October 2013 09: 27 New
    +8
    I support you, Tomket, every station wagon loses to a specialist in solving a specific problem. I think that neither Su30, nor Su34, nor Su35 will replace the attack aircraft on the battlefield with the support of infantry and tanks. This is a specific task and the aircraft must be optimized for it. Another question is hitting objects in operational and tactical depth, etc.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 12 October 2013 21: 38 New
      -2
      Quote: GregAzov
      I think that neither Su30, nor Su34, nor Su35 will replace the attack aircraft on the battlefield with the support of infantry and tanks.

      And what caused this opinion? In order to understand the "specificity" of the tasks of an attack aircraft it is necessary to turn to the history of where the attack aircraft came from and why. The attack aircraft is the evolution of the near / dive bomber when it became clear that for guaranteed destruction of the target it is necessary to go down as low as possible, to where the target is clearly visible and more likely to get into it. But at such an altitude, the danger of MZA and small arms rises categorically, so it is necessary to build up armor. And the A-10 and Su-25 at the dawn of their appearance did not differ much from their piston counterparts, but then the Americans took the path of increasing the distance to the target by equipping aviation with devices that would provide this and ammunition that would hit the enemy at such a distance. Now, there is no need for US strike aircraft to enter the affected area of ​​MANPADS and MZA, and therefore the armor has become simply superfluous, and they decided to get rid of the A-10.
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 13 October 2013 19: 56 New
        +1
        Quote: Nayhas
        Now, there is no need for US strike aircraft to enter the affected area of ​​MANPADS and MZA, and therefore the armor has become simply superfluous, and they decided to get rid of the A-10.

        You have not exactly stated the essence of what is happening in the US Air Force.
        The head of the US Air Force Combat Command, General Mike Hostage, said: “Ideally, I would have 1000 A-10s, but now this is not possible. I would reduce the entire park, but would preserve the infrastructure. ” He is echoed by Air Force Chief of Staff Mark Welsh and Air Force Acting Secretary Eric Fanning, allowing the possibility of decommissioning entire types of aircraft. “Nothing has been decided yet. We are trying to protect several core programs, and we are looking for ways to save money, ”Fanning said.
        Information from 27.09.2013/XNUMX/XNUMX
  13. DesToeR
    DesToeR 12 October 2013 09: 49 New
    -10
    Every station wagon loses to a specialist in solving a specific problem and, as a rule, wins a war. The unification of training and tactics, the mass production and the uninterrupted supply of spare parts in the war work wonders. And exotic for special forces. Remember the T-34 and its eminent opponents, the Tigers and Panthers - they tore the Panzerwaffe on the Kursk Bulge like a hot-water bottle. And the price of losses at the first stage is more than paid for by capturing the enemy’s country and "lowering" it into the Stone Age.
    1. svp67
      svp67 12 October 2013 10: 11 New
      19
      Quote: DesToeR
      Remember the T-34 and its eminent opponents of the Tigers and Panther - they tore the Panzerwaffe on the Kursk Bulge like a tusik warmer.

      God save us more from SUCH "impulses ...". You, for the sake of interest, read about the losses of our T34 during the Battle of Kursk and the materials of the Supreme High Command before making such comments.
    2. Metlik
      Metlik 12 October 2013 10: 46 New
      +2
      Paradoxically, the wagon is bound to be a specialist in so many areas. The scope of the wagon is single-player missions, where in an unknown environment he will face a wide variety of threats (as an example of the Airborne Forces). The specialist is obliged to work in a team, he must be provided with intelligence and communications with other branches of the armed forces. The more specialized troops in the army, the greater the load on coordination and command.
      1. VAF
        VAF 12 October 2013 13: 45 New
        +5
        Quote: Metlik
        but the wagon is required to be a specialist in so many areas.


        Be you at least a SUPERUniversal, but if there is nothing ..... in your plane, the acre (ILS) or the collimator sight ..... then you were the target. So you will remain ... what letters and numbers you don’t "invent ", at least 35M, at least 35..JU wassat

        Until there is a proper avionics ... all this ... "verbiage"!

        It does not matter. what to send a super sniper to perform a task with a Mosin rifle !!! soldier
        1. Avenger711
          Avenger711 12 October 2013 19: 00 New
          +1
          A stunningly meaningless answer. And then, damn it, a collimator sight? Suppose we have an airplane equipped with all the necessary equipment. Will he be able to complete all the tasks, that is the question.
          The Mosin rifle was the main weapon of snipers in the War, and even now automatic sniper rifles are the second grade.
          1. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 13 October 2013 22: 07 New
            0
            Quote: Avenger711
            Suppose we have an airplane equipped with all the necessary equipment. Will he be able to complete all the tasks, that is the question.

            The Su-27 has 4 tons of electronic equipment,
            and the Su-34 front-line bomber has 7 tons of electronics.
            Now let’s imagine a Su-34 where equipment was added so that he and the enemy’s aircraft could see very far ........ And we’ll get a large heavy aircraft with a very small supply of missiles. In other words, a big heavy target, a dream for the enemy.
        2. Metlik
          Metlik 12 October 2013 19: 12 New
          0
          [quote = vaf] Be you at least a SUPERUniversal, but if your airplane has an acre (ILS) or a collimator sight nothing ..... then you were the target. so you will remain it ... what letters and numbers are you in the name of the aircraft do not “invent”, at least 35M, at least 35..ZU

          Until there is a proper avionics ... all this ... "verbiage"!

