Military Review

Su-35C - increased combat capabilities

90
Further development of the Su-35C multifunctional fighter program will go towards increasing its potential.




In 2013, as the readiness of the weapons was achieved, they were integrated into the aircraft. To date, the Su-35S has integrated 14 aviation means of destruction. As new species are ready weaponsdeveloped by Tactical Missiles, will continue to integrate them into the Su-35. In February, the 2014 of the 12 Su-35С in full serial configuration, which can solve combat missions, are transferred to the 23 th Fighter Aviation Regiment of the Air Force of Russia and will now bear the full service cycle. According to the plan in 2014, the industry should transfer to military pilots 90 new combat aircraft, including 24 Su-35, of which 12 are already in the Air Force.
Read more: http://vpk-news.ru/articles/19943
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru
90 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. mamont5
    mamont5 April 16 2014 10: 47
    +23
    What a handsome man! Give aviation!
    1. Nevsky_ZU
      Nevsky_ZU April 16 2014 10: 56
      +12
      Quote: mamont5
      What a handsome man! Give aviation!


      All this is good. But Bandera SU-27 is flying over the Donbas am
      1. Alexander Romanov
        Alexander Romanov April 16 2014 11: 16
        +9
        Quote: Nevsky_ZU
        . But over the Donbass fly Bandera SU-27

        While flying.
        1. Manager
          Manager April 16 2014 11: 23
          +4
          Quote: Alexander Romanov
          While flying.

          Flies, I would say)
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. alexng
        alexng April 16 2014 11: 21
        +7
        For the militia, a car loaded with needles was taken from Bandera’s specially. So it’s not long to fly.
      4. from punk
        from punk April 16 2014 11: 24
        +2
        Quote: Nevsky_ZU
        All this is good. But Bandera SU-27 is flying over the Donbas

        this is called not the efficient use of the last resources. to the extent that it flies. the effect of zero only scares if and even then
      5. Simon
        Simon April 16 2014 13: 05
        +1
        They did not have long to fly. soldier
      6. UREC
        UREC April 16 2014 13: 20
        0
        Bear with me, little patience!
      7. 120352
        120352 April 16 2014 14: 48
        0
        Nevsky_ZU
        For aircraft shipped abroad, a self-destruction mechanism must be provided. And keep the button at home.
      8. Sashka
        Sashka April 16 2014 15: 22
        +5
        Already wrote in another topic, but one more time. repeat
        Guys, all the good time of the day! For the second day in a row, from morning until late at night, we have planes circling. Specifically, I watch from the Kanevsky district of the Krasnodar Territory. Approximately 100 km from Yeisk, i.e. northwest K.K. As if nothing new, I saw more than once Su-25, L-39, nevertheless near Yeisk and Primorsk-Akhtarsk. But the second day, representatives of other classes are already flying. Moreover, as I understood it in excess of the sound (I could be wrong, because not an expert). A terrible roar, the glass is trembling. And sometimes they pass very low. Again, not an expert, but as it seemed, the Su-24 flew (recognized by the different sweep of the wing at different speed modes, well, by the silhouette), the Su-27 ??? (in silhouette), and SU-34 (its flat nose is difficult to confuse). Already by the sound I determine whether it is flying high or low. I am sitting at work, I heard a crash - I went to smoke! Nice however !!! And the figures do different! When the sound is not big, such a whistling noise means low, you can even see that the suspensions (I don't know with what) are taking place. And when it rumbles with a howl, it circles high, turns over, makes all kinds of loops. Probably a coincidence with the beginning of the "counterterrorism" in Ukraine. PURE coincidence.
        1. svd-xnumx
          svd-xnumx April 16 2014 17: 16
          +2
          they fly over the Bryansk region several times a day (day and night), they patrol (a route from north to south), recently pilots have not done anything badly. they fly high, which one cannot understand.
    2. TAMERLAN 7
      TAMERLAN 7 April 16 2014 10: 59
      +7
      about the plan in 2014, the industry should transfer 90 new combat aircraft to military pilots, including 24 Su-35s, of which 12 are already in the Air Force.

      So in total in 2014 will pass 24 Su-35? Of these, 12 have already been transferred; does it mean that they build only 12 Su-35s in a year? It will not be enough!
      1. Very old
        Very old April 16 2014 11: 29
        +9
        Guys, not enough, of course
        The fleet has few ships, the Air Force has few planes ___ few tanks ___ few YRSs
        Before that we were "degreased" ...

        But it is thought: BREAKTHROUGH Done on the principle: necessary and sufficient

        Or is it wrong? (But want - prosperity)
        1. igor_m_p
          igor_m_p April 16 2014 11: 41
          +2
          As I understand it, the contract can be expanded if necessary. In addition, work is underway to deeply modernize the old Su-27, and according to the glider they differ little from the thirty-fifth, so everything is not so bad as it might seem at first glance.
        2. TAMERLAN 7
          TAMERLAN 7 April 16 2014 12: 27
          +2
          Quote: Very old
          Or is it wrong? (But want - prosperity)

          Total and more !!!!!!!!!!!!! fellow
          Of course they are right! Be sure to break through! Re-equipment is not a curtain to change. Everything is right, everything is on its own, as it should be. What we have now is a corollary of the 90s, what we will have in the 20s is being laid now. Rearmament, like chess - think ahead! The rest is emotions!
          1. queen
            queen April 16 2014 12: 39
            +1
            Quote: TAMERLAN 7
            Rearmament, like chess - think ahead! The rest is emotions!

