Military Review

By the end of the month, the air regiment of the Southern Military District will receive ten Su-30CM

141
In the air regiment stationed in the Rostov region, in January 10 Su-30CM fighters will arrive, reports RIA News with reference to the information of the Southern District.




“At the end of last year, the aviation regiment received the first batch of Su-30CM fighters in the amount of eight units, which replaced the Su-27. In addition, until the end of January, aviators expect more 10 units of the Su-30CM units, ”the release says.

It is noted that "the flight crew of the regiment in the Rostov region began the first scheduled flight this year as part of the retraining program for Su-30CM fighters."

“During the flight training, the crews fly around, along the route and into the zone. As part of combat use, pilots work to intercept air targets, ”said the press service.

“In the 2015 school year, the flight crew of the regiment made about 5 thousands of sorties. Fighter pilots conducted more than 2,5 thousand training air battles both as part of single crew training and as part of groups, ”the district was reminded.

Help Agency: “The double Su-30CM multi-purpose fighter combines the functions of a fighter, attack aircraft, and a bomber. It can with equal efficiency strike air targets, hit ground and surface objects. Su-30M is able to use modern and advanced high-precision air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons. Among the advantages of the Su-30CM - without refueling and hanging tanks, the car travels up to 3 thousands of kilometers. ”
Photos used:
http://www.globallookpress.com/
141 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mikhail Krapivin
    Mikhail Krapivin 14 January 2016 18: 03
    37 th
    A strange photo is selected for an article about our aircraft! Whose identification marks do the aircraft have in the photo?
    1. seti
      seti 14 January 2016 18: 06
      12
      The news is definitely good. Su-30 is gradually changing the Su-27 and becoming a new workhorse. However, I would like for the adoption of the MiG-35 to take place this year. VKS really need a light fighter and a massive one.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 14 January 2016 19: 11
        +1
        Quote: seti
        However, I would like for the adoption of the MiG-35 to take place this year. VKS really need a light fighter and a massive one.

        Sorry, but with what fright did the MIG-35 become an LFI? You look at its mass. This is the average MFI. And now the question is, we don’t have MFIs in the videoconferencing system? SU-30, SU-35, in which both range and thrust-to-weight ratio are greater, is this not MFI? And on the way PAK FA, which is also the MF fighter.
        Generation 5 LFI works are underway. The Mikoyan, Sukhoi and possibly Yakovlev Design Bureau are involved in this.
        Representatives of the MiG Design Bureau stated that they had raised the MIG-1.44 documentation and proactively began the development of a 5th generation LFI.
        In addition, the MIG-35 is an MFI of the generation 4 ++ (IN THE ONLY INSTANCE). And it is a deep modernization of the MIG-29. And now we look at what the adversaries and partners are doing ... right, the development of a fighter pair of a NEW generation. fighter whose moral resource expired yesterday?
        1. seti
          seti 14 January 2016 19: 26
          +4
          I do not agree with you for "a fighter whose moral resource expired yesterday?"
          This can be said for the Su-30 prototype of which is the Su-27. All the same, these are already different planes. As well as MiG-29 and MiG-35. Maybe I’m not an expert, but I looked for quite a different gear for these planes and listened to the opinions and interviews of the designers. The mass of the MiG-35 is growing yes, maybe it can already be conditionally called a light aircraft, but the fact that it is much more perfect than the MiG-29 is unique and it is an airplane behind which has its own combat niche. Like Su-27 and Su-35.
          I would like to hear experts - what will they say for the MiG-35?
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 14 January 2016 19: 42
            +1
            Quote: seti
            I do not agree with you for "a fighter whose moral resource expired yesterday?"

            No, well, it is possible to upgrade the same MIG-29 (which was once the best LFI in the world), but the question is how much such an upgraded fighter will be effective against the same F-35, Eurofighter EF-2000 “Typhoon , or say J-20 (China). Those who have avionics, stealth technology are much higher. And who have a modernization resource at the very beginning of the journey.

            Quote: seti
            The mass of the MiG-35 is growing. Yes, maybe it can already be called a light aircraft.

            It’s not necessary to call it conditionally ... this is the average MFI.
            Quote: seti
            Approximately as Su-27 and Su-35.