          I completely agree with this part. See how modern technology evolves. PAK FA - universal aircraft (complex) This is a flying radar and a fighter and a bomber. Carapace C1 - robotic air defense with the ability to work on the ground plus interaction in guppa. The more complex and the more universal.




          [quote = vaf] It's all the same. what to send a super sniper to perform a task with a Mosin rifle !!! [/ quote]
          And here I am sure that experience and knowledge will prevail and not an advanced rifle.
        3. 225chay
          225chay 12 October 2013 22: 14 New
          +2
          Quote: vaf
          It does not matter. what to send a super sniper to perform a task with a Mosin rifle !!!

          Hm! With a berdanka ...
    3. samoletil18
      samoletil18 12 October 2013 13: 36 New
      -2
      Remember the T-34 and its eminent opponents, the Tigers and Panthers - they tore the Panzerwaffe on the Kursk Bulge like a hot-water bottle. And the price of losses at the first stage is more than paid for by capturing the enemy’s country and "lowering" it into the Stone Age. [/ Quote]

      Do not bring, Lord! Why haven’t you ever thought of more operational plans like the Battle of Kursk? Personally, I, after a more detailed acquaintance with the operation Mars, did not open V.Pikul’s creation of the Kursk battle. One commander was glorified there. Although, without this commander, how would it all be? And fighter aircraft had the backbone of the cars of Yakovlev and Lavochkin in the Battle of Kursk. And so the whole war. And the cars in girlhood were called I-26 and I-300, respectively. MiG was rejected not only because of the performance characteristics. Economic aspects were central. But even then, the base of 2 KB aircraft.
      By the way, ask Perm engine builders how they relate to Poghosyan. Or others who are not associated with Sukhoi Design Bureau.
      1. Avenger711
        Avenger711 12 October 2013 19: 11 New
        -2
        to read Pikul’s verbal diarrhea really does not respect himself, but with what fright the Permians are offended by Pogosyan? Poghosyan received from Simonovo the only unbroken design bureau with two plants that had an order in the 90s (otherwise it would have died). All the rest is just ballast, which they hanged on the PAC to Poghosyan, it would be strange to expect that all of a sudden there will be a golden debt when any normal person will first of all invest in what gives a quick effect, and now it’s Su-30 on export and fighter with bombers for their Air Force. Moreover, the MiG-35 does not perform any such special task that the Su-35 could not perform with the Su-30. Moreover, it has a shorter range and will require a larger number of cars and a larger airfield network, pluses in the form of export to those who do not take serious “drying” until they have manifested themselves. There would be a contract with India, now the MiG-35 would have been stamped with might and main, simultaneously trying on for itself. There are no orders, it means the plant is standing, the plant is standing, so no one will have salaries of 100k, regardless of Poghosyan.

        In the war, in fact, there were 2 KB fighter aircraft with serial vehicles, the rest also worked. Just before the war, the risks associated with the failures in development were much higher than now.
        1. samoletil18
          samoletil18 12 October 2013 20: 04 New
          +5
          Perm makes PS-95 motors, they are for Tu-204. And Poghosyan, head of the UAC. drives the SSJ-100 with Pratt Whitney or some other foreign engine, even for domestic airlines. And the plant is bent. He flew on the Tu-204 - alive. As regards aviation design bureaus, which are fighter or something else: for that they and design bureaus, in order to construct (everything), everything can come in handy in a war.
          Minus is for Poghosyan? So he is a leader with him and demand.
          Again, Sukhoi won the conquest of superiority, and Mikoyan got the front-line theme. This is someone as lucky. And without work, skilled workers will flee, and there are not too many of them. That's what the soul hurts about.
          1. Avenger711
            Avenger711 12 October 2013 23: 18 New
            -2
            And what Tu-204 has become in the same class with SSJ? Well, after all, what a misfortune, Poghosyan doesn’t give a damn about the buyer, or who, they take the most profitable, in this regard, the SSJ managed to find the market, and the Tu-204, which was already 10 years late? The motor on the SSJ is joint, because it is better to offer nothing in the Russian Federation, the Ukrainian engine also feil.
            1. samoletil18
              samoletil18 15 October 2013 14: 13 New
              0
              especially if you don’t do anything of your own, and lose personnel and do not develop technology. Because of this approach, the country was flooded with migrants: but figs to increase labor productivity, there are migrant workers.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. tomket
          tomket 13 October 2013 01: 45 New
          +5
          By the way, the breakthrough of KB Mikoyan in jet technology was largely due to the lack of load on the modernization of fighter fighters. So the same pressurized cabin KB could work out without much haste and efficiently before reactive fever. the same Yakovlev Design Bureau did not have such an opportunity, and even the Yak-23 was without a pressurized cabin, and this is the 48 year. It is one thing that during forced breaks, the Soviet leadership could feed specialists who were temporarily left without a lot, and did not force them to change their specialty or go to trade in tents. The same is the case with KB Mikoyan, or P.O. Dry. Yes, they closed the design bureau, but then again they recreated it, because they realized that it was worthless to scatter specialists.
    4. Altona
      Altona 12 October 2013 14: 33 New
      +4
      You read the background a little ... Moreover, the number of "tearing" T-34s was too large in relation to one Tiger, that even jokes go about Stalin and his conversation with Joseph Kotin and Rybalko ... And the "price of losses" now too big for Russia ... Another firebox of the world war and we will not be ...
      1. Avenger711
        Avenger711 12 October 2013 23: 20 New
        +2
        But how many soldiers did he manage to wind on average in the T-34 caterpillars before his buried "tiger" (there weren’t enough tanks to attack the tanks, because they would be beaten up there, and there would be no replacement)? All this nonsense in counting the number of destroyed tanks is devoid of any sense, because the side that had more tanks simply had more opportunity to exchange iron for other soldiers.
    5. aleshka
      aleshka 12 October 2013 17: 05 New
      +6
      learn history !!! on the Kursk Bulge, the Panzerwaffe “torn” it precisely in quantity! read what losses suffered 5TA Rotmistrova-terribly become !!!
      1. Avenger711
        Avenger711 12 October 2013 19: 01 New
        -3
        All wars are won by quantity, the Germans had they not had an overwhelming numerical superiority in the 41, Moscow would not have come to life.
        1. svp67
          svp67 13 October 2013 14: 41 New
          +2
          Quote: Avenger711
          All wars are won by quantity, the Germans had they not had an overwhelming numerical superiority in the 41, Moscow would not have come to life.