            The country is huge .... and do it a long time
      2. dm98
        dm98 April 16 2014 13: 27
        0
        Not certainly in that way!
        As I understand it, in 2013 they transferred 12 new
        in 2014 another 12 new ones will be delivered + 12 of the old deliveries (until 2013) will be modernized to the current state
        total at the end of 2014 will be 36 pieces !!!
      3. The comment was deleted.
    3. Civil
      Civil April 16 2014 11: 09
      +2
      Su-35, a cheaper alternative to the T-50
      1. queen
        queen April 16 2014 12: 43
        +2
        Quote: Civil
        Su-35, a cheaper alternative to the T-50

        And instant-21 with instant-29 ????? Let's call them as they are ... and they are different on the trailer.
        1. 120352
          120352 April 16 2014 14: 53
          0
          queen
          Then let's calculate the MiG-15 ...
      2. TAMERLAN 7
        TAMERLAN 7 April 16 2014 14: 32
        +1
        Quote: Civil
        Su-35, a cheaper alternative to the T-50

        Not an alternative, but an addition. The requirement of the Russian Air Force to equip 30 squadrons, each of which must have 12 T-50 fighters, is currently considered unattainable, primarily because of the cost of the fifth generation fighter. If the Air Force wants to have 30 squadrons, they need a simpler and cheaper aircraft as a complement to the T-50. The second aircraft must also meet the requirements of the Russian Air Force, including a range of 3000 km, which excludes the possibility of purchasing a light fighter. The evolution of Russian plans affected the fate of the Su-35, which was chosen as an addition to the T-50, and this paved the way for large domestic orders. The concept of a mixed fleet of expensive / cheap aircraft led to the fact that in August 2009 the Russian Air Force ordered 48 Su-35, which should be delivered by 2015, worth 1,4 billion rubles. ($ 45 million) each. The contract was followed by complaints from the aviation industry that the price of the aircraft was below its cost. In accordance with the State Arms Program, another batch of 48 Su-35s, which should be delivered in 2016-2020, will be ordered somewhat later.
        1. patsantre
          patsantre April 16 2014 15: 48
          +2
          We can afford 360 T-50s by 2030. But now it is not there, but you need to buy something. Industry support and cook. Yes, and now the times are turbulent, so it would be possible to wait for the T-50 and not spend money on the Su-35, but now this is a big risk.
    4. Army1
      Army1 April 16 2014 16: 02
      +1
      There was news about MIG, like 100 pieces are being planned, but not many
  2. Gagarin
    Gagarin April 16 2014 10: 47
    +13
    Let's get the guys quick, they were needed yesterday.
  3. Alez
    Alez April 16 2014 10: 48
    +17
    It remains to make Dry 35 the most composite aircraft to reduce the radar signature. Prices will not be, I swear by my cocked hat.
    1. edeligor
      edeligor April 16 2014 10: 58
      +6
      Quote: Alez
      it became Dry 35 to make the most composite aircraft to reduce the radar signature.

      I am begging you! smile Decrease in radio visibility is a complex of measures, of which the use of composites is far from the most important criterion.
      1. Baikal
        Baikal April 16 2014 11: 25
        0
        I do not quite understand these EPR games against the background of the events of Iraq in the overture of C-125 and F-117.
        Gentlemen, who is in the subject, tell me what’s the matter here?
        1. patsantre
          patsantre April 16 2014 15: 49
          +2
          Only one nighthawk was shot down, which flew constantly along one route and was detected by optical guidance. Are you kidding?
          In general, you can see any "invisible" person with a radar. The only question is, from what distance.
      2. GDP
        GDP April 16 2014 11: 28
        0
        Quote: edeligor
        I am begging you! smile Decrease in radio visibility is a complex of measures, of which the use of composites is far from the most important criteria

        for example, a special form that promotes the signal wrap around, a special coating, a special type of engine that reduces infrared visibility ...
    2. TAMERLAN 7
      TAMERLAN 7 April 16 2014 14: 38
      +4
      Quote: Alez
      It remains to make Dry 35 the most composite aircraft to reduce the radar signature.
      For starters, at least radar blockers put in the air intake! And with composites it is not worth messing around - there is a T-50! Why reinvent the wheel?
      1. Mainbeam
        Mainbeam April 16 2014 17: 58
        +1
        Is the T-50 visible to the fan or not? There are a lot of schemes on the Internet, you will look at some, so the air channel with a bend. And according to the scheme - the engine is visible through the air intake.







        1. TAMERLAN 7
          TAMERLAN 7 April 17 2014 10: 02
          +1
          Quote: MainBeam
          Is the T-50 visible to the fan or not? There are a lot of schemes on the Internet, you will look at some, so the air channel with a bend. And according to the scheme - the engine is visible through the air intake.