            Let's just say that the SU-35 is a relatively temporary, cheaper alternative to the tested PAK FA. We needed a fighter for air supremacy with good thrust-weight ratio and range now, which is why the SU-35 appeared. (Again, based on a heavy fighter). All parameters of a 5th generation fighter aircraft (many of the components and assemblies that are on the PAK FA run on the SU-35), but that it does not rank among the new generation fighters is stealth.
            1. Falcon
              Falcon 15 January 2016 08: 38
              +1
              Quote: NEXUS
              It’s not necessary to call it conditionally ... this is the average MFI.


              I think you are still distorting.
              What is a medium fighter and what is light?

              There is no definite answer - it rather depends on the country.
              For example, Gripen and JF-17 have maximum take-off 14 tons - they are certainly lightweight.

              But the MiG-29 even earlier had a maximum speed of about 18 tons, and the F-16 under 20 tons - did they always mean? No, they were always considered light.
              Mig-31 has a maximum take-off in the region of 45 tons - then Su-27 can be called average ...

              those. my message is that you and seti are right both. Each country has its own ambitions and opportunities - hence its own light aircraft.
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 15 January 2016 10: 08
                +1
                Quote: Falcon
                I think you are still distorting.

                But what is an LFI? This is a light front-line fighter whose task is to ensure superiority in air directly above the front line. Therefore, it is light and therefore its range is small. But maneuverability and rate of climb are vital for it. And what is an average IFI or heavy? Is it let’s say fighters of a breakthrough and special operations capable of flying beyond the front line, escorting bombers and attack aircraft, working on targets in the rear of an adversary, which LFI cannot.
                1. Falcon
                  Falcon 15 January 2016 10: 31
                  +1
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  Quote: Falcon
                  I think you are still distorting.

                  But what is an LFI? This is a light front-line fighter whose task is to ensure superiority in air directly above the front line. Therefore, it is light and therefore its range is small. But maneuverability and rate of climb are vital for it. And what is an average IFI or heavy? Is it let’s say fighters of a breakthrough and special operations capable of flying beyond the front line, escorting bombers and attack aircraft, working on targets in the rear of an adversary, which LFI cannot.


                  A rather conditional description, but doesn’t the MiG-35 fit under it?
                  1. NEXUS
                    NEXUS 15 January 2016 11: 08
                    +2
                    Quote: Falcon
                    A rather conditional description, but doesn’t the MiG-35 fit under it?

                    And I briefly described the tasks and application ... Knowing that you, Cyril, already know this.
                    The MIG-35, with its range, radar, and thrust-weight ratio for LFI tasks, is simply redundant. And you know that. Moreover, is the very SU-30SM, which is purchased and delivered to the troops, not capable of doing the same as the MIG-35? SU -30CM is also an MFI, but its characteristics are better in comparison with the MIG-35. And the cost of drying is comparable to the 35th migraine.
                    1. Falcon
                      Falcon 15 January 2016 11: 20
                      0
                      Quote: NEXUS
                      MIG-35, with its range, radar, thrust-weight ratio for LFI tasks, is simply redundant.


                      Taki, I'm not talking about this Andrew! And about the fact that it is difficult to find this line - redundant or not. Under such a description - we can say that now there is no completely in the world of LFI. The characteristics of all are growing. Is the same flu really much inferior in terms of the basic characteristics of the Mig-35?

                      Quote: NEXUS
                      At the same time, isn’t the very SU-30СМ that is purchased and delivered to the military capable of doing the same as the MIG-35? The SU-30СМ is also an MFI, but its characteristics are better in comparison with the MIG-35. And the drying is comparable in cost with 35 flashing light.


                      But theoretically, in comparison with the Su-30, Mig has better radar, OLS!, SOLO, OAR and maneuverability.
                      In this case, of course, less range and non-military.

                      I do not advocate Mig-35 at all, and rather agree with your position on its prospects!
                      1. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 15 January 2016 11: 26
                        +2
                        Quote: Falcon
                        Miga has better radar, OLS!

                        Cyril, not cunning wink ... AFAR on the MIG-35 was not finished. request
                        Quote: Falcon
                        And about the fact that it is difficult to find this line - redundant or not.

                        Yes, at least in terms of fuel consumption and thrust-weight ratio.
                        At the same time, there should be a lot of LPI ... and MIG-35 (if you use it as an LPI) at 45 million apiece will it not be "elegant"?
                        For this money, the SU-30СМ looks much more profitable as an IFI.
                      2. Falcon
                        Falcon 15 January 2016 11: 46
                        +1
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        Cyril, do not be cunning ... The AFAR on the MIG-35 was not finished.