          That's the trouble that they did not have a general numerical advantage, they simply knew how to fight in a new way and were better organized ...
          1. Avenger711
            Avenger711 13 October 2013 15: 44 New
            +2
            Forgive me, of course, but 4 million invading armies versus 2.8 million in the western districts are often without operational communication with each other, this is an overwhelming numerical advantage, the Germans outnumbered 3.6: 1 in the main strike directions. So enough to demonstrate ignorance of basic things. Purely militarily, the merits of the German generals are generally greatly exaggerated, the convenient conditions of war were created by the political leadership, which simply remained silent without making any claims to the USSR, and then attacked.
    6. Avenger711
      Avenger711 12 October 2013 18: 56 New
      0
      Lord, teach the materiel noob, the “tigers” near Kursk were 100 with something, a little less than 200 “panthers”, which were mostly bombed by mines, hollowed into the sides of the VET, but not tanks. For the 1945th year, the Red Army had T-34-85, IS-2, SU-76, SU-100, ISU-152, and this is without taking into account imported and outdated like SU-85 vehicles. What nafig unification, what are you talking about.
      1. Jager
        Jager 12 October 2013 23: 21 New
        +3
        Compared with the Panzervaffe, the Red Army generally had no problems with unification))) The Germans alone had anti-tank self-propelled guns about 30 (!!!!!) types, not counting the modifications. Who cares, I can list them all. T-34-85, IS-2, SU-76, SU-100, ISU-152 - each machine here in its place, for its specific tasks. The only “cant” we had with the KV and T-34 - the weapons turned out to be identical on both machines. BT-2/5/7 are “evolutionary” models. Trouble with gasoline and diesel engines for tanks was also evolutionary.
        1. Avenger711
          Avenger711 13 October 2013 15: 47 New
          0
          All self-propelled guns, except for the “Fedi”, were made on the basis of serial, or retired, but technically developed tanks, so there was no particular issue with unification, there was a question about the refinement and cost of new tank models, the same “Panthers” near Kursk burned by itself, due to fires in the engine.
    7. Jager
      Jager 12 October 2013 22: 57 New
      +3
      Kagbe comparison is clearly not the topic. The T-34 was NEVER a "universal" tank, as they try to imagine. He was always the medium, most widespread tank in the Red Army. HF were heavy, later ISs. Light - T-70, after the war PT-76 (but this is a very specialized thing). In WWII, before the main battle tanks it was barefoot before China!
      And the Panzervaffe “broke” not so much tanks as anti-tank artillery.
      1. Metlik
        Metlik 13 October 2013 12: 44 New
        0
        After Spain, Stalin and his entourage made the wrong conclusions. Tanks were evenly distributed between infantry units. Each division and regiment were, as it were, universal units.
        After the German invasion, the approach was revised. Tanks were used only in a concentrated, large formations. For each type of troops issued instructions for combat use. And in the use of specialists such as snipers, Soviet troops bypassed the Germans very much.
        1. Avenger711
          Avenger711 13 October 2013 15: 50 New
          +2
          Lord, where did you come from. Go teach what a mechanized corps is. Tank brigades existed only after the loss of equipment in the 41st, when it was not possible to create a large force, with the improvement of supply, new mechanized corps immediately appeared, which nevertheless had fewer tanks than the corps of the 41st year.
          1. Metlik
            Metlik 13 October 2013 16: 51 New
            0
            Quote: Avenger711
            The anchor brigades existed only after the loss of materiel in the 41st, when it was not possible to create a large formation, with the improvement of supply, new mechanized corps immediately appeared, which nevertheless had fewer tanks than the corps of the 41st year.

            By the beginning of 1936 there were four mechanized corps, but in November 1939, due to an incorrect assessment of the experience of using tank units in Spain, the leadership of the Red Army, the four mechanized corps available in the Red Army were reorganized into tank corps.
            But the local wars of the late 1930s and, especially, the French campaign of 1940 showed the decisive role of mechanized strike formations. In accordance with the concept of "deep offensive operations" adopted in the Red Army [3], the role of the shock force was assigned to mechanized corps.
            It is not necessary to confuse parts in which there were predominantly bt, with parts in which there were mainly t34 and apt.
      2. svp67
        svp67 13 October 2013 14: 45 New
        +2
        Quote: Jager
        And the Panzervaffe “broke” not so much tanks as anti-tank artillery.
        Panzervaffe "tore" together, artillery, aviation, sappers, tanks, infantry ... We learned to fight better than them. Often I make more march than fight. As a result, the Germans lost tanks from air strikes on the march, from technical breakdowns and violations of the fuel supply system ... This is the highest class of tactics.
  14. Ivan Tarasov
    Ivan Tarasov 12 October 2013 10: 27 New
    +3
    The author does not understand that the Su-30/35 is from the same family, all these are modifications of the Su-27.
    We are not talking about different types of aircraft, on the contrary, modifications of the Su-27 will expand the range of its application.
    1. avt
      avt 12 October 2013 10: 39 New
      +7
      Quote: Ivan Tarasov
      The author does not understand that the Su-30/35 is from the same family, all these are modifications of the Su-27.