          It is visible, India presented our claims precisely because of the absence of S-shaped air intakes. From here the EPR value is 0,3-0,4 m2! On this subject, so many copies are broken! At one time they thought that the grilles installed in the air intakes (on some schemes) were such cunning radar blockers, it wasn’t necessary - it was removed, it was necessary - it was lowered. But, it turned out that they are only from birds. It seems that at the second stage, for India they will make a more inconspicuous export modification of the FGFA aircraft! In addition, it remains a radar blocker to put in the air intake! Geometrically, it is well made.

          1. Mainbeam
            Mainbeam April 18 2014 22: 13
            0
            How important is it to close the fan against the rest of the reflection?
            Or in another way, hiding the engine, how much less radio detectability?
  4. Sergei75
    Sergei75 April 16 2014 10: 48
    +4
    Why assign a new digital index to a modernized aircraft? This is not a new car, but only modernized, it may be better as before - well, for example, LSI, even in TU-22 there is M, M2, M3, of course it is clear that Tupolev, using one machine as a cover, created a completely different
    1. NIVH
      NIVH April 16 2014 10: 58
      +2
      As far as I understand, this is due to the combat capabilities of the aircraft. Su-27 aircraft of the 4th generation, Su-30 - 4+, Su-35 - 4 ++. This is like the Tu-22 and Tu-22M3 - completely different planes.
      1. igor_m_p
        igor_m_p April 16 2014 11: 59
        +2
        Not only. In fact, with all the external similarities of the su-27 and su-35, these are very different machines. Strongly different in alignment, new engines, differences in the design of the airframe, wing, rudders. Well, and much more.
  5. Rus2012
    Rus2012 April 16 2014 10: 50
    +7
    Su-35C - increased combat capabilities


    Su-35C - increased combat capabilities


    Flight characteristics of the Su-35С
    Maximum speed:
    at the ground: 1400 km / h
    at altitude: 2500 km / h (2,25Maha, at altitudes greater than 11 km)
    afterburner: 1,1 Mach

    Range of flight:
    at the ground (altitude 200 m, speed 0,7 Mach): 1580 km
    on high:
    without PTB: 3600 km
    with 2 PTB-2000 L: 4500 km

    Ceiling: 18 000 m

    Rate of climb: 280 m / s
    Length:
    take-off run (full fast and the furious): 450 m
    mileage (with normal take-off mass, brake parachute, use of brakes): 650 m

    Thrust-to-weight ratio (near the ground, at n.o.):
    normal take-off weight: 1,1
    with maximum take-off weight: 0,811

    weaponry

    Cannon: 30 mm aircraft gun GSH-30-1
    The combat load: 8000 kg
    Suspension Points: 12
    Armament:
    Air-to-air:
    Long Range Missile:
    RVV-DB
    medium range:
    6 × P-27ER, P-27P, P-27T
    10 × RVV-AE
    short range:
    4 × P-73
    Air-to-ground:
    Anti-ship missiles:
    6 × X-31 2 × X-59M
    Long-range air-to-ground missile
    Precision ammunition:
    6 × X-29
    X-25
    C-25LD
    6 × CAB-500
    CAB-1500
    Unmanaged ammunition:
    C-25 (NAR)
    C-8
    bombs for various purposes and caliber up to 1500 kg

    Avionics
    Su-35С fighters use a radar station with a passive phased antenna array H035 Irbis.

    Radar specifications:

    Frequency Range: X (8-12 GHz)
    HEADLAMP Diameter: 900 mm
    MRP Quantity: 1772
    Viewing angles: 240 ° (± 120 °)
    Average power: 5000 W
    Peak Power: 20000 W
    Target Detection Range:
    with ESR 3 m²:
    on the opposite courses: 350 — 400 km (in the zone of 100 sq. degrees, against the sky)
    catch-up: Xnumx km
    with EPR 0,01m²: to 90 km

    Objectives:
    Detection and target designation: 4 ground or 30 air
    Simultaneous shelling: missiles with a semi-active homing head (r-27P, R-27ER) - no more than 2 targets; missiles with an active homing head (R-77, RVV-AE, RVV-SD, R-37) - not more than 8.
    OLS allows you to escort 4 air targets at ranges up to 80 km. Su-35 has a missile attack warning system (IR sensors).
    In the aircraft, the use of suspended EW containers is possible.
    1. Mainbeam
      Mainbeam April 16 2014 11: 39
      -1
      What is the fundamental difference in the use of Su-27 and Mig-29?
      Does it make sense to simultaneously produce both?
      http://topwar.ru/43914-minoborony-i-oak-podpisali-kontrakt-na-istrebiteli-mig-29
      smt.html

      The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) signed a contract for the purchase of 16 MiG-29СМТ fighters ... The decision to purchase this type of aircraft was made in parallel with the decision to transfer the contract for 37 MiG-35 fighters for three years. According to the announced plans, the military will conclude a contract for the MiG-35 in 2016.
      1. Cherdak
        Cherdak April 16 2014 12: 01
        0
        Quote: MainBeam
        Su-27 and MiG-29?