                        Yes, like the whole MiG-35 in other crying

                        Quote: NEXUS
                        For this money, the SU-30СМ looks much more profitable as an IFI.


                        Yes, probably with the right application.

                        I’m still curious, what then is your modern LFI? An example of finished aircraft?
                      3. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 15 January 2016 12: 08
                        +2
                        Quote: Falcon
                        I’m still curious, what then is your modern LFI? An example of finished aircraft?

                        MIG-29, F-16 for example ...
                      4. Falcon
                        Falcon 15 January 2016 12: 17
                        0
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        MIG-29, F-16 for example ...


                        Well wait. They are no longer produced, but only modernized. What should come, or is already coming, to replace them?
                      5. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 15 January 2016 12: 21
                        +1
                        Quote: Falcon
                        Well wait. They are no longer produced, but only modernized. What should come, or is already coming, to replace them?

                        Cyril, you asked for examples laughing I provided them to you soldier
                        And of the new ones ... hmm ... there are some difficulties in the examples. Why? Secrecy. But I will take the liberty of calling an example here, J-31 (Gyrfalcon).
                      6. Falcon
                        Falcon 15 January 2016 12: 29
                        +1
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        Cyril, you asked for examples. I provided them to you.


                        No no no. You understood me wrong. I argue that modern LFI is not the same as before. And in view of the absence of the Mig-29 F-16 - or rather their (and their ilk) further development - the LFI has become much more expensive and larger. And now LFI is what used to be average.

                        Quote: NEXUS
                        And of the new ones ... hmm ... there are some difficulties in the examples. Why? Secrecy. But I will take the liberty of calling an example here, J-31 (Gyrfalcon).


                        Then I have a head spin then belay
                        A peculiar Chinese analogue of the F-35? The memory is even larger than the Mig-35 in mass, certainly it should be more complicated and expensive.
                        I lost your logic ???
                      7. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 15 January 2016 12: 36
                        +2
                        Quote: Falcon
                        No no no. You understood me wrong. I argue that modern LFI is not the same as before. And in view of the absence of the Mig-29 F-16 - or rather their (and their ilk) further development - the LFI has become much more expensive and larger. And now LFI is what used to be average.

                        It’s just that now all developments of both heavy and light fighter jets converge into multifunctionality. Because new LFIs are a bit heavier, but the range of new LFIs is almost the same as that of 4th generation fighters (about 1000-1200 km).
                        Quote: Falcon
                        Then I have a head spin then
                        A peculiar Chinese analogue of the F-35? The memory is even larger than the Mig-35 in mass, certainly it should be more complicated and expensive.
                        I lost your logic ???

                        Crew: 1 people
                        Length: 16,9 m
                        Wingspan: 11,5 m
                        Height: 4,8 m
                        Weight: 17 500 kg
                        These are the specs of the J-31 with a range of 1250 km.
                      8. Falcon
                        Falcon 15 January 2016 12: 40
                        +1
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        Crew: 1 people
                        Length: 16,9 m
                        Wingspan: 11,5 m
                        Height: 4,8 m
                        Weight: 17 500 kg
                        These are the specs of the J-31 with a range of 1250 km.


                        Well + - in the dimensions of 35, the mass is more.
                      9. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 15 January 2016 12: 47
                        +2
                        Quote: Falcon
                        Well + - in the dimensions of 35, the mass is more.

                        But you forget a very important point ... Gyrfalcon at the very beginning of the modernization path and the question of stealth, too, has not been canceled.
                        And the data on the Krechet may be somewhat different (these are approximate characteristics).
                        In general, I’m saying all this ... the fighter pair is relevant now, because we are not at such a technical level (I’m not only about Russia) to build a universal machine that can equally well perform the functions of several classes of machines, taking into account the feasibility fuel consumption, redundancy, etc.
                        Plus, there’s a moment like hanging on a heavy IFI, you just don’t put it on a light car.
  • tomket
    tomket 15 January 2016 00: 03
    -1
    Quote: NEXUS
    . And why do you need a fighter whose moral resource expired yesterday?

    And then the Su-30cm, which will even be older than the MiG-35, enters the troops.
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 15 January 2016 00: 07
      +3
      Quote: tomket
      And then the Su-30cm, which will even be older than the MiG-35, enters the troops.