      Yes, he understands everything. There is the usual media hassle of lured .... First they wrote about the fact that only Su-30 is needed, now the answer has arrived in the form of Su -35 from another manufacturer, the grandmothers are at stake defense orders are large, and the experts pull the blanket over themselves grab on the fly.
  15. vadson
    vadson 12 October 2013 10: 32 New
    +8
    depressing lack of dopilnogo instant35 and orders for it. me, in principle, up to the lantern, who will earn a penny in the production of military aircraft, instantly or dry. if there is such a situation that Pogosyan does not allow to buy the twinks, well, make a move with the knight - even if he steers instantly as if they were dry, BUT MIGS ARE NEEDED IN THE MILITARY, then only it would not come back
    1. shtanko.49
      shtanko.49 12 October 2013 12: 04 New
      +4
      A light fighter is definitely needed and it is possible to rivet them more; it is much cheaper, but it has its own niche in combat use, I think they will buy Mig-35s.
      1. Avenger711
        Avenger711 12 October 2013 15: 15 New
        0
        Is it cheaper? That’s the question, electronics can be pretty much the same.
    2. Orion
      Orion 12 October 2013 17: 04 New
      +2
      Quote: vadson
      there was such a situation that Pogosyan does not allow to buy instant

      What evil Poghosyan alone decides what and whom to buy. Do you believe that?
    3. lazy
      lazy 13 October 2013 04: 53 New
      0
      much cheaper is how much?
  16. DesToeR
    DesToeR 12 October 2013 10: 46 New
    +8
    For the sake of interest, you read how many Germans threw their cats as a result of the loss of strategic initiative and add them to the losses, and then we will calculate. People like you think that the losses of the USSR and Germany in the Second World War are 3 to 1. They don’t understand the fools that the USSR got a large half of Germany as a result, and that this score could be changed exactly the opposite. It was enough to apply "measures" similar to German policy to the local, by the way, Slavic population and prisoners of war. The fact that the Russians did not do this is their enormous tolerance.
  17. scorpido
    scorpido 12 October 2013 10: 59 New
    +2
    Quote: MIKHAN
    I’m not an expert in aviation, but as a layman I will not give a damn about Su or Mig .. I want our military pilots to fly on new modern fighters and there are a lot of them .. I want to see and hear them in the sky above my head I’m 20 years old I have never seen or heard the flight of our fighters in my MOTHERLAND, ATTENTION ALREADY BEFORE THE FLIGHTS WERE PERIODIC (at high and low altitudes) And I was calm and proud that they protect me! That's it..

    I live not far from the village of Kushchevskaya, the flights are almost constant, naturally even a little annoying with their noise. Therefore, their raid is normal. Another thing is that no one really knows how to communicate with new technology - they fly more and more on junk, and new planes simply stand idle.
  18. MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 12 October 2013 11: 11 New
    +1
    Quote: scorpido
    Quote: MIKHAN
    I’m not an expert in aviation, but as a layman I will not give a damn about Su or Mig .. I want our military pilots to fly on new modern fighters and there are a lot of them .. I want to see and hear them in the sky above my head I’m 20 years old I have never seen or heard the flight of our fighters in my MOTHERLAND, ATTENTION ALREADY BEFORE THE FLIGHTS WERE PERIODIC (at high and low altitudes) And I was calm and proud that they protect me! That's it..

    I live not far from the village of Kushchevskaya, the flights are almost constant, naturally even a little annoying with their noise. Therefore, their raid is normal. Another thing is that no one really knows how to communicate with new technology - they fly more and more on junk, and new planes simply stand idle.

    I wrote about aviation, which covered the mines .. (half of the mines are now gone) fighters have not been heard for a long time already in 90 = gouged the airfield and partly dispersed .. and pops (when overcoming the supersonic, I also haven’t heard for a long time ..) It seems that some are going to be returned to its former position (not aviation, alas ..)
  19. Admiral 013
    Admiral 013 12 October 2013 11: 16 New
    10
    Developments to hr! But in the Air Force, units are arriving, and the raid is small. And what can I say when military airfields are dismantled on plates. As in our Far East, a couple of Air Force colonels were put on trial for the fact that they built hangars under their hills at their own expense, so that the planes could not be dismantled and they weren’t dismantled for metal, and several officers were behind scuffle (some homeless people were stolen when they stole plates) . Shoigu then tells these guys the heroes should be given and not judged.
  20. The comment was deleted.
  21. AlexVas44
    AlexVas44 12 October 2013 11: 46 New
    +1
    The motor of the second stage, closely approaching the T-50 to the American F-22, is still in development.


    So what? I understand the author this way: even when installing new engines specifically designed for the T-50, he will only come close to the long-flying F-22. Judging by a number of the errors noted above, the author is either in a hurry or very superficial about the topic. There are many such authors - from technical literature to fiction. It seems that we, readers, will take everything with a bang. It's a shame.
  22. Flyers
    Flyers 12 October 2013 12: 27 New
    +7
    The country needs both Migi And Drying because good technology is born only in competition. And the fact that Su’s company pulled the blanket over itself will only lead to lower quality aircraft in the future!
  23. samoletil18
    samoletil18 12 October 2013 13: 07 New
    +1
    Agent Poghosyan wrote. We are waiting for an article from agent Mikoyan.
  24. Katsin1
    Katsin1 12 October 2013 13: 30 New
    -6
    Quote: tomket
    I recall a story when the Luftwaffe pilots in the year like 1999 said they wanted to leave the MiG-29 in service, and they don’t need Typhoon. To which they were told, MiG is certainly a good fighter, but you see, we need to develop the aviation industry, create jobs, support enterprises, so you’ll fly on what we say and be silent so to speak. I think here we need to take an example, to develop industry and load enterprises, and to unifiers and guardians to keep silence for saving national money.