        Both are good in their class.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Anton Gavrilov
          Anton Gavrilov April 16 2014 15: 07
          +1
          The Su-27 is a heavy fighter, the Mig-29 light fighter is the fundamental difference.
      2. sv68
        sv68 April 16 2014 13: 55
        +1
        these are very different class aircraft and as a result of this they have different weapons and a different range of tasks
        1. Mainbeam
          Mainbeam April 16 2014 16: 31
          -2
          Well, stupid! - would say Zadornov. Can't you read, damn it? or do not understand the meaning of what you read?
          A simple question was asked: "What is the fundamental difference in application?" Don't tell me that these are "two different aircraft", that there is a "fundamental difference" between them. This, bitch, is a no brainer. And to answer the question "what is the difference" with the answer "different range of tasks" is the stupidity of the first magnitude. They would also start singing to me that the article is about the Su-35S, and not about the Su-27. For the stupid - that is not the point! If you do not know a simple answer to a simple question, keep quiet, let professionals or informed aviation enthusiasts speak up on the case. The wind chimes were busy.

          So what is the difference between the MiG-29's "mission circle" and the Su-27? If this is an elementary question, write elementary things in a simple way. If you do not want to waste time on explaining fundamental things, do not explain, be silent. So at least you will not lose respect, like idle talk.
          1. dzau
            dzau April 16 2014 18: 18
            +1
            Quote: MainBeam
            Well, stupid! - would say Zadornov. Can't you read, damn it? or do not understand the meaning of what you read?
            A simple question was asked: "What is the fundamental difference in application?" Don't tell me that these are "two different aircraft", that there is a "fundamental difference" between them. This, bitch, is a no brainer. And to answer the question "what is the difference" with the answer "different range of tasks" is the stupidity of the first magnitude.

            Range, payload, type of load, radar, maybe? At least your logic is where, if you can’t give yourself the trouble to familiarize yourself with the information you need on your own? Or just want to scold your neighbor?
            1. Mainbeam
              Mainbeam April 16 2014 18: 46
              0
              Quote: dzau
              Range, payload, type of load, radar, maybe?

              For what? Why are fighters with different characteristics needed? Why is Mig-29 needed if the Su-27 solves fundamentally the same problems? Lighter? Cheaper? And a shorter flight range ...

              Quote: dzau
              At least your logic is where, if you can’t give yourself the trouble to familiarize yourself with the information of interest on your own

              I tried to find, made requests, such as "features of combat use", compared flight characteristics, specific wing loading, specific thrust-to-weight ratio. But I couldn't find a simple explanation.

              Quote: TAMERLAN 7
              If the Air Force wants to have 30 squadrons, they need a simpler and cheaper aircraft as a complement to the T-50. The second aircraft must also meet the requirements of the Russian Air Force, including a range of 3000 km, which excludes the possibility of purchasing a light fighter

              Surely there are simple explanations. It’s not just to oppose the F-16 / F-18 pair
              Think me dumb? Are you laughing? So why not explain in simple words?
              Weakly succinctly explain in accessible words?
              1. Mainbeam
                Mainbeam April 16 2014 19: 08
                0
                Of course, who, after swearing words, wants to openly answer questions.
                Even reading is unpleasant, I understand it myself. Sorry, got excited.
                .
                1. Kasym
                  Kasym April 16 2014 23: 36
                  +3
                  Aleksandor, everyone is just waiting for some kind of SPECIAL to answer, for example VAF. Nobody wants to get involved in a "polemic" with the pros if something turns out to be wrong.
                  But your question is simple.
                  MiG-29 - a light front-line fighter designed to support the LAND FORCES over the battlefield, being an air cover. It can work both on EARTH and on AIR TARGETS. Accordingly, he could use bombs for example.
                  Su-27 is a heavy fighter designed for air supremacy. Initially worked only for AIR PURPOSES. Therefore, the armament was mainly "Air-Air". Had a different avionics. It had a long range - therefore it could work with Axes, behind enemy lines. Further modifications (Su-30, 35) are already working on the ground. The Su-35S, for example, compared to the Su-27, has more powerful engines with IVT, modern avionics (radar with IRBIS HEADLIGHTS, for example, which increases the target detection range, etc.), promise more modern missiles.
                  MiG-29 is cheaper to operate (for example, fuel consumption). Su-27 on the idea of ​​covering the work of the MiG-29, which cover the work of the SV. Also, in my opinion, there should be more light fighters (MiG-29) than heavy ones. They are cheaper. And if you also have a new avionics (for example, FAR Beetle) and engines with IWT. That he still that RAFAL with F-35 will shut up. hi
                  1. Kasym
                    Kasym April 17 2014 00: 10
                    +1
                    In the USA, the analogue of the heavy Su-27 is the F-15 (F-22), the light MiG-29 is the F-16 (F-35). For example, for a state like Ukraine, it is enough to have a MiG-29. Kazakhstan (this is almost 5 modern Ukraine, without Crimea; from east to west 3 km.) Still needs heavy ones. The radius of the lungs is 000 km, the heavy ones are 500 km. Naturally, the heavy ones have a more "distant" radar and a more "distant" missile. Have a large payload.
                    Our fighters (MiG-29 and Su-27) have turned out so successful that they still have great modernization potential (MiG-35 and Su-35). And for a long time they will form the basis of the Air Force. hi
                  2. supertiger21
                    supertiger21 April 17 2014 15: 43
                    0
                    Quote: Kasym
                    That he still that RAFAL with F-35 will shut up.


