Fighting for a place on the deck

46
MiG or Su - who is closer to the sea?

The key requirements for the ship's aircraft are a large range, the presence of highly effective means of hitting well-protected naval targets and universalism. Compare these indicators MiG-29K and Su-33KUB.

The only aircraft carrier Admiral in the Russian Navy Fleet Of the Soviet Union, N. G. Kuznetsov, it was decided to re-equip the ship's MiG-29K and MiG-29KUB instead of the Su-33 fighters that were previously part of its air group.

The first was soo


The expert community did not attach much importance to this information. In any case, a detailed analysis of the feasibility of such a step with a comparison of the expected combat effectiveness of the various options for the composition of the air group in the open press could not be found. Meanwhile, this is a very important and far from unambiguous question. The choice of the main ship's aircraft was actively discussed back in Soviet times. Different options were considered. The main disputes were about the fighter - the composition of the helicopter part of the air group did not cause any particular doubts. One option involved equipping the “Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union N. G. Kuznetsov” with Su-33 aircraft only. In accordance with another, it was supposed to put exclusively the MiG-29K on the deck of the aircraft carrier. Arguments were given in favor of a mixed group. As a result, we settled on the first option. And then, in the 90s and early 2000s, the then leaders of the marine aviation more focused precisely on the heavy fighters of the Su-33 family as the main aircraft. What does the decision on the re-equipment of the aircraft carrier on the MiG-29K and MiG-29KUB mean? Perhaps the former chiefs, experts and naval pilots were mistaken in choosing the Su-33? Maybe the corruption component played a cruel joke, the personal interest of decision-makers to support the Sukhoi firm specifically? And if they were right and wrong today?

Let us try to figure it out, starting from combat expediency, that is, from assessing which version of our only aircraft carrier’s aviation group is more effective in solving the tasks that will be assigned to it by the ship’s aircraft.

In peacetime, they should primarily include participation in peacekeeping missions, the protection of Russian citizens in zones of military conflicts and the evacuation of them, as well as from areas of man-made and natural disasters. The groups of naval forces assigned to accomplish this task must ensure the protection of civil aircraft, various ground targets, and Russian citizens from the attacks of hostile troop formations.

Among the main tasks that can be assigned to carrier-based fighter aircraft in wartime, first of all, it is necessary to note the reflection of the strikes of enemy aircraft against connections of surface ships of the Russian Navy. Such attacks can use up to 40 – 50 aircraft. Fighters are able to make a significant contribution to the defense of our formations from cruise missiles, destroying the most dangerous targets beyond the reach of the ship’s air defense weapons. An important role can be played for the defeat of the connections of the surface ships of the enemy, especially large ones. The task of covering up the actions of strike groups of long-range (sea-rocket-carrying) aviation is extremely important. Accompanying them with fighters will, if not eliminate the threat from the enemy, then at least minimize losses to an acceptable level. At the same time, the effectiveness of our aviation will significantly increase.

Let us try to compare which composition of the fighter air group is more effective in solving these problems.

Less is more


First of all, the possible number of different types of fighters is noteworthy. The deck area of ​​the Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union NG Kuznetsov is 14 700 square meters. Underdeck hangar has dimensions 7,2x26x153 meters. In these areas, with the exception of the volumes required for the helicopter group of the ship, it is possible to deploy the 24 Su-33 fighter. This is well known. The effective footprint of the MiG-29K or MiG-29CUB is about one and a half times smaller. That is, instead of 24 Su-33 you can place 36 MiGs. The win is obvious. But there is a serious limitation. The composition of simultaneously used aircraft in strike (or sent to intercept) is limited by the number of deck positions for the preparation of aircraft. On American aircraft carriers, this standard value - 40 units. That is, more than 40 machines in one group will not be sent anywhere, since the preparation time for the next one is at least 50 minutes. During this time, the first has already burned a significant part of the fuel, sharply reducing its combat radius. On the Russian aircraft carrier of such positions only 16. Therefore, assessing combat effectiveness, we should proceed from the fact that in actions requiring the involvement of the maximum number of aircraft, more than 16 units our aircraft carrier cannot simultaneously use, regardless of what type of aircraft these aircraft are.

Fighting for a place on the deckNow we compare the tactical and technical characteristics of the MiG-29K / KUB and alternatives from the Su-33 family. It is not worth considering the Su-33 itself, but the Su-33CUB, which was supposed to replace it, since back in the end of the 90-s it was a bet that was made on this version.

MiG-29K is one of the most advanced fighters of the Russian aircraft industry. With a maximum take-off weight of about 24 tons, it has a distillation range of two thousand kilometers, and with three PTBs - three thousand. In the KUB version it is somewhat smaller. The aircraft is equipped with a highly effective radar "Zhuk-M". It is capable of detecting and escorting air (up to 100 – 170 km by fighter-bombers) and surface targets, making the MiG-29K a multipurpose vehicle. This is especially important for the ship fighter. The maximum combat load is about four thousand kilograms. Airborne electronic equipment allows the use of a wide range of the most advanced weapons on eight suspension nodes, among which, first of all, it is necessary to call medium-range missiles RVV-AE (up to six units), short-range P-73E (up to eight units), up to four anti-radar X-31P rockets (PRR), or up to four X-31 or X-35E anti-ship missiles, or up to four KAB-500 aircrew bombs.

The Su-33KUB is a deep modernization of the Su-33 ship-based fighter. The first flight of this car made in April 1999. The layout of the aircraft is almost identical to the recently launched Su-34 fighter-bomber. Their mass and dimensional characteristics almost coincide. Su-33KUB has a distillation range of 3200 kilometers, and from PTB to 4000 kilometers. The maximum combat load is six thousand kilograms. Introduced technical innovations (for example, an “intelligent” adaptive wing with a flexible toe cap) greatly facilitate the use of this aircraft from the deck of an aircraft carrier, despite its significant take-off weight (maximum - up to 38 tons). Like the MiG-29K, it, unlike its prototype Su-33, is a multi-purpose machine that allows a wide range of weapons to be used, both air-to-air and air-to-surface, including the long-range R-27Р missiles and the latest RVV- AE, as well as the anti-ship missile "Moskit", the use of which with the MiG-29K is not provided. The Su-33KUB program was minimized at the start of the 2000's. There is no data on the onboard radar and other radio-electronic equipment that can be installed on it. However, it can be assumed, given the proximity of its mass and dimensional characteristics with the Su-34, that they are identical to the latter. Naturally, adjusted for the specifics of the tasks of the ship fighter.