      And you look at the thrust-to-weight ratio of these machines, range and arsenal and compare ... maybe you will understand.
      And also take an interest in the prices ... the benefit in the Internet everything is accessible stated.
    2. max702
      max702 15 January 2016 01: 51
      0
      Quote: tomket
      And then the Su-30cm, which will even be older than the MiG-35, enters the troops.

      Due to the fact that there is a Su-30SM, but there is no MiG-35 .. There is no such aircraft, all the statements are Wishlist not really embodied even in the drawings .. Alas, the fact is that all the statements of KB Mig can be described as "Give me money!" and under this they tell any tales about the possibilities of the future car .. but apparently those who give money are aware of this divorce, and they don’t give money .. There is hope for a foreign financier, but it is negligible .. Mig's great legacy was profiled by the composition of this design bureau a long time ago, the last really good aircraft was the MiG-31, and the MiG-29, as they did not try to finish off for more than 20 years, nothing really came of it .. It never came close to the combat effectiveness of the Su-27, and the DB between these aircraft proved it .. Alas ..
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 15 January 2016 02: 01
        +1
        Quote: max702
        By the fact that there is a Su-30SM, but no MIG-35 ..

        MIG-35 in one copy is.
        Quote: max702
        He never came close to the combat effectiveness of the Su-27,

        You don’t match a heavy fighter with a light one. Different tasks, arsenal, range, etc.
        Quote: max702
        and MiG-29, as they did not try to finish for more than 20 years, nothing really happened ..

        Sorry, but the MIG-29 is the best lightweight front-line fighter in the world among 4th generation fighters. Moreover, even the Americans recognized this fact. Take a look at the history of the Bundeswehr that the NATO received after the reunification of Germany and the departure of our troops from the territory of the GDR.
  • Ros 56
    Ros 56 14 January 2016 21: 07
    +2
    Quote: seti
    VKS really need a light fighter and a massive one.


    And let me ask, for what?
  • St Petrov
    St Petrov 14 January 2016 18: 07
    28
    Forum users! Watch a 4-minute video, remember 1995 (it hit me right) and look at the headline for this news

    "For the first time in 300 years, not a single combat ship went to sea."
    "Thank you Aeroflot for the tickets for our delegation, which went to the United States for a loan."
    "The country's budget has a loan from the United States in the amount of $ 12,5 billion"
    "Russia hopes to approve the next tranche of the IMF"



    that's how it was and how it became

    1. Cobra77
      Cobra77 14 January 2016 18: 12
      0
      I think this picture will add something to your story .....
      1. St Petrov
        St Petrov 14 January 2016 18: 14
        13
        Now Russia has a portfolio of export orders for the defense industry - $ 45 billion

        Then we borrowed 12 billion

        Rosatom's foreign orders portfolio amounted to $ 100 billion

        etc. Of course, it decides the price of oil, but this money was not consumed at one time, but invested.

        Give Ukraine now 10 billion for the defense industry, do you think they will start pipelines? Everything will dissolve, even if those who master them have good intentions.

        The work carried out in our army is colossal. And the oil price is not the point.

      2. remy
        remy 14 January 2016 22: 12
        +1
        18 fighters - it's almost Two! squadrons i.e. Regiment
      3. kapitan92
        kapitan92 14 January 2016 23: 59
        +6
        According to your chart, the peak in oil prices was in 1979 and 2011 (revolution in Iran, Arab Spring, war in Libya).
        Maybe it is necessary to "help" our "partners" the Saudis, Qatar and Kuwait with the "Arab spring", otherwise it becomes sour with oil at $ 30 per barrel. It is desirable to "help" with someone else's hands. There, you see, she will pull up to the hundredth! smile
        1. uge.garik
          uge.garik 15 January 2016 05: 35
          0
          ... there is another option - to crash the "buck" ..!
    2. aksakal
      aksakal 14 January 2016 22: 45
      +5
      Quote: s-t Petrov
      that's how it was and how it became
      - Well, very clearly. Especially killed - last year not a single ship went to sea ... and the difference is the combat launch of calibers)))). Cobra 77 immediately brings its favorite mantra of oil prices, but I don’t think that the ships will stop going to sea ...
      What kind of people are such liberals? Or to whom does the cobra relate itself? Always dissatisfied with something, at least do something called in his eyes, but he is all God's dew, or rather, an oil needle, Russia sucks and rash, Putin goes away! etc. Cobra77, bite his tail, everyone will be better.
  • tol100v
    tol100v 14 January 2016 18: 10
    +1
    Take a look, probably polite mar (Russians) sian.
  • vell.65
    vell.65 14 January 2016 18: 18
    12
    Quote: Mikhail Krapivin
    Whose identification marks do the aircraft have in the photo?