                    With the Rafal it will be very difficult even for the MiG-35. But with the F-35 there are very big doubts, because it is still the 5th generation and the MiG-35 4 ++. We need a lightweight analogue of the F-35.
                    1. Kasym
                      Kasym April 19 2014 01: 59
                      +2
                      From the West, the lag is only in electronics. But the glider and the motor ... are consistent. Rafal wins in avionics, radar with AFAR on the edge is already being tested. But in a close maneuvering battle (I don’t remember whether Rafal has or does not have an engine with an IVT), the MiG-35 will do (of course, a lot depends on the pilot).
                      F-35. I am personally skeptical of him. They wanted to make a massive light cheap plane. And then come on, come on this. And they got ... a golden penguin. Crossed a hedgehog with a snake. Also with one engine. He’s not suited to a sabotage dump. He would be shot back and ... faster home. What cover is there for troops from the air? Stealth only if you use the internal. compartments, and they are small 2 small bombs with 2 small missiles. Have to drag on the outside and stealth there. Advantage only in avionics. No speed, operation is likely not cheap.
                      Alexandor. To drive a heavy Su-34 (35, 30) to bomb a single target is too expensive (resource consumption, fuel consumption). The MiG-29 will carry off a couple of bombs. His name is also FRONT FIGHTER. And do not be "embarrassed", this is his specialization. Su-27 - Fighter for the Conquest Dominion in the air. Feel the difference. The Su-25 attack aircraft works on the ground, to fight the air. not intended for purposes.
                      MiG-25 (31) is not super-maneuverable. Its trump card is speed + radar with HEADLIGHTS + long-range air-to-air missile. He's more of an interceptor. He was more attributed to the air defense. There are all kinds of tamogavs, SR-71 scouts - these are his goals. And the dog dumps are the Su-27.
                      The F-35 program is not closed. Why do you think so ? The concept is the same. The F-22 with the F-35 was made as opposed to the Su-27 with the MiG-29. Lungs are much cheaper than heavy ones. And many difficult tasks can be solved. Therefore, for small countries it is better to have lungs. Cheaper both in purchase and in operation. And more often than not, a universal aircraft cannot replace an aircraft with its own specific characteristics. For example, the MiG-29 cannot carry a long-range air-to-air missile, but the MiG-31 can. hi
                      1. Mainbeam
                        Mainbeam April 19 2014 07: 27
                        0
                        Kasym, thanks for answers. Almost settled ideas in my head.

                        Our country is large, perhaps that is why it needs such a variety in the specialization of aviation technology.
                  3. Mainbeam
                    Mainbeam April 18 2014 21: 32
                    0
                    Thank you, your answer has put everything in its place. The scheme is clear. About the same thing is written in Wik, only without an emphasis on weapons and electronic stuffing. And they explained everything to me.

                    After the delivery of the first machines, it became clear the distribution of tasks between TPFI and LPFI. The heavy Su-27, having a large radius of action, had ... the task of deep air search and destruction of advanced aviation technology of NATO, the smaller MiG-29 replaced the MiG-23 in front-line aviation. As conceived by military theorists, the MiG-29 aircraft are deployed near the front line and should provide local air superiority to the advancing parts of the Soviet motorized army ... The MiG-29 also had to carry out the task of escorting attack aircraft, protecting vulnerable aircraft from such NATO fighters

                    It is embarrassing that the MIG-29 is covering the ground forces from attack aircraft and bombers as a fighter. But he can work on ground targets, like a ground attack aircraft. Is Su-34 designed to perform the wrong functions?

                    And second, it follows from your description that the descendants of the Su-27 are the "long arm" of cover, that is. is it functionally more maneuverable MiG-25?
                    1. Mainbeam
                      Mainbeam April 18 2014 22: 03
                      0
                      Quote: Kasym

                      And here’s the question. They probably designed the F-22 and F-35 on the same principle of TPFI / LPFI.
                      However, only F-22 remained in service. Has the theory of the use of combat aircraft changed?
                      We create only T-50 and again return to the question of the appropriateness of the pair 29 / 27
                  4. Mainbeam
                    Mainbeam April 18 2014 23: 25
                    0
                    Quote: Kasym
                    just everyone is waiting for some SPECIAL to answer, for example, VAF

                    I read the comments of vaf, and thought that no, he won’t come down to my stupid questions. laughing
                    1. Kasym
                      Kasym April 19 2014 02: 10
                      +1
                      T-50 in a quantity of 60 pieces "weather" will not do the whole thing. You definitely need a light one. The MiG-35 is a good intermediate solution. Moreover, much has been done there. Now we need to finish the avionics. Beetle-A and all that.
                      And under the hot hand of VAF belay better not to hit. laughing
              2. dzau
                dzau April 16 2014 19: 58
                +1
                I am a civilian, not a specialist, and, I'm afraid, I can offer nothing but knowledge from open sources and logic as an answer.