Comparing the air groups made up of these two types of vehicles, it should be noted that the available flying resources will certainly benefit the air group on the MiG-29K, which, by virtue of its strength, can provide at least one and a half times the number of sorties per day than the Su-33CUB .

Further and longer


However, in the flight range of the Su-33KUB has a significant superiority. Depending on the combat load from 800 to 1000 kilometers, its range of action for solving various tasks can be as large as the MiG-29K has 450 – 600 kilometers (both estimates do not include PTB). At sea, this is the most important indicator, since operating from a single airfield, such as decks, fighters should be able to preempt the enemy. American aircraft carriers are capable of attacking in large groups at a distance of up to 800 kilometers. Accordingly, our ship attack aircraft should have at least an equivalent range. According to this indicator, the MiG-29K does not fully meet the requirements of the modern sea war.

As stated, an important task is to escort naval missile-carrying and long-range aviation in strikes against large enemy surface ships, primarily aircraft carrier, in the interests of overcoming the countermeasures of the fighters of their air defense system. The firing range of the missiles is about 400 kilometers. Taking into account the time margin for a possible air battle, the MiG-29K can escort for a distance not further 400 – 500 kilometers from its airfield, which implies the approach of the aircraft carrying group of our fleet to the line 800 – 900 kilometers from the main forces of the enemy and thus puts it under the possible hit his deck fighters. When using Su-33KUB, this figure is already 1100 – 1200 kilometers. That is, the main ship group remains far beyond the reach of the deck aircraft of the American aircraft carrier. Equipment MiG-29K PTB solves the problem. However, this greatly reduces its ability to conduct maneuverable air combat. There is a risk of not fulfilling the task of repelling enemy fighter attacks.

It is interesting to compare the capabilities of both variants of the air groups in the air defense of naval connections. First of all, let us estimate the composition of the patrol group during actions from the “airborne alert” position. Assuming that up to 50 percent of the total resource can be allocated for these purposes, we have: MiG-29K (with PTB) provides round-the-clock patrol of a pair of fighters at a distance of up to 300 kilometers, an air group on Su-33KUB - up to 400 kilometers or more. At the same time, the Su-33KUB, due to the greater amount of disposable weapons and capabilities of the on-board RESs (on an aircraft that is heavier, actually accommodating more powerful RESs), obviously has advantages in aerial combat compared to the MiG-29К.

With actions from the “duty on deck” position, no more than 16 vehicles can be put into battle, respectively, the Su-XNUMHKUB combat capabilities will be higher than the MiG-33К group of similar composition. At the same time, the line of entry into the battle of Su-29KUB fighters will be significantly further than MiG-33K, and therefore, the ability to defeat enemy strike aircraft before they reach the line of launching the anti-ship missiles is much larger.

Need "moskitonosets"


It is interesting to compare the capabilities of different compositions for the defeat of enemy surface ships. The attack air group of sixteen fighters can have about eight vehicles equipped with anti-ship missiles, and the rest will solve the tasks of combat support — additional reconnaissance of the target, cover of attack aircraft from attacks of anti-aircraft fighters, and suppression of ship-borne anti-aircraft weapons. When operating on the ultimate radius, the MiG-29K can carry no more than two X-35 anti-ship missiles (total 16 missiles) with a firing range of about 150 kilometers. These missiles have a subsonic flight speed, and despite the fact that they are going to the target at extremely low altitude (from 5 to 20 m), their time in the zone of possible destruction by air defenses before reaching the line of the task can be 30 – 50 and more than seconds, which is longer in the duration of the firing cycle of the air defense systems. This means that at least one-time firing can be performed on them not only with short-range and self-defense complexes, but also medium-range air defense systems. The Tikonderoga type missile cruiser has eight target channels in the Aegis system. There may be two or three such ships in an AUG order. And also destroyers like "Orly Burke" with not smaller opportunities. Even with the measures to suppress the air defense, there is little chance of success of such an attack.

A somewhat different picture is when using the anti-ship missile system Moskit, which can go to the target at extremely low altitudes, but at a speed of about 1000 meters per second. In this case, it will be only 8 – 12 seconds in a possible fire attack zone of the AIA, which is significantly less than the firing cycle and even the reaction time of the most advanced AIA air defense, not to mention the speed limit, which in most cases lies within 700– 800 meters per second. In this interval only individual EW products with a particularly short reaction time can be triggered. Accordingly, the eight "Mosquitoes" have much more opportunities for defeating powerful ship groups than the sixteen anti-ship missiles of the X-35.

That is, against large compounds, such as the United States AUG, it is more advantageous from an operational point of view to have Su-33KUB. The superiority of the air group on the MiG-29K will only affect the fight against numerous small, weakly protected groups of ships and light forces of the fleet, where the disposable aviation resource and a large number of means of destruction take the first place. Similarly, when solving problems of destruction of ground objects that do not have particularly powerful air defense. This is especially true in peacekeeping operations or in ensuring the evacuation of civilians and Russian citizens in the face of opposing hostile troop formations.

Finally, it should be noted that the significant maximum combat load and large weight and size characteristics of the Su-33KUB make it possible to create on its basis special EW planes (with REB collective defense equipment) and tankers. In this case, given the small capacity of the aircraft carrier "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union NG Kuznetsov", it is possible to make special equipment outboard, ensuring its use on aircraft with appropriate modernization.

Leave the sea of ​​battle Sukhoi


To summarize: the Su-33KUB heavy fighter-bomber is more consistent with the requirements for the domestic ship-based aircraft than the MiG-29K. And the choice made by 25 years ago was quite reasonable. The proposed line to replace the Su-33 with the Su-33CUB is more in the interest of the fleet than replacing the "Dryers" with MiGs. The latest-made MiG-29 is a great car. But its battlefield lies over land. It is in the Air Force that such machines are needed in an amount of at least 2 / 3 of the total number of fighters. The 24 MiG-29K for the Russian fleet will not fundamentally solve the problem of filling enterprises with orders related to the production of machines under this brand. The Russian Air Force needs numerous and cheap light fighters. It is here that the field of activity for the famous MiG.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

46 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    April 10 2015 21: 39
    I "PARALLEL" MiG or Su - the main thing is where they BASE! And there is even a UFO!
    1. +6
      April 10 2015 22: 53
      Quote: Stoler
      I "PARALLEL" MiG or Su - the main thing is where they BASE! And there is even a UFO!


      Quote: Stoler
      Leave the sea of ​​battle Sukhoi

      Or maybe Yak-141- revive and modify? The first option is like an attack fighter, or vice versa, depending on the armament, and the second deck option, but also with its own filling, depending on the need. AND?
      1. +7
        April 10 2015 22: 58
        Quote: sso-250659
        Or maybe Yak-141- revive and modify?