    My relative is flying an F-16. About 10 years ago, several German MIG-29s were brought to us for familiarization and training air battles. A relative was allowed to fly on a MIG-29 spark. He says that rare shit, both in terms of electronics, and in terms of piloting, and in terms of convenience ... As he put it: "Apparently, the MIG designers really hated the pilots."


    Guys, I only ask, do not minus for an alternative opinion ...
    1. samoletil18
      samoletil18 12 October 2013 13: 45 New
      +1
      and the F-16 and MiG were the same age? this is not a collision, just interesting. I myself am not a pilot.
      1. sergey69
        sergey69 12 October 2013 16: 57 New
        +2
        MiG-29 entered service in 1983, and the F-16 in 1977.
        1. samoletil18
          samoletil18 12 October 2013 20: 10 New
          0
          cool answer! Since those years, it turns out, they have not changed in any way! I'm talking about the age of specific aircraft that were compared to each other. Or am I implying a foolish person? wassat
    2. VAF
      VAF 12 October 2013 13: 54 New
      14
      Quote: Katsin1
      Guys, I only ask, do not minus for an alternative opinion ...


      All the same .. minusanu .... since your relative carries ... bullshit.
      He flies on the next modified Block .... and compares it with an airplane, which instead of H019 has an ordinary Wasp, but in terms of piloting ... so let him go .... away and the forest soldier

      You are still yours ... Give an example of Soufra wassat

      Americans "rolled" their B-2 because of that. that HO19 (sees him as a native, from any angle and on any background), but here you see ... a relative! wassat
      1. old man54
        old man54 14 October 2013 02: 13 New
        0
        Quote: vaf
        Americans "rolled" their B-2 because of that. that НО19 (sees him as a native, with

        interesting topic, inaudible! recourse Thanks for the fun! hi
    3. report4
      report4 12 October 2013 13: 55 New
      21
      Quote: Katsin1

      My relative is flying an F-16. About 10 years ago, several German MIG-29s were brought to us for familiarization and training air battles. A relative was allowed to fly on a MIG-29 spark. He says that rare shit, both in terms of electronics, and in terms of piloting, and in terms of convenience ... As he put it: "Apparently, the MIG designers really hated the pilots."
      Guys, I only ask, do not minus for an alternative opinion ...

      My relative is flying a broomstick. And the other day they drove f-22. A relative was allowed to fly for review - he says that it’s a rare shit both in terms of electronics and in terms of piloting, and in terms of convenience. As he put it: "Apparently, the designers of Raptor`a really hated the pilots."
      Here is such a return BVVS from "very reliable sources."

      Guys, I only ask, do not very much plus for an alternative opinion.
      1. AlexVas44
        AlexVas44 13 October 2013 09: 45 New
        0
        My minus minus not count. The error came out. I am for!!!
    4. aleshka
      aleshka 12 October 2013 17: 07 New
      10
      damn like a Jew on the forum, so immediately all Russian-shit !!!
    5. tomket
      tomket 12 October 2013 18: 36 New
      +3
      Well, what could your relative say? What doesn’t he switch the camillo toggle switches for himself, and he does not hold overloads?)))))
    6. Simple
      Simple 12 October 2013 19: 37 New
      +8
      The words of the British pilot after a training battle with the first squadron of Jagdgeschwaders 73 (equipped with the MiG-29 at that time):

      "" It was as if someone had given me both steaks and locked me with a couple of pit bulls in a telephone box "

      http://www.fabulousfulcrums.de/Presse/Playboy.htm
    7. iohus
      iohus 12 October 2013 20: 56 New
      +2
      Firstly: it’s not so fast and easy to switch from one type of aircraft to another.
      Secondly: is your relative an oligarch pilot? Thousands of pilots like Mig-29, but your chosen-spoiled relative doesn’t. rave...
      Quote: Katsin1
      He says that rare shit in terms of electronics, and in terms of piloting, and in terms of convenience ... As he put it: "Apparently, the MIG designers really hated the pilots."
    8. NC1982
      NC1982 12 October 2013 21: 59 New
      0
      maybe your relative flies on the F-16 as a stoker and he has nothing to do on the MiG? Electronics zero, piloting itself without coal in the furnace, the convenience of only at home in the closet, a paradox!
    9. Ro-man
      Ro-man 13 October 2013 19: 51 New
      +1
      In 1991, when I was still a schoolboy, my father’s friend came to visit us. He just arrived from Germany, where he served in the tank troops (Colonel). I, fascinated at that time with military equipment, but the information was still very scarce, did not get off with him questions about what our latest tanks were (then only the enemy’s equipment could be studied in detail in magazines). And he told me about the T-80 and his vision of the Abrams, in which he had a chance to sit when they visited the enemy units during the period of discharge that began and vice versa .. He praised Abrams very much .. It’s both spacious and comfortable and has a heated vest if it’s cold, to dress .. But he would prefer to join the battle in difficult times on the T-80 when I asked who would win one on one .. Convenience is not the most important thing, apparently.
      1. gunnerminer
        gunnerminer 13 October 2013 22: 19 New
        +1
        Quote: Ro-Man
        It’s both spacious and comfortable and a heated vest if it’s cold you can put it on. But he would prefer to join the battle in the T-80 when I asked who would win one on one .. Convenience is not the most important thing, apparently.