                A heavy vehicle with a longer range, a larger payload, a more powerful radar (apparently), and a "longer arm" (apparently) in terms of missile range is obviously necessary for parity with the air forces of developed countries.

                Again, it is more expensive to manufacture and maintain. With a certain "redundancy" of capabilities for completely "earthly" tasks, which almost exhausts the real use of the air forces of different countries over the past decades (counter-guerrilla actions, actions against the obviously outdated air forces of "banana" countries, air control in the absence of strong opposition).

                For such "mundane" tasks, it is more expedient to have simpler and cheaper workhorses; and MiGi-29, apparently, were created in this capacity.

                Again, the mass - according to open sources - does not allow the dryers to operate fully from the Kuznetsov deck. The mass of moments is less, the takeoff, apparently, is also, the takeoff with a workload is more real.

                Apparently, a bunch of other nuances will also open, you just have to dig into the topic more seriously. M. to be experts will correct.
  6. bulvas
    bulvas April 16 2014 10: 53
    +13
    Still need drone drone. A lot of
    1. Wiruz
      Wiruz April 16 2014 11: 02
      -4
      We do not need drones. Let combat aircraft remain manned. We are not the USA
      1. dmitrij.blyuz
        dmitrij.blyuz April 16 2014 19: 12
        0
        We need drones. And more. For reconnaissance, they’ll do the same. And they will create a 5-ton ship, you can talk about the combat use of drones. The future will follow. There’s no need to risk the crew of attack aircraft and bombers again. As fighters, they do not fit. There, a trained pilot is needed there.
        1. Wiruz
          Wiruz April 16 2014 19: 33
          -1
          For intelligence - I agree, but not for combat use. It is not necessary to lower the noble profession of a military pilot to the level of a "keyboard pusher". The pilot must sit in the cockpit. And besides, as the Western experience of using drones shows, civilians are most often killed as a result of their use. "Why" - you ask? Let's just say: in computer games, we all love to run around the city with a chainsaw, shoot from a bazooka at civilians. However, all this remains only within the limits of virtual reality, in life we ​​do not behave like that (well, most of us). Over time, drone operators no longer see the difference between playing games and actually controlling a drone. And dropping "peacekeeping" bombs on "undemocratic" settlements becomes for them a cool action game with awesome graphics. IMHO as they say smile
          1. dmitrij.blyuz
            dmitrij.blyuz April 16 2014 20: 01
            0
            I don’t play computer games. I don’t want to. I saw my sons. “You don’t have to lower the noble profession of a military pilot to the level of a“ keyboard-pusher. ”What are you talking about? I need to talk about the pilots. I'm a techie. And when our drones killed someone? You shouldn't operate with the facts of the use of drones by the Americans. They always have everything wrong.
    2. free
      free April 16 2014 11: 21
      +3
      Quote: bulvas
      Still need drone drone. A lot of


      the most important thing is that we need will, unity, strong spirit!
    3. from punk
      from punk April 16 2014 11: 28
      +2
      Quote: bulvas
      Still need drone drone. A lot of

      and where will they fly? a lot of attack drones? only a machine controlled by a pilot can conduct an air battle. a drone is useful if you are fighting in Afghanistan, Africa. but here people are needed. also intelligence
  7. andj61
    andj61 April 16 2014 10: 56
    +2
    Modern aviation + air defense is a guarantee of our security in local conflicts. Hurry to carry out a complete rearmament.
  8. KOH
    KOH April 16 2014 10: 56
    +1
    The defense industry !!! Dare !!! The homeland is in danger !!!
  9. johnsnz
    johnsnz April 16 2014 10: 57
    +3
    Well, 90 is already a serious digital! Well done!
  10. rubin6286
    rubin6286 April 16 2014 10: 57
    0
    The machine is becoming more and more complex in design and control. It seems to me that it will become available only to an experienced test pilot, and not a combat pilot, it will be expensive to manufacture and capricious in operation. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that any unification has a limit. Maybe it wasn’t worth making such machines as the SU-27 based on the SU-30,33,34,35 fighter-interceptor, but choosing more promising and highly specialized designs?
    1. edeligor
      edeligor April 16 2014 11: 07
      +1
      Quote: rubin6286
      there will be a road in production and capricious in operation.