        Nafig nafig.
        First - VTOL is a futile heresy. Well ... maybe when the gravitational engine is invented, then something will change
        Secondly - the usefulness of an aircraft-carrying ship - FIRST of all, determine the means of reconnaissance and target designation. In other words, EW and AWACS aircraft. Neither one nor the other of VTOL can be fashioned by definition.
        1. +2
          April 10 2015 23: 33
          I’ll add that making the drill fly from the Gorshkov springboard is another task.
          1. +1
            April 10 2015 23: 43
            And an ordinary fighter-bomber can guaranteed take off from a springboard
            with only a half bomb load ...
            No wonder the Indians are hysterically asking the Americans to sell them catapult technology.
            1. 0
              April 11 2015 11: 30
              Sorry did not see your comment. Repeated request
          2. +1
            April 11 2015 11: 29
            And they forgot to add that the Su-33 from "Kuznetsov" unfortunately does not fly at full combat load. There is no catapult.
            1. Precious Fluids
              0
              April 11 2015 11: 53
              Does the MiG-29 have it?
        2. 0
          April 11 2015 05: 50
          Andrei, an engineer from you, frankly, a fig.
          VTOL aircraft are machines of the future. The main drawback of all aircraft is the runway, and VTOL aircraft can land on the heel. The experience of using and operating the Harriers perfectly shows the indispensability of this class for aircraft carriers and small airfields.

          Also, the VTOL aircraft, which are now, are not capable of fighting in hover mode, but only in flight mode, which is an omission only of the designers of these machines, and not of their class.

          VTOL has a great future, and those who do not understand this would be better at first to study the topic well.
        3. 0
          April 11 2015 05: 50
          Andrei, an engineer from you, frankly, a fig.
          VTOL aircraft are machines of the future. The main drawback of all aircraft is the runway, and VTOL aircraft can land on the heel. The experience of using and operating the Harriers perfectly shows the indispensability of this class for aircraft carriers and small airfields.

          Also, the VTOL aircraft, which are now, are not capable of fighting in hover mode, but only in flight mode, which is an omission only of the designers of these machines, and not of their class.

          VTOL has a great future, and those who do not understand this would be better at first to study the topic well.
          1. +6
            April 11 2015 06: 49
            Quote: Vladimir.
            Andrei, an engineer from you, frankly, a fig.

            But it’s not good to get personal
            Quote: Vladimir.
            VTOL is the machine of the future.

            Yes. When they invent the gravitsap, then it will definitely be necessary to return to this topic.
            Quote: Vladimir.
            The main disadvantage of all aircraft is the runway, and the VTOL aircraft can land on the "heel"

            Can. And this is his ONLY advantage. All the rest are flaws.
            But in reality, GDP is also needed by the VTOL - more or less decent performance characteristics are achieved with a short run-up.
            Quote: Vladimir.
            The experience of using and operating "Harriers" perfectly shows the indispensability of this class for aircraft carriers and small airfields.

            The experience of using "Harriers" proved only one thing - that this is an extremely stupid machine. Let's remember the history of its appearance
            Almost all countries producing aircraft, were carried away by the idea of ​​VTOL. It was assumed that NATO's need for this type of aircraft is at least 5. And ABSOLUTELY ALL countries, were convinced that you have to buy a vertical take-off / landing at such a price, such a reduction in the performance characteristics of the aircraft, which by no means justifies the benefits of this very GDP. And ALL countries have stopped developing VTOL.
            Except for the British. They were once great masters of technology, and British industry was the best in the world. Alas, in the 20th century they slipped from a leading position to the state: "A camel is a horse made in England"
            The British, you see, could not afford the construction of full-fledged aircraft carriers. They decided it was expensive. And then the concept of a small aircraft carrier with VTOL aircraft on board was born. It should be understood that the development of VTOL in England is not a breakthrough or concept, but a banal desire to save money.
            Well, they were saved, of course. The lack of a normal aircraft carrier at the Falklands led to the fact that there was nowhere to land AWACS aircraft (which by the way were not there either) As a result, the British compound suffered heavy losses, often from old aircraft with free-falling bombs! Against something more modern (for example, Super Standards with Exoset rockets), the Harriers were not even considered.
            In general, the English sailors paid with their blood to save their lordships.
            Quote: Vladimir.
            Also, the VTOL aircraft, which are now, are not able to fight in hover mode

            It is impossible to fight in "hover mode" because it is "a little" suicide.
            Quote: Vladimir.
            VTOL has a great future, and those who do not understand this would be better at first to study the topic well.

            Aha laughing Do you really consider yourself to have studied the topic of VTOL? Oh well
          2. Precious Fluids
            -2
            April 11 2015 07: 04
            You won't explain anything to him - his job is (to betray the Motherland), and Pugachev's cobra and the "bell" are such means of suicide ...

            Due to the ability of the Harriers to "hang", none of the Argentine BVR attacks on them has been successful. WVR Argentina fights were blown too. Loboy, a more or less serious professional from Burma, knows how difficult it is to shoot down a helicopter from an airplane.
            1. +5
              April 11 2015 07: 36
              Quote: Precious.Fluids
              and Pugacheva's cobra and the "bell" are means of suicide such ...

              And Pugacheva's Cobra, so you know, is practically not used in air combat, since for its execution it is necessary that the plane has a speed of about 500 km / h. At the same time, speed is an extremely important indicator for air combat. As I understand it, the term "disposable normal overload" doesn't tell you anything ...
              The plane has some energy at the time of the beginning of the air battle (mass for speed, yes, school physics) And the pilot should strive to preserve this accumulated energy, because if he starts energetic maneuvers (when the drag exceeds the available thrust), he will dangerously lose either speed or height. In other words, if in battle our Su was at a speed of 500 km / h, this means that something very VERY STRONG went wrong.
              Quote: Precious.Fluids
              Due to the ability of the Harriers to "hang", none of the Argentine BVR attacks on them has been successful. WVR Argentina fights were blown too.