        Is the combat readiness of an individual tank, aircraft, ship evaluated? The combat readiness of a formation is evaluated. The winner is the one with the best combat control system, the best reconnaissance, and the best rear support. Those who have better trained personnel, primarily officers.
        1. Ro-man
          Ro-man 14 October 2013 16: 11 New
          0
          I agree! But then where is the day of eternal debate on this site - which tank (plane) is better?
  25. Des10
    Des10 12 October 2013 14: 20 New
    +2
    The second photo of the MiG-35. This is not permissible in such an article and on such a site. Minus.
    1. VAF
      VAF 12 October 2013 15: 18 New
      +6
      Quote: Des10
      The second photo of the MiG-35. This is not permissible in such an article and on such a site. Minus.


      Well, to be very precise, then on the second photo is the Mig-29M2, ed. 9-15-4 (i.e., the fourth in this series, OVT-6th).

      Here is his photo ... native. Before .. 2nd "repainting" in the Mig-35D wink



      So this is a "demonstrator" and until the MiG-35th, the present, which is planned to be released to him ... hoo wink
      And I agree with your conclusions drinks
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 12 October 2013 15: 39 New
        +9
        ...........................................
        1. lucidlook
          lucidlook 14 October 2013 00: 19 New
          +1
          Poles frolic in exercises.
  26. pensioner
    pensioner 12 October 2013 14: 29 New
    +6
    Quote: samoletil18
    A relative was allowed to fly on a MIG-29 spark. Says rare shit
    It seems to me that this is your relative -
    rare shit
    Although ... Why rare? Very common in those parts ...
  27. SkyMaXX
    SkyMaXX 12 October 2013 14: 32 New
    +1
    About the F-15 Silent Eagle you can not talk about how to compete with the Su-35. The Japanese, who saw the F-15SE, criticized him to the nines.
  28. Altona
    Altona 12 October 2013 14: 35 New
    +1
    The article is too emotional, the author is too inconsistent in the narration, apparently he wanted to tell us a lot, but didn’t say anything new ... No one is against the modernization of the worked out 4 ++ platforms and the creation of the 5th ...
  29. Avenger711
    Avenger711 12 October 2013 15: 16 New
    +1
    Some kind of illiterate verbal diarrhea, not an article.
  30. Orion
    Orion 12 October 2013 17: 10 New
    -1
    The author writes that there is a radar on the Su-35S and the engines are exactly the same as on the T-50 now. Is it so?
    1. lazy
      lazy 13 October 2013 04: 48 New
      0
      it's still on the t-50 there is a radar and engines like on a su-35s, it seems they didn’t lie but there are nuances
  31. Rainman_1
    Rainman_1 12 October 2013 18: 10 New
    0
    If Khrushchev at one time did not react negligently to military aviation, we would be the first !!! Putin plus. We started to catch up.
  32. Shturmovik
    Shturmovik 12 October 2013 19: 01 New
    +9
    I haven’t read such nonsense for a long time! To begin with, SINS is not a non-inertial navigation system, but a platformless one! secondly it is not a device! and thirdly, everything that is written about the SINS then all this is performed by the computer. Further it’s not even interesting!
  33. NC1982
    NC1982 12 October 2013 21: 12 New
    +1
    Only pictures deserve attention in the article, especially the first! smile
  34. e3tozy
    e3tozy 12 October 2013 21: 16 New
    +2
    Quote: shtanko.49
    A light fighter is definitely needed and it is possible to rivet them more; it is much cheaper, but it has its own niche in combat use, I think they will buy Mig-35s.

    I absolutely agree with you. As if there was a long arm in the wars of the future, ,, massacre in a telephone booth, no one has canceled. MiG, this is a style of air combat, and therefore there should be a lot of them. Su-35, Su-34, these are heavy expensive systems. Their chip hollow from far away. A moment in the air won two wars, although the Phantom was much more modern, but difficult. With Saber the same thing.
  35. Katsin1
    Katsin1 12 October 2013 21: 41 New
    +1
    Guys, well, I asked you not to minus ... So no, they suggested minuses for daring to give an alternative opinion ... You shut me up, it will not be interesting for you yourself ... here it’s overwhelmingly funny for me to read that nonsense write on this forum. But I’m reading and not negative, because it is important for me to know an alternative opinion, which I also wish you
  36. Katsin1
    Katsin1 12 October 2013 21: 49 New
    0
    Quote: e3tozy
    Quote: shtanko.49
    A light fighter is definitely needed and it is possible to rivet them more; it is much cheaper, but it has its own niche in combat use, I think they will buy Mig-35s.

    I absolutely agree with you. As if there was a long arm in the wars of the future, ,, massacre in a telephone booth, no one has canceled. MiG, this is a style of air combat, and therefore there should be a lot of them. Su-35, Su-34, these are heavy expensive systems. Their chip hollow from far away. A moment in the air won two wars, although the Phantom was much more modern, but difficult. With Saber the same thing.