      I do not agree:
      firstly, the modernization of the machine includes the improvement of the ergonomics of the cockpit, in other words, it will be more convenient for the pilot to control the machine, the number of parameters necessary for control is reduced.
      secondly, the use of a modern digital base, unlike the analog one (which was earlier), significantly increases the time between failures of electronics.
      thirdly, on the basis of the previous ones, the use of a complex of weapons becomes much easier (which, in principle, is also discussed in the article), I shot and forgot shorter.
  11. Tuzik
    Tuzik April 16 2014 10: 59
    +1
    elegant bird!
  12. Wiruz
    Wiruz April 16 2014 11: 01
    +1
    I hope RVV-DB and KS-172 we still see under his wings!
  13. Little Muck
    Little Muck April 16 2014 11: 03
    +2
    From such articles, in the heart of fun.
    Bravo to our aircraft builders. Beautiful bird and formidable.
    Thanks for the good news.
  14. rubin6286
    rubin6286 April 16 2014 11: 05
    -1
    It seems to me that the machine is becoming more and more complex in design and control. It can only become available to an experienced test pilot, not a combat pilot, it will be expensive in production and capricious in operation and will soon "die". They have squeezed out everything that is possible from the SU-27, but there is a limit to any unification. We need new machines, possibly more highly specialized. The Soviet approach, in this sense, was more rational. China is following the same path, and quite successfully.
    1. ssergn
      ssergn April 16 2014 14: 22
      +1
      Are you a constructor? Are you related to the Air Force?
  15. cerbuk6155
    cerbuk6155 April 16 2014 11: 24
    +2
    At the moment, this is the best fighter in RUSSIA. With such aircraft, we are not afraid of anything. Let NATO fear. drinks
  16. Ruswolf
    Ruswolf April 16 2014 11: 26
    0
    Things are good!
    But I think that it would be better to send the first 12 cars not to Komsomolsk-on-Amur, but taking into account the tense situation, closer to the borders of SE.
    On the one hand, there would be a reduction in the number of military units — so that others would not scream, but on the other they would increase power, which would deprive someone of sleep. To fall asleep at meetings.
    1. aleks 62
      aleks 62 April 16 2014 11: 35
      +2
      .... There was always an air defense regiment at the factory and this is no secret ... The factory also requires air cover ... Moreover, it produces the same crackers ....
  17. Kornilovets
    Kornilovets April 16 2014 11: 34
    +1
    There would be more of these machines in the Russian army ...
  18. kodxnumx
    kodxnumx April 16 2014 11: 35
    +1
    soon the T-50 will go into operation I think our Air Force is very tough for NATO countries now, it’s painfully fresh our air forces have recently begun to look, the number of combat identities would increase, I think things are not bad with quality!
  19. Nikolaevich
    Nikolaevich April 16 2014 11: 44
    0
    Not really in the subject, but if we are talking about aviation.
    Does anyone know a replacement for the Mi-8 is planned at all?
    1. Baikal
      Baikal April 16 2014 11: 55
      0
      Yes. According to the order of the Defense Ministry, the Milevtsi are to present a prototype next year.
      1. Nikolaevich
        Nikolaevich April 16 2014 14: 28
        0
        And will it be a deep modernization like the IL-476 or a fundamentally new machine?
    2. dmitrij.blyuz
      dmitrij.blyuz April 16 2014 19: 22
      0
      Mi-8, now it’s only a name. In fact, it’s the only thing left. In fact, the new eights are completely different machines. That's the same Mi-8AMTS. And in fact, if there is something better, it needs to be done simply even better. What is being done. Almost the whole world wants to take our eights. And I understand them perfectly: reliability, thoughtfulness, non-desire
  20. nalim
    nalim April 16 2014 11: 50
    +2
    Most worried about the personnel issue. It is no secret that a very large number of military universities were disbanded. And not just flying. The machine itself is beautiful, but what does it cost without the ground services of material, technical and combat support, communications. Here is where to recruit aviation technicians, artillery weapons specialists, communications specialists?
  21. bender8282
    bender8282 April 16 2014 12: 02
    0
    you need them to Belarus and the western border!
  22. Leshka
    Leshka April 16 2014 12: 05
    0
    soon we will show our fighting power
  23. Odissei
    Odissei April 16 2014 12: 20
    0
    It was necessary to send him to meet in the Black Sea ...))))))))))))))))))))))
  24. shower
    shower April 16 2014 12: 32
    -2
    I would like to faster fundamentally new weapons, an offensive plan and a lot. After the demonstration at the training ground, to deliver an ultimatum to curtail the Pi_ndo_s_tansky presence in space and in Europe. The next step is to re-educate the Geyropeans into Europeans and to include them and the Japanese with China in the BRICS alliance.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre April 16 2014 15: 55
      +1
      Well, you have wet fantasies. What can an ultimatum be? What will we do if they do not agree?
      1. shower
        shower April 16 2014 17: 17
        0
        And this will depend on the level of progressive weapons. For example, Japan did not have to ask twice. Only I am for a proving ground of strength. As far as I remember, during the Caribbean crisis, the Americans quickly organized a crowd with suitcases on the Mexican border.
  25. shower
    shower April 16 2014 12: 35
    0
    Although no, I’ve got excited with BRICS, let’s bargain so, they’ll manage
  26. Gnufus
    Gnufus April 16 2014 12: 58
    +1
    We have a beautiful technique, and the names are affectionate, I am proud of my Country, the President ..