              Did you understand what you wrote?
              Harriers "won in battle" 9 "Daggers" - ex. IAI Nesher, an Israeli unlicensed copy of the Mirage-5. A cheap "strike" aircraft for operations in the daytime, in the clear sky of Palestine. DOES NOT HAVE RADAR. DOES NOT HAVE A REFILLING SYSTEM IN THE AIR. There could be no question of any "supersonic" - overloaded with bombs and PTB, "Daggers" in cruising mode went to the coast of about. Zap. Falkland to test its inertial navigation systems. There the Harriers were waiting for them - and the hunt for snipe began.
              The second "victory" of the Harriers - 8 Skyhawks, subsonic attack aircraft. Heroic victory, yes. The ships, by the way, shot down 10 of them - the air defense systems turned out to be more effective than the planes ... it seems, the first and last time in the history of mankind laughing
              And finally - TRA-BA-TA-TAM !!! For the entire Folkled conflict - 1 (in the words of ONE) "Mirage III", shot down on May 1, 1982. However, here too, “Sea Harrier” had 2 objective advantages.
              Like all Mirages, the downed Argentine fighter did not have a refueling system and was overloaded with fuel. The presence of the PTB imposed restrictions on maneuvering and flying at high supersonic speeds.
              Secondly, in view of the better financial situation of the British armed forces, the Sea Harriers were equipped with missiles with an all-round homing head - Sidewinder of the AIM-9L modification. Alas, the Argentines had nothing of the kind. (http://topwar.ru/39239-la-muerte-negra-chernaya-smert-epizody-folklendskoy-voyn
              y.html)
              Quote: Precious.Fluids
              Even in Burma, a fancy professional from Burma knows how difficult it is to shoot down a helicopter from an airplane.

              If only you would know how hard it is to bring down an airplane from a helicopter ...
              1. +7
                April 11 2015 08: 18
                Since you have nothing to argue, the cons went into use :)))
                Okay, catch it back, "patriot" You are our knowledgeable laughing
              2. Precious Fluids
                -3
                April 11 2015 08: 32
                It has never been used, because including because of it, no one has entered the battle with the Su-27 from American aircraft yet.
                In the case of STOVL, the "Helicopter" then immediately turned into an airplane, and despite the emergency dropping of the PTB, only one Argentine from those who went for wool (and without bombs) could survive during the whole war, but they themselves were cut. In a BVB, a high thrust-to-weight ratio and the ability to be inside the enemy's radius are important.
                The 2nd Mirage was shot down and crashed at Port Stanley, after which, since the BVR attack tactics were unsuccessful, the lightweight Dagger was sent to hunt for the Harriers until the FAA made sure that the results of the WVR attacks even by them were even more disastrous for her .

                I don’t need to mislead here for the tactics of using aviation and for the Falkland War, in which the Argentine aviation used Laurent-C navigation and received target designations for Harriers with the Neptune AWACS ... can you be a pilot, or at least with a good level of command English?
                1. +2
                  April 11 2015 09: 10
                  Quote: Precious.Fluids
                  It has never been used, because including because of it, no one has entered the battle with the Su-27 from American aircraft yet.

                  Osspad, it is better to put cons. Here (I mean the topvar) there are people who have devoted their entire lives to military aviation, for example, Sergey VAF. Talk to him about "Cobra" (just get ready for big disappointments, I warn you right away)
                  Quote: Precious.Fluids
                  In the case of STOVL, the "Helicopter" then immediately turned into an airplane, and despite the emergency dropping of the PTB, only one Argentine from those who went for wool (and without bombs) could survive during the whole war, but they themselves were cut.

                  Let’s then specifically, which Argentinean plane went for wool?
                  Quote: Precious.Fluids
                  I don’t need to misinterpret here for aviation tactics

                  laughing I practically quoted you "Maneuverable characteristics of the Su-27"

                  This material can be downloaded completely here http://www.airwar.ru/other/bibl/su27mh.html
                  Try to read, maybe you will understand.
                  Quote: Precious.Fluids
                  and for the Falkland War, in which the Argentine aviation used Laurent-C navigation and received target designation for Harriers with the Neptune AWACS

                  WHOOOOOOH ?! Neptune is now an early warning aircraft ?! !!
                  In one thing, you are right - yes, the Neptunes were indeed used to withdraw Argentine aircraft ... to British ships, which allowed the Argentines to approach the British in ultra-small ones. And VTOL aircraft could not do ANYTHING about it, although a normal carrier-based aircraft would "eat" both Neptune and attacking aircraft without any problems.
                  A VTOL aircraft was only enough to destroy the C-130, the TRANSPORT "Hercules", which the Argentines out of grief used as a scout. Argentina also used a Boeing 707 ... wassat
                  This "reconnaissance" aircraft made 466 (in words FOUR SIXTY SIX) sorties, and only ONCE did the Harriers succeed in intercepting - after the C-130 spotted the radar of a British ship ...
                  Yes, VTOL is the future of aviation laughing
                  1. Precious Fluids
                    -1
                    April 11 2015 09: 31
                    In what capacity did anyone give their lives to aviation? Tell me to write to me, maybe I’ll teach him. Although not your patriot.
                    What is the Su-27 (it's about 500 km / h) and you have no idea. This is the Soviet X-29 that flies, unlike the X-29 that is in America. For him, as for the JAS-39 Griffin, the lower the speed of the WVR battle, the worse for the enemy, and the initial advantage in speed (if any) with an opponent with equal thrust-weight ratio in a WVR battle is lost very quickly until it goes into a tailspin, which with STOVL will never happen.
                    In one battle, 5 out of 6 Daggers were shot down who started the battle with just a couple of Harriers, after which the Argentines realized this problem.

                    "AWACS Neptune" google ...
                    STOVL was enough to bring down 2 Mirages, 11 Daggers, 9 Skyhawks, without their losses.

                    You are not interesting and reported.
                    1. +2
                      April 11 2015 09: 36
                      Quote: Precious.Fluids
                      In what capacity did anyone give their lives to aviation? Tell me to write to myself

                      Bed bugs do not crush.
                      1. Precious Fluids
                        0
                        April 11 2015 09: 59
                        continue your division by "0"
                      2. +3
                        April 11 2015 13: 24
                        Quote: Precious.Fluids
                        continue your division by "0"

                        Why should I share you? I multiply you by zero ...
          3. -1
            April 11 2015 11: 52
            Totally agree with you. Future air combat vehicles not
            should depend on airfields and runways.
            The design of "vecto-blocks" is more complicated, no one argues, but there are no fundamental
            technical dead ends. Comp. already now fully controlled by vert. take-off
            and landing F-35B. The pilot only presses the "up" and "down" buttons.
            And the F-35B, of course, is only the first steps in this promising direction.
            Combinations of quadrocopters and jets will not keep you waiting.
    2. 0
      April 10 2015 22: 53
      That is, basing PAK FA on the Tsiolkovsky’s airship is not fiction at all?
      1. Precious Fluids
        0
        April 11 2015 10: 13
        What is not an option? With a long hook cable, speed alignment is optional. Thanks for the idea...
    3. 0
      April 11 2015 20: 10
      Now we compare the tactical and technical characteristics of the MiG-29K / KUB and alternatives from the Su-33 family. It is not worth considering the Su-33 itself, but the Su-33CUB, which was supposed to replace it, since back in the end of the 90-s it was a bet that was made on this version.