    Please tell us which 2 air wars MIG won?
    1. old man54
      old man54 14 October 2013 02: 24 New
      0
      Quote: Katsin1
      Please tell us which 2 air wars MIG won?

      koment is not mine, but I think I'm almost sure that my colleague had in mind the Korean War of 1950-52 and the war in Vietnam for independence from Zionist-American capital in 1965-1972. hi
  37. e3tozy
    e3tozy 12 October 2013 22: 41 New
    +5
    Quote: Katsin1
    Please tell us which 2 air wars MIG won

    Vietnam, North Korea in aerial combat.
    1. old man54
      old man54 14 October 2013 02: 27 New
      0
      sorry, but I didn’t see your comets right away, I would see I wouldn’t write.
  38. Katsin1
    Katsin1 12 October 2013 23: 24 New
    -10
    Oh comrade, you are probably an adult, but believe in fairy tales .... Give me data on losses in air battles. If my memory serves me, 1: 10, guess whose benefit?
    1. CARBON
      CARBON 13 October 2013 02: 49 New
      +6
      This is Norman Polmar’s in his naturally American pathos “Carriers” 1:10 in Korea (but he’s a contemporary, he’s excusable), and if Tom Clancy wrote, then from the Urals to Kamchatka except F-86 and B-29 nor would it fly.
      Since you are not Clancy, let’s go without fairy tales, as you have noticed.
    2. poquello
      poquello 13 October 2013 14: 46 New
      +4
      Quote: Katsin1
      Oh comrade, you are probably an adult, but believe in fairy tales .... Give me data on losses in air battles. If my memory serves me, 1: 10, guess whose benefit?

      “over the years of the war, the air defense and the air force air forces destroyed 350 enemy aircraft, which accounted for 9% of the total number of airborne and air defense forces shot down in the sky. -145 - 17), while 75 pilots died
      http://www.e-reading.biz/bookreader.php/95319/Okorokov_-_Sekretnye_voiiny_Sovets
      kogo_Soyuza.html
      Malygin A.S. On the effectiveness of the Air Defense Forces and the Air Force of the Vietnam People's Army during hostilities in 1964-1973. On Sat The war in Vietnam: a look through the years ... Materials of the scientific-practical conference: "Soviet-Vietnamese military and economic cooperation during the years of US aggression against the DRV (1964-1973)." M., 2000.S. 82-83.
    3. svp67
      svp67 13 October 2013 14: 57 New
      +3
      Quote: Katsin1
      1:10

      1 downed MIG on 10 downed planes of UN international forces? No, of course we do not pretend to such an account ...
      But seriously
      Abroad, there are different estimates of the effectiveness of the MiG-15 and F-86 in Korea, most of which are based on biased American statistics. For example, the loss ratio of MiG-15 and F-86 for the entire duration of hostilities in Korea is indicated as 14: 1 (818 downed MiG-15 against 58 downed F-86) or 10: 1 (792 MiG-15-78 against 86 ) At the same time, the advantage of the MiG-15 in flight performance and armament in comparison with the F-86A / E and the main reason for such a staggering loss ratio are called the best training of American pilots and the tactics used by them, as well as great “aggressiveness” recently abroad. "in an air battle. Without going into a discussion of such tense explanations, we note that the figures given are clearly not true. We also point out that for Soviet aviation the main task was to cover the DPRK objects from air raids and the main goal was American attack aircraft, while the role of "pure" battles between fighters was secondary.

      And we can count it like that ...
      The final figures also speak in favor of Russian military equipment. Soviet pilots, according to Mr. Lobov, in air battles over the territory of China and North Korea shot down more than 1300 enemy aircraft (including bombers and fighters of other types besides the F-86), while losing the 345 MiGs.
      1. poquello
        poquello 13 October 2013 18: 36 New
        +3
        Quote: svp67
        Quote: Katsin1
        1:10

        1 downed MIG on 10 downed planes of UN international forces? No, of course we do not pretend to such an account ...

        If about Vietnam 1:10, then it is quite likely, considering that one to three Amer aircraft left from one to three air defense missiles.
    4. old man54
      old man54 14 October 2013 02: 28 New
      +1
      Quote: Katsin1
      Oh comrade, you are probably an adult, but believe in fairy tales .... Give me data on losses in air battles. If my memory serves me, 1: 10, guess whose benefit?

      I realized, it’s like the troll of the special department of the IDF!
  39. e3tozy
    e3tozy 13 October 2013 00: 49 New
    11
    Quote: Katsin1
    Oh comrade, you are probably an adult, but believe in fairy tales .... Give me data on losses in air battles. If my memory serves me, 1: 10, guess whose benefit?