    and let s .. take refuge (group Accident - Evil is approaching)
  27. Giant thought
    Giant thought April 16 2014 13: 21
    +1
    The UAC is working in the right direction. The more combat capabilities, the more dangerous the aircraft is for the enemy. And this is good.
  28. BelPartizan
    BelPartizan April 16 2014 13: 24
    +1
    And the fact that Bandera’s people fly there, our technology so far flies with them, they don’t do their own thing. So if it’s not good, they won’t fly for long. For such airplanes, the industry needs an appropriate one, and people need an appropriate one and not the Maidan all the time
  29. STALIN8
    STALIN8 April 16 2014 13: 27
    0
    IT WOULD NOT BE BAD ALREADY PLANES 5 GENERATIONS FOR ARMS TO TAKE
    1. Anton Gavrilov
      Anton Gavrilov April 16 2014 15: 08
      0
      All in good time.
  30. Anton Gavrilov
    Anton Gavrilov April 16 2014 15: 08
    +1
    Plane chic, worthy partner T-50.
  31. Sergei75
    Sergei75 April 16 2014 15: 17
    0
    I still don’t understand what, in a direct collision of the MiG-29 with the Su-27, the latter butchered the former under the nut, what is the reason? As far as I understand, from an amateurish point of view, the MiG-29 fighter gaining dominance in the air, only he can’t fly far, and the Su-27 fighter sharpened over long distances, respectively, directly above the zone, when you don’t have to fly far anywhere, the MiG-29 It should be orders of magnitude better than the Su-27, but practice shows the opposite, maybe I'm wrong?
    1. supertiger21
      supertiger21 April 17 2014 15: 46
      0
      Quote: Sergei75
      I still don’t understand what, in a direct collision of the MiG-29 with the Su-27, the latter butchered the former under the nut, what is the reason? As far as I understand, from an amateurish point of view, the MiG-29 fighter gaining dominance in the air, only he can’t fly far, and the Su-27 fighter sharpened over long distances, respectively, directly above the zone, when you don’t have to fly far anywhere, the MiG-29 It should be orders of magnitude better than the Su-27, but practice shows the opposite, maybe I'm wrong?


      Moreover, 2 Su-27s won, despite the fact that the MiG-29 was 4. You can not also miss the fact of qualification of Ethiopian and Eritrean pilots.
  32. Sashka
    Sashka April 16 2014 16: 40
    +1
    Quote: MainBeam
    Do not waste my time and my nerves ...


    How old are you ?! According to the commentary, we can conclude that 13 years ... Better continue playing toys, shooting games. Here people do not pass on to personality. And, moreover, they do not insult each other.
    1. Mainbeam
      Mainbeam April 16 2014 19: 53
      +1
      I agree with you. He was quick-tempered, unrestrained, turned to personality. I'm sorry. I repent. Was wrong. You can write in a personal message, rebuke. Report to moderators - banned. Everything is in the hands of respectable visitors to the site. It’s impossible to forgive arrogance and inadequacy - they will multiply.

      But even if the 13-year-old child, breaking away from the shooter, asked a question in the comments of an article about airplanes, the readers of which, by his assumption, are at least aviation enthusiasts, and at best knowledgeable professionals, why not answer the question specifically and concisely?

      Let the baby know why the sky is blue. And to answer, well, not at all in the subject - is this not an insult to a young inquisitive mind? Nothing is wrong with the question. If you are competent, answer. There are thoughts and considerations - answer, laugh. There is nothing concrete - joke. Do not know - be silent.

      The child must be treated with respect, because we do not know which one will grow from it.
      "Play better further with toys" - this is not a transition to personalities?
  33. 120267
    120267 April 16 2014 19: 11
    0
    Quote: Nevsky_ZU
    Bandera SU-27s fly over Donbass


    While stolen from Russia kerosene while flying.
  34. Sashka
    Sashka April 17 2014 10: 23
    0
    Quote: Sashka
    I agree with you. He was quick-tempered, unrestrained, turned to personality. I'm sorry. I repent. Was wrong. You can write in a personal message, rebuke. Report to moderators - banned. Everything is in the hands of respectable visitors to the site. It’s impossible to forgive arrogance and inadequacy - they will multiply.

    But this is the reasoning of an adult man !!! Well, about
    Quote: MainBeam
    Let the baby know why the sky is blue. And to answer, well, not at all in the subject - is this not an insult to a young inquisitive mind? Nothing is wrong with the question. If you are competent, answer.

    I will say this, I did not answer the question, because in this case, I am not special at all. He answered not in the subject tactfully, without offending and "you". I could not pass by, because there were a lot of obscenities and insults. Even the "young inquiring mind" must sometimes be put in place so that life does not seem like raspberries, and so that he learns to understand that people are around, too, and not "stupid" who can be treated with disdain. In fact, recently there have been a lot of hamsters here, which have been siphoned from srambler and other bile forums. Apart from them, members of the forum are responsive, always explain, prompt, and during disputes they respect each other. And, I hope that it will always be so !!! drinks
    1. Mainbeam
      Mainbeam April 20 2014 22: 26
      0
      BUT! Not. It was a discussion about why it flared up.
      Sometimes you ask a question, and you will receive full pockets of water in response.