      Wow, but nothing that the MiG-29K worked out in production and operation, unlike the prototype Su-33KUB?

      Accordingly, eight “Mosquitoes” have significantly more opportunities to defeat powerful ship groupings than sixteen anti-ship missiles X-35.


      One Mosquito weighs 4.5 tons, 8 times heavier than Uranus. Those. issue either 8 Mosquitoes or 64 X-35. Let even 48 (restriction on suspension nodes). There is a difference?
  2. +1
    April 10 2015 21: 42
    It seemed to me, or is the author confusing in the article a su-33 cube and a moment-29 cube? I'm not a pilot, even confused!
    1. +2
      April 10 2015 22: 19
      Quote: arane
      It seemed to me, or is the author confusing in the article a su-33 cube and a moment-29 cube?

      it seemed. does not confuse
      1. In the second half of 1998, the first flight copy of the T-10KU was assembled; the aircraft received the official designation Su-27KUB (ship combat training later - Su-33KUB)







      2. Single MiG-29K - a multi-functional ship-based fighter, designed to solve the problems of air defense ship connections, gaining air supremacy, defeating surface and ground targets with guided high-precision and conventional weapons day and night in all weather conditions.

      Its combat training option MiG-29KUB is intended for:

      training and acquisition (improvement) of piloting and self-driving skills;
      working out elements of combat use;
      solutions to all combat missions identical to the MiG-29K.


      1. +4
        April 10 2015 22: 53
        Thanks for the information! hi
      2. +1
        April 10 2015 23: 27
        Perhaps it is best to base these very Su-34 while waiting for PAK FA, if they are so close to the cube?
        1. +2
          April 11 2015 09: 35
          Quote: Basarev
          Perhaps it is best to base these very Su-34 while waiting for PAK FA, if they are so close to the cube?

          In the first, there is no marine version of the SU-34.
          Secondly, the Su-34 is a bomber, and the aircraft carrier needs multi-purpose vehicles, with the ability to work including in fighter mode.
          Thirdly...
          Let's figure it out. We have one aircraft carrier. Or rather, an aircraft-carrying cruiser.
          This is not a state strike aircraft carrier. This is a cruiser, armed with anti-ship missiles, with air cover. His task is to fight against ships, including the enemy’s AUG, as part of the KAG. It is not sharpened for striking ground targets; it was not created for this.
          Its role is to provide air cover for the naval strike group. A kind of floating air defense.
          The KUG, in theory, should include TARK, destroyers, nuclear submarines of the Baton type aka Antey, and, for small things, frigates, support vessels, etc. At the head of all this is "Kuzya".
          TARK and Antei attack the foe with Granites and Volcanoes, and Kuzya is among them. Destroyers and frigates are adding "Onyxes" and "Mosquitoes" to the surviving reptiles.
          At the same time, the Kuzi aviation covers the KUG from enemy aircraft. Covers. And it does not attack the ships of the enemy AUG. There is simply no necessary number of aircraft to attack. Aviation Kuzi is a distant frontier of air defense of KUG.
          Hence the question, why do we need Su-33? For maneuverable air combat MIGs are quite enough. They are cheaper, they can be placed more and they will perform their task no worse than SUSHEK.
          But when we have full-fledged strike aircraft carriers, vehicles on the 80-100, then we can talk about the SU-33KUB, SU-34M, the Su-35M and so on. in flesh to PAK-FA. In the meantime, in today's realities, absolutely the right decision.
  3. 0
    April 10 2015 21: 46
    and how many deck aircraft do we have?
  4. +2
    April 10 2015 22: 01
    Compete with Nimitz Gorshkov meaningless. Affected by the lack of a catapult and the presence of aircraft AWACS. And then Su smokes. Alas, ah, also 16 against 40! And drive Afrikans more intensively, more conveniently with MiGs. And the main drawback will have to be solved as follows:
    [img = left] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Mikoyan-Gurevich_M


    iG-
    29K_ (9-31) _-_ 1.jpg [/ img]
    however, I would like Onyx under the wing :)
    1. Precious Fluids
      0
      April 11 2015 06: 49
      In the USN, the butchert is from Chinese Su and not from Russian MiGs.
  5. +7
    April 10 2015 22: 07
    Who needs to pray that in our long-suffering Motherland officials are added to the mind? fool
    Recall the story: soldier
    Was cavalry better than tanks? It was.
    The missile component of the air defense nearly ditched the aircraft. It was? It was.
    Airborne nearly eliminated as a class. It was the same.
    The Russian Armed Forces almost went under the hammer. No one is guilty.
    Still, one “Mistral” from the French should be “squeezed out” - to plant the entire leadership on it and bang it on the iceberg. For the edification of descendants. hi
    1. +9
      April 10 2015 22: 54
      Quote: RU-Officer
      and bang it on the iceberg.

      Iceberg commander awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union !!!!!!!!!!!!!! So what?
    2. +3
      April 10 2015 23: 29
      RU-Officer (1) SU Today, 22:07 AM

      Who needs to pray that officials will add intelligence to our long-suffering Motherland


      On the topic of what to say something? or are we in a meeting?
      1. +1
        April 11 2015 08: 40
        And on the topic, just everything is clear: whose "lobby" will be "lobbying", those will have slippers on the "takeoff" (very much money, however). One should look at problems "shirshe", and not just read letters ... hi
        1. 0
          April 11 2015 11: 07
          RU-Officer (1) SU Today, 08:40 AM

          And on the topic, just everything is clear: whose "lobby" will be "lobbying"


          Yes? your quote
          The Russian Armed Forces almost went under the hammer. No guilty
          you wush decide what thoughts

          Still, one "Mistral" from the French should be "squeezed"


          Mistral then what? make it clear
          1. 0
            April 11 2015 11: 50
            "Rustam", my dear, well, my humor this time came out so ... "black" feel
            Heart bleeds - after all, the history of our "leaders" does not teach anything!
            How else can you think of Serdyukov, when he "optimized" so many military facilities that Shoigu is still raking? Polygons, higher educational institutions, medical institutions and others? Do you really think everything is cool?
            And "Mistral" ... Yes, to hell with him, with "Mistral" (he is not needed anyway) - they persuaded - you can flood this Caudle on a barge ... But this is not discussed! drinks
            1. 0
              April 11 2015 13: 08
              RU-Officer (1) SU Today, 11:50 AM
              "Rustam", my dear, well, my humor this time came out so ... "black"


              I won’t argue, according to Taburetkin and I have a different opinion (many people know) we won’t

              here the question is in lobbying SU in the ship version and why the heck? we are not so rich and there is the latest ship MIG-29 -all

              Fuck him, with the Mistral


              Yes, not hell, I'm for this nyashka who you like __ wink if they pass it on, then you will understand what a useful thing
    3. +4
      April 11 2015 10: 55
      Quote: RU-Officer
      Who needs to pray that in our long-suffering Motherland officials are added to the mind?