    Ours, and you want some other?
    1. Vitaly Anisimov
      Vitaly Anisimov 14 January 2016 18: 26
      +6
      Quote: vell.65
      Quote: Mikhail Krapivin
      Whose identification marks do the aircraft have in the photo?

      Ours, and you want some other?

      Our stars are red!
  • Proxima
    Proxima 14 January 2016 18: 21
    +3
    30 brand new "dryers" for nowadays is solid! Not bad news.
    1. Mama_Cholli
      Mama_Cholli 14 January 2016 18: 29
      +2
      Quote: Proxima
      30 brand new "dryers" for nowadays is solid! Not bad news.

      Why 30? It seems in the article about 18 the conversation is on.
      1. aksakal
        aksakal 14 January 2016 22: 47
        0
        Quote: Mama_Cholli
        Why 30? It seems in the article about 18 the conversation is on.

        and why in southeast? Don’t we look at Turkey? If yes, I think it’s right, God saves the safe!
  • bober1982
    bober1982 14 January 2016 18: 27
    +3
    I put a minus, for an absurd question.
  • vodolaz
    vodolaz 14 January 2016 18: 33
    +6
    Quote: Mikhail Krapivin
    A strange photo is selected for an article about our aircraft! Whose identification marks do the aircraft have in the photo?

    And what does not suit the red stars and the inscription "Russia" on the keel?
  • ksan
    ksan 14 January 2016 18: 43
    +4
    Whose identification marks do the aircraft have in the photo?
    Are you the first time you see red stars on Russian planes ??wink
  • Vladimirets
    Vladimirets 14 January 2016 19: 02
    +5
    Quote: Mikhail Krapivin
    A strange photo is selected for an article about our aircraft!

    Whose are you? belay
  • Mikhail Krapivin
    Mikhail Krapivin 14 January 2016 19: 11
    33
    Colleagues, in vain you’re nightmare when the article just appeared, there was a plane in the photo with circles on its wings, red-white-red, hence my question. There were no stars at all, I would have noticed :) Apparently, after my question, the moderators changed the photo. Thanks for the cons.
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 14 January 2016 19: 25
      0
      Quote: Mikhail Krapivin
      Thanks for the cons.

      Catch back the plus. laughing
  • ALEA IACTA EST
    ALEA IACTA EST 14 January 2016 20: 57
    0
    Quote: Mikhail Krapivin
    Whose identification marks do the aircraft have in the photo?

    Our signs, can you really recognize the native stars? hi
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Ros 56
    Ros 56 14 January 2016 21: 04
    0
    Quote: Mikhail Krapivin
    Whose identification marks do the aircraft have in the photo?

    With vision problems, look at the keel that has these marks.
    1. Ros 56
      Ros 56 15 January 2016 10: 17
      0
      Well, look at him from a different angle.

      Quote: Fregate
      Or maybe Millerovo?


      And these are ours in Syria
  • Great-grandfather of Zeus
    Great-grandfather of Zeus 14 January 2016 18: 04
    0
    As I understand it, it’s near Salsk! In the days of these pilots, they hike and spent the night in cars — more birds flew.
    1. Fregate
      Fregate 14 January 2016 18: 15
      0
      Or maybe Millerovo? Although here they write to replace the su-27, and the atm like the MiG-29th.
    2. Rostovchanin
      Rostovchanin 14 January 2016 19: 36
      0
      As I understand it, it’s near Salsk! In the days of these pilots, they hike and spent the night in cars — more birds flew.