    You know, in Korea they called the alley the MiG Alley, not the Sabers, because the MiGs were there, not the Sabers. If you had the initiative in Vietnam, then why did you hurry to dump the planes from aircraft carriers? Ivan Kozhedub wrote in a unit (I don’t remember exactly, maybe a regiment) more than 200 enemy planes were destroyed, with their losses of 22 or 24 aircraft and losing 11 pilots. And if he was not telling the truth, he would never have discovered that he once lost an air duel to an American pilot and was shot down over the front line. The Germans also say that on the Kursk Bulge lost 3 tanks irrevocably knocking out 3000 thousand Russians. This can be answered as follows. Victories must be won, not kidnapped. Good luck!
  40. lazy
    lazy 13 October 2013 04: 44 New
    +1
    I didn’t put an article as a minus, although it is clear that the customer and the Irkut customer, everyone wants a bigger piece of the pie. This is naturally the main thing that would not be to the detriment of the interests of the country
    1. Ustin
      Ustin 13 October 2013 13: 16 New
      +1
      You’re wrong, my friend, we didn’t order such nonsense, we don’t respect ourselves. Yes, and under the Contracts we are completely self-sufficient. So "out of line" wink I’m not going to be too lazy ...
      1. lazy
        lazy 13 October 2013 18: 41 New
        0
        Well, if wrong, then I'm sorry, a few suggestions in the article
        And around the Su-30SM and Su-35 there are still more questions than answers. And the main one is why the Russian Air Force should buy several types of aircraft close in combat capabilities at once, when it is possible, but rather it is necessary to concentrate resources on the procurement of one fighter.
        ,
        For the Russian Air Force, the Su-30SM is good because it is actually an airplane from the “shelf” - worked out, tested over the years of operation, and most importantly - mass-produced (the Irkutsk aircraft plant is capable of producing up to 30 fighters per year, which practically corresponds to the Soviet production volumes of the enterprise).
        ,
        Or offer Irkutsk to begin to master the release of a new model of the promising Su-35 fighter.
  41. duchy
    duchy 13 October 2013 10: 19 New
    +1
    The article is a good vinaigrette. There are many, but the taste is incomprehensible.
  42. scientist
    scientist 13 October 2013 13: 33 New
    0
    The MiG-35 and its photo are written in the heading “development priority”, and further down the text of the Su-35, it turns out to be a completely unreadable venezgret.
    It would be interesting to compare the combat capabilities of the Su-35 and MiG-31BM in a training battle. Although Poghosyan and his lobby are lying in the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, they will be allowed to conduct such exercises,
    1. nightingale
      nightingale 13 October 2013 23: 05 New
      0
      It depends on the situation of using the aircraft. if instant 31 will intercept, then su35 theoretically will not have a chance.
  43. Ruslan Bear
    Ruslan Bear 13 October 2013 15: 14 New
    +1
    Quote: scientist
    The MiG-35 and its photo are written in the heading “development priority”, and further down the text of the Su-35, it turns out to be a completely unreadable venezgret.
    It would be interesting to compare the combat capabilities of the Su-35 and MiG-31BM in a training battle. Although Poghosyan and his lobby are lying in the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, they will be allowed to conduct such exercises,

    comparing interceptor and multirole fighter is not entirely correct
  44. mvg
    mvg 13 October 2013 16: 36 New
    +1
    Quote: Firstvanguard
    It feels like an article for hamsters

    like this
  45. sivuch
    sivuch 13 October 2013 18: 03 New
    -1
    Why is the Su-34 radically better than the Su-30SM?
    Well, let’s say, the SM’s wings remained from the Su-27, therefore heavy loads are contraindicated for it.
    Internal fuel supply slightly larger
    34th EW station is more powerful
    With the OLS container, the CM is also somehow incomprehensible
    At criminal low altitudes, 34 flies worse than the Su-24 (and F-111), but better than the Su-27/30
    Vitality is higher
    This is a general outline. In general, how many such disputes have already been
  46. Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 13 October 2013 20: 48 New
    +1
    It seems to me that my country is again being drawn into some kind of a whirlpool. Russian (Soviet) aircraft, this is a powerful weapon. But some kind of reptile, in the West itches all the time: Russian aviation is rubbish It makes our defenders strain. Gentlemen, Russian aircraft builders, calm down! Do not rape the country! Everything is developing normally! Russian planes are the best!
  47. e3tozy
    e3tozy 13 October 2013 23: 44 New
    0
    Quote: Civil
    AFAR and PFAR would need an explanatory article, especially about MiGs and helicopters with them

    I even agree with you. The topic is ripe. A lot of muddy water on this topic and no clarity.
  48. e3tozy
    e3tozy 14 October 2013 00: 27 New
    +1
    Quote: Civil
    AFAR and PFAR would need an explanatory article, especially about MiGs and helicopters with them

    I even agree with you. The topic is ripe. A lot of muddy water on this topic and no clarity.
    Quote: Bad_gr
    Su-35 aircraft gaining superiority in the air and is more designed for combat with an air opponent. Although its additional capabilities can be expanded.

    Su-35, the most beautiful aviation complex. It is only thought that such an expensive and heavy aircraft should basically be hollowed from afar, and only if it happens to peel in close combat. And directly for close combat, MiG is better suited. This is his niche. He would bring overloads to 12-14 g and in close combat he would have no equal.
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 14 October 2013 01: 17 New
      0
      Quote: e3tozy
      And directly for close combat, MiG is better suited. This is his niche.
      I am of the opinion that in our time the priority for the purchase of heavy fighters is the right decision: when there is a shortage of modern fighters, then for a large country, we primarily need airplanes with a long flight range (especially when there is a general reduction in airfields).
  49. Katsin1
    Katsin1 14 October 2013 00: 47 New
    +1
    Quote: Ivanovich47
    It seems to me that my country is again being drawn into some kind of a whirlpool. Russian (Soviet) aircraft, this is a powerful weapon. But some kind of reptile, in the West itches all the time: Russian aviation is rubbish It makes our defenders strain. Gentlemen, Russian aircraft builders, calm down! Do not rape the country! Everything is developing normally! Russian planes are the best!



    The right decision, the right decision)))))))
  50. mehmeh
    mehmeh 6 December 2014 01: 09 New
    0
    Without a front-line exterminator, there is nowhere good radar of 6 missiles a gun whose half an hour does not need to be dispersed for a short takeoff
    Stealth as possible without prejudice
    And to dance from, 29 MiG a normal plane would be
    And bombs on airdromes, well, that at the Americans against Iraq swept other isolated states
    In a real war, a medium-range ballistic missile is the best bomber. Americans have replaced it with tomahawks and therefore they are afraid of Korea
    Not war with her and not nuclear weapons, they would have agreed easily they are afraid of the loss of global dominance