      You need to ask raccoons!
  6. +2
    April 10 2015 22: 09
    Well-grounded reasoning. Depending on the tasks to be solved, both of them are good. If the task of protecting the area around the connection of ships is solved, the lighter and more maneuverable MiGs are good, if the task is to search and destroy enemy ships, then Sukhoi’s superiority ... There is something to think about. the size of the aircraft carrier does not allow you to have a balanced balance of both. Here's the catch !!! And in my opinion, in a purely personal opinion, the composition of the aircraft carrier’s armament should correspond to the concept of using the fleet, which should meet the requirements of defense capability. All cards are in the hands of admirals and they will solve this problem. And they will be asked if suddenly ...
    1. +1
      April 11 2015 11: 11
      Quote: Rurikovich
      . And the size of the aircraft carrier does not allow you to have a balanced balance of both. Here's the catch !!!

      Have you ever wondered: why, having huge aircraft carriers, on which before each aviation "creature was a pair", the Americans switched to the unification of the aircraft wing under the F-18?
      The catch is in another. Raznosortitsa good in the market, and not in the cramped hangar of the AVM. Unification solves problems with the number of spare parts, maintenance personnel, t / card preparation of aircraft for flights, etc.
      Of course, I would like to have a 100 thousandth with electronic catapults and 80 pieces! T-50K on board ...
      But for now, we have Kuzya, and everything else is in the projects. And when a new aircraft carrier appears, no one will say for sure.
      1. Precious Fluids
        0
        April 11 2015 11: 45
        Because the F-14 is against Russia with the collapse of the USSR has become too luxurious. Above the sea, the F-18 Superhornet is also enough. When Tomcat first appeared it was not there.
        Raznosortitsa F-35C is now somehow not a hindrance.
  7. +6
    April 10 2015 22: 10
    The article does not mention the fact that the su-33 can not take off from the deck of Gorshkov completely refueled and armed.
  8. +10
    April 10 2015 22: 11
    Did he write another panache?
    1. A drunken hedgehog understands that a heavy fighter is stronger than a light one, why the hell is it to prove this with a long article?
    2. AUG attack by Kuznetsov’s forces - isn’t this nonsense?
    3. Where is the word about operating costs in the article? In addition to the miserable bleating about the resource, there is not a single word.
    The only sound grain of the article is the need for a decent RCC for a carrier-based fighter, all the rest is discussions about spherical fighters in a vacuum.
    1. +2
      April 10 2015 23: 06
      Quote: MooH
      2. AUG attack by Kuznetsov’s forces - isn’t this nonsense?

      "... our aircraft-carrying cruiser is a unique ship! So, last Saturday, when the personnel were washed, 200 tons of aviation kerosene were found lost a year ago during a combat exit ....." (or something like that, I quote from memory) A. Pokrovsky. "People in uniform" (PS In my opinion, a very good book!)
      PPS This is me about how not to serve and reason.
  9. Leo65
    +1
    April 10 2015 22: 43
    We are discussing crap .... Aircraft carriers are yesterday. They will drown them five minutes before the declaration of war. I remember in the USSR it was supposed to strike the AUG with two or three TU-22M3 SHELVES with three D2Ms on each plane (of which there was N-th number of special equipment). And "Kuzya" is a perversion in general ... One feels that it is insanely expensive as one. The regiment of fighters on it is just as insanely expensive, as one trains on the "Thread" too. There will definitely not be a SU there, and no one will set up production of the SU-33. And at least MIGAMi will load production, otherwise soon there will be no orders at all ...
    1. +1
      April 10 2015 23: 39
      All applicants for expanding influence are building this yesterday. The fact of the matter is that we don’t have as many Tu-22s anymore. And aug, no one else in the oceans grazes on an ongoing basis (well, maybe only submarines selectively have fun) We need to hook onyxes / yachts / brahmos for drying naval aviation. At least something.
  10. +12
    April 10 2015 22: 46
    The article ... would be interesting if it were not for one "but!", Which obviously puts an end to all the author's arguments. Unfortunately, the Su-33 "in full combat" can only take off from the third position. From the first two - only in a decently lightweight version, without part of the fuel. Therefore, it makes little sense to talk about the advantages of the Su-33 - alas, for the full use of a carrier-based heavy fighter, a catapult is needed.
    Loved it
    an important task is to escort naval missile and long-range aviation during attacks on the joints of large enemy surface ships

    I would like to take the author by the arm and ask - where did he see the Russian naval missile aircraft? Given the fact that the remnants of MRA are transferred to YES and for the last backfires, as a result, RCC is not visible to replace the X-22 (although ... like new missiles are coming)
    In addition, the technical condition of our TAVKR in general excludes the possibility of its use against the AUG of sworn friends. "Kuznetsov" can now only play the role of a training aircraft carrier - or be used against the navies of countries that do not have their own aircraft carriers (or have "aircraft carriers" under the VTOL "Sea Harrier")
    Quote: RU-Officer
    Still, one “Mistral” from the French should be “squeezed out” - to plant the entire leadership on it and bang it on the iceberg. For the edification of descendants.

    Expensive. You can just take the manual - and plant ... an enema for half a bucket of skippy ... a gift with gramophone needles.
    1. Precious Fluids
      -3
      April 11 2015 06: 46
      The Flanker is heavier, but it has more engine thrust. Like a MiG plane is much worse.

      your efforts are estimated by the State Department, take a pie from the shelf, and your 30 cents.
      1. +6
        April 11 2015 06: 55
        Quote: Precious.Fluids
        your efforts are estimated by the State Department, take a pie from the shelf, and your 30 cents.

        Yes, of course, how quickly you figured me out laughing
        Quote: Precious.Fluids
        Like a MiG plane is much worse.

        Worse. But it’s okay to fly from Kuznetsov’s deck, unlike Su - it can.
        1. Precious Fluids
          0
          April 11 2015 08: 32
          With the same thrust-to-weight ratio, he does it even worse, due to less pressure in the pneumatics.
          There was no need to calculate, there are much more secretive comrades.
  11. +3
    April 10 2015 23: 10
    Before deciding the issue with fighters (and thank God that there is a "good" and "even better" choice), you need to resolve the issue with the deck!
    Namely, a deep modernization of "Admiral Kuznetsov":
    1. Dismantling of weapons typical for a strike cruiser - in order to free hangars for fighters and helicopters (after all, it is on "Kuza" that naval Ka-52s intended for "Mistrals" will be based). And the aircraft carrier itself must be guarded by a cruiser or destroyer. And each ship will be able to carry out the task assigned to it to the maximum extent
    2. Overhaul - propulsion system !!!
    This is a huge amount of work and money !!!
    Otherwise, one feels that soon our pilots will be training for 8 years on the "Thread", but here it doesn't matter whether on MiGs or on Sushki, it's still not a deck ... During this time, a generation of pilots may change, experience there will be no one to hand over the work on the deck ...
    1. +4
      April 10 2015 23: 23
      Quote: red_october
      Dismantling weapons characteristic of an attack cruiser - with the aim of releasing hangars for fighters and helicopters

      Eeee ... honorable red October, would you like to look at the location of the strike weapons on the Kuznetsov? Where is the hangar and where are the missiles? You can take off the missiles, but you can't shove ANY aircraft instead.
      Quote: red_october
      after all, it is on "Kuza" that the naval Ka-52s will be based

      wassat ???? Why are they there ?!
      Quote: red_october
      And the aircraft carrier itself must go in guard of a cruiser or destroyer

      Yeah. Pieces of five, moreover.
      Quote: red_october
      Overhaul - propulsion system !!!

      Here - I subscribe to every word of the previous speaker ...
    2. +1
      April 10 2015 23: 48
      Quote: red_october

      1. Dismantling of weapons typical for a strike cruiser - in order to free hangars for fighters and helicopters (after all, the naval Ka-52 intended for the Mistrals will be based on Kuza) ..


      Fuck they did not give up there. If so put ka-31.
    3. Precious Fluids
      0
      April 11 2015 06: 35
      Give them free rein to the "Basalts" instead of aircraft or MTO, they would also have a fish factory for the production of canned food (for the crew of the AC and the entire CBG).

      Well, it’s easier for us ... especially at the start of the Basalts, all airplanes from the deck will blow off.
      1. +1
        April 11 2015 11: 29
        Quote: Precious.Fluids
        at the start of the Basalts, all airplanes from the deck will blow off.

        And what, they still stand with the TAKRs in our arsenal? bully
        1. Precious Fluids
          0
          April 11 2015 11: 51
          So will it blow off or not? They differ greatly in size and exhaust from "Granites"? Maybe they are lighter than water, and besides that they eat up the volume, they still don't displace anything?
    4. Precious Fluids
      0
      April 11 2015 07: 30
      With the deck itself, the question is solved simply - it is tough. This is due to the fact that the MiG specifications are worse than Sukhoi because it is designed to be based on field airfields rolled by an ice rink. On deck, such aircraft can only be useful for short-range protection of the aircraft carrier itself, and the ability to quickly transfer part of the wing from the AC deck to the coastal FOB. But just as quickly as STOVL they cannot be transferred, since the band for their reception at the bridgehead should be prepared for some time. The AV-8, in turn, can work with an unrolled turf lawn.

      The MiG-29K without the Su-33 has nothing to do on the ship, since almost all Papuans have tactical aircraft with a larger combat radius than he has. This plane is now near zone, not even middle.
  12. +2
    April 10 2015 23: 17
    And let's give everything to Sukhoi. And that flew into space on sou. It does not matter that the dry spaceship has not yet been built, but we will definitely give it to him! The main advantage of a thing is the fact of its existence. The MiG-29KUB exists, but the Su-33KUB does not. As well as a full-fledged aircraft carrier for Su, there is no one. And why talk about what is not?
  13. +1
    April 10 2015 23: 26
    PR campaign Sukhoi for what I want to ask the author?

    1- a new aircraft carrier is not expected (since there is neither money, nor some components)

    2- why add money to a limited series of new ship Su when there is a ship MIG-29K-KUB fully developed and launched into the series (with Indian money)

    PR and nothing more
  14. +2
    April 10 2015 23: 36
    On the issue of the fighter. I think the author's logic about the best weapons and the range of "dryers" seems very convincing. Very convincing. Straight lump to the throat.

    But the capacities at which "dryers" are produced are overloaded:
    1.In Novosibirsk, a dozen or so Su-34s per year. An important machine with its own tasks, which "clean" fighters cannot replace.
    2. In Komsomols-on-Amur, it is heavily loaded with a defense order for Su-35, which, due to budget sequestration for PAK-FA, has become our main fighter for at least the next 10 years. And what do you want, getting across the road to the Anglo-Saxon yoke is worth the money ... True, otherwise we would have paid an incomparably higher price ...
    3. In Irkutsk, the Su-30 is in full swing (including for India). And this fighter just basically goes for coastal naval aviation. Also an extremely important direction!

    Maybe this is the case when you need to become like the Americans and take a pragmatic look at the situation?
    MiG (especially against the background of production capacity for "dryers") is underutilized. What MIG does: 1. Upgrades MIG-31 2. Produces MIG-29K for the Russian and Indian navies (which is about 30 vehicles - correct who knows better, but the figure will not change fatally) And that's it!
    The Russian Air Force never bought the MiG-35 (why? Who knows?), I didn't even understand if it was adopted. And ruining the factories of MIG and KB is nonsense, and this should not be allowed. Even with the excellent Sukhoi aircraft, we will not be able to recruit such a number of combat aircraft for our country in order to qualitatively maintain its combat capability. "Sushki" + MIGs are differently better than only "Sushki", and for this the plant and the design bureau must be alive and work !!!
  15. AlexP47
    +1
    April 10 2015 23: 40
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    First - VTOL is a futile heresy.
    But what about the deck version of the F-35 for the ILC? Heresy?
    1. +1
      April 11 2015 01: 23
      In a good way - heresy. They fuck him the most. But Americans, firstly, can afford and secondly, the features of the separation of forces. KMP is like we have airborne. Swollen ChSV and own equipment.
      1. Precious Fluids
        +1
        April 11 2015 06: 09
        AV-8 successfully operating for 46 years - heresy too?

        what is gilded to the Americans is not allowed to you.
        AWACS is placed on the Osprey, and no springboard is needed
        1. +3
          April 11 2015 12: 30
          Quote: Precious.Fluids
          AV-8 successfully operating for 46 years - heresy too?

          Absolute. And the fact that the Americans even contacted him is their big mistake
          Quote: Precious.Fluids
          what is gilded to the Americans is forbidden to you

          I am also allowed to make mistakes, but I try not to make them laughing
          Quote: Precious.Fluids
          AWACS is placed on the Osprey, and no springboard is needed

          And if you also hang a couple of "Tridents" on it (it has a couple of hooks on the external sling), then it will also work for SSBNs
    2. +4
      April 11 2015 07: 11
      Quote: AlexP47
      But what about the deck version of the F-35 for the ILC? Heresy?

      Even some.
      What actually happened? The Americans were impressed by the work of the Harriers as support aircraft from the ersatz airfield at the Falklands. They liked that it was possible to prepare a helipad and use an airplane from it, so the ILC bought a certain amount of Harriers. And that became a HUGE US mistake.
      Firstly, because the Americans quickly became convinced that the Harrier as an airplane was nothing sensible - in the same storm in the desert, the Harriers rarely flew into enemy territory, mostly hanging over the forward edge, but suffered extremely sensitive losses. In terms of effectiveness, it was the coalition's worst aircraft. Accordingly, the command of the Marines wanted "the same, only much better"
      In fact, it was the ILC's unhealthy desire to have a VTOL aircraft that led to this. that the F-35 has turned into such an ugly penguin. If the Americans did not try to do "both the Swiss and the reaper and the gamer on the pipe", but would have limited themselves to a single plane of conventional takeoff and landing for the Air Force (F-35A) and aircraft carriers (F-35S), then the F-35 program would not have spent so much time and money and planes would have had much better performance characteristics
      1. Precious Fluids
        -2
        April 11 2015 11: 37
        in fact, you again carry one solid bias, because there it was the most productive aircraft for working on the ground, which also made three times as many sorties as all other types of aircraft, because it preemptively hunted for Iraqi chemical artillery, which is along the contact line and located - this is in any Harrier Documentary about the Gulf War.
        1. +3
          April 11 2015 12: 25
          Quote: Precious.Fluids
          because he preemptively hunted for Iraqi chemical artillery,

          good laughing
          You forgot to mention hunting for Iraqi kamikaze guinea pigs
          Quote: Precious.Fluids
          it was the most productive aircraft for working on the ground, which also made three times as many sorties as all other types of aircraft

          Those. Do you have arithmetic problems?
          F / A-18 horses - 84 cars (meaning only KMP planes), 4936 sorties - an average of 58 odd sorties per plane If you add deck hornets to them as well - you’ll get 169 cars, 9385 sorties and about 55 Departures by plane. In total, during the Desert Storm, 3 Hornets died, i.e. one aircraft for 3128 flights
          F-16 - 244 vehicles, 13 sorties - 087 sorties per plane. 54 vehicles were lost, total - one killed in 7 sorties
          Your favorite Harrier - 86 cars 3359 sorties or 39 sorties on one plane. Killed 6, total - one machine for 559 sorties laughing

          Beloved, tell your tales to someone else.
  16. AlexP47
    +2
    April 10 2015 23: 47
    The SU-33 family is too big for Kuznetsov: the vehicles cannot take off from the springboard with a full combat load. They will not be able to realize their benefits. For dryers you need another aircraft carrier with a catapult. The choice in favor of the moments is obvious.
    1. Precious Fluids
      0
      April 11 2015 06: 28
      the thrust-to-weight ratio of both cars is approximately the same - the last teeth are pulled out to you.
  17. The comment was deleted.
  18. alexboy
    0
    April 11 2015 05: 00
    Conclusion 1 - and why the heck Adm.. Kuznetsov generally needed?

    Conclusion 2 - it is cheaper to make an anti-ship ballistic missile with a range of up to 2000 - 5000 km, submarine-based and satellite-guided. With a dozen 3.14 aircraft carriers, 100 pieces should be enough for everything.

    Conclusion 3 - with any serious clash between Russia and 3.14ii, the massive use of nuclear weapons is guaranteed, therefore, equip these anti-ship missiles with a nuclear warhead.
  19. -1
    April 11 2015 05: 10
    everything would be fine, only the Moskit-Sukhoi aviation complex exists only in virtual reality
    1. 0
      April 11 2015 09: 41
      you can’t launch a minus from an airplane
    2. +1
      April 11 2015 12: 18
      Quote: Tlauicol
      everything would be fine, only the Moskit-Sukhoi aviation complex exists only in virtual reality

      Normally standing staffed (see photo!)
      Moreover, Brahmos has already been added to the MKI!
      1. 0
        April 12 2015 06: 53
        Is it standardly in service? in which country ? the galaxy?
  20. +1
    April 11 2015 06: 06
    "... American aircraft carriers are capable of attacking in large groups at a distance of up to 800 kilometers. Accordingly, our naval attack aircraft must have at least an equivalent range."

    Yeah, only without deck-mounted AWACS it won’t play, therefore Americans can act at such a distance because Hokai’s situation is highlighted
  21. 0
    April 11 2015 11: 20
    Well, if everything happened according to Sivkov’s recipes, it would be nice - if 2/3 of light fighters, i.e., MiG-v, were bought for the ground forces, then there would be no problem

    But it's quite the opposite, and a bunch of authors / experts arguing that light fighters are no longer needed in Russia
  22. +2
    April 11 2015 12: 39
    In a spherical vacuum, the author is certainly right, the Su-33 covers the Mig-29 like a bull’s sheep, in real life everything is a little different. Sukhoi planes are actively being built and delivered to units. Miga aircraft are almost never produced, if the task is to maintain production and the office needs to be equipped with Kuzy Miami. Kuzya himself needs to be repaired while it starts and ends the current Su-33s are probably being written off, it is not very reasonable to organize the production of 40 new Su-33s, all the more so the factories are loaded with orders for the Air Force. Then, Kuzya will serve a maximum of another 15 years, by the time of the construction of his replacement there will already be 5th generation aircraft and drones. Now, for tasks, Amer.AW perform an attack mission, cover its escort ships, they do not have light fighters on board, heavy attack and universal. Our Kuzya does not fulfill the strike task, this is the task of strike ships, he has the task of covering the strike ships, Mig-29 will cope with the task of air defense of the connection.
  23. 0
    April 12 2015 02: 41
    Quote: RU-Officer
    How else can you think of Serdyukov, when he "optimized" so many military facilities that Shoigu is still raking? Polygons, higher educational institutions, medical institutions and others?
    "Storetkin" "reduced" ShMAS military unit 03205, Kazan. urodd b * i ... in December 1989 they just started to study the MiG-29 in a serious way. (Junior Sergeant Maksimchuk (Lida, Belarus) was preparing a new classroom with his own hands. what...

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"