      For a long time there has been nothing in Salsk, right after the collapse the Union was covered! In Millerovo only fighters remained, the regiment is being reequipped from MiG-29 to Su-30. The airfield in Zernograd is also mothballed. he was the 31st fighter regiment, now he is redeployed to Millerovo.
      1. Great-grandfather of Zeus
        Great-grandfather of Zeus 14 January 2016 20: 09
        0
        Rostrvchanin, it was just infa that they wanted to restore everything in Salsk, but apparently something did not work out, which means the drying is going to Millirova. And it’s a pity that the Salsk part was not restored.
  • NIKNN
    NIKNN 14 January 2016 18: 04
    +2
    There is still gunpowder in the powder flasks, which cannot but rejoice. We will feed our army. wink
  • oldseaman1957
    oldseaman1957 14 January 2016 18: 06
    +2
    We have an airfield nearby - falcons fly, day and night. There is noise, of course, but the soul rejoices, because ours fly! Do not compare with the 90s, the beginning of the 2000s, and now. Earth and sky!
  • Rokossovsky
    Rokossovsky 14 January 2016 18: 07
    -1
    Among the advantages of the Su-30СМ - without refueling and hanging tanks, the car overcomes up to 3 thousand kilometers

    And is there anything other than the crew that a fighter can carry at such a range? what
    1. Mama_Cholli
      Mama_Cholli 14 January 2016 18: 31
      0
      Quote: Rokossovsky
      Among the advantages of the Su-30СМ - without refueling and hanging tanks, the car overcomes up to 3 thousand kilometers

      And is there anything other than the crew that a fighter can carry at such a range? what

      Do they completely suspend the suspension, but the necessary minimum air-to-air is easy ...
      1. Rokossovsky
        Rokossovsky 14 January 2016 18: 56
        +3
        Do they completely suspend the suspension, but the necessary minimum air-to-air is easy ...

        Thank you hi
        Judging by the reaction of local "patriots", even asking about the technical characteristics on VO is taboo! And so, God forbid to question ...
        1. Kasym
          Kasym 14 January 2016 21: 19
          +1
          The WAF wrote that the performance characteristics correspond to what was written. That is, 8 tons per 1,5 t.km. (combat radius) hi
    2. Ros 56
      Ros 56 14 January 2016 21: 17
      +1
      Quote: Rokossovsky
      And is there anything other than the crew that a fighter can carry at such a range?


      And where are you going to fly, fighters at such a range usually do not fly. Well, if it really impatient, for that refueling exist.
      1. jaroff
        jaroff 14 January 2016 21: 42
        +2
        Let's not forget that Millerovo is very close to the hotbed of tension. If it is more serious (God forbid, of course), you can strike a pinpoint strike with air-to-surface missiles, for example, the D-9M, without crossing the border.
  • newcomer
    newcomer 14 January 2016 18: 12
    +6
    cool car for cool pilots. good news, we are gradually changing workhorses. but really, I agree with the network I would like a confident future for the moment 35.
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 14 January 2016 18: 38
      +3
      Quote: newbie
      I would like a confident future for the moment 35.

      Now let's think a bit ... What is MIG-35? Although it is a deep modernization, it is still a MIG-29. If you don’t upgrade it, you won’t get the 5 generation fighter. And all over the world, serious development and construction of LFI 5 generations. And now the question is, what kind of fighter is needed, which, if not outdated now, will become outdated in the near future, given the realities of today?
      MIG-35 is a good machine. But firstly, it is not an LFI, but an average MFI (take a look at the mass), and secondly, the MFI is on the way, it’s PAK FA.And speaking about export, customers aren’t fools either choosing between the 4 ++ generation fighter and the 5 generation fighter, the latter will be chosen.
      1. seti
        seti 14 January 2016 19: 46
        +2
        Quote: NEXUS

        Now let's think a bit ... What is MIG-35? Although it is a deep modernization, it is still a MIG-29. If you don’t upgrade it, you won’t get the 5 generation fighter. And all over the world, serious development and construction of LFI 5 generations. And now the question is, what kind of fighter is needed, which, if not outdated now, will become outdated in the near future, given the realities of today?
        MIG-35 is a good machine. But firstly, it is not an LFI, but an average MFI (take a look at the mass), and secondly, the MFI is on the way, it’s PAK FA.And speaking about export, customers aren’t fools either choosing between the 4 ++ generation fighter and the 5 generation fighter, the latter will be chosen.

        This can also be said about the Su-30 and Su-35. How many do not upgrade them and you will receive Su-27. I disagree. These are different planes and they are similar only in appearance. More composite materials, new engines with variable thrust vectoring, electronics, control, a range of tasks and weapons. In short, the cars are completely different in level. I hope that the MiG-35 will also be different from the MiG29. Do not forget about the radar - even the Su-35 does not have this yet. I wish successful completion to our designers.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 14 January 2016 19: 58
          +1
          Quote: seti
          This can also be said about the Su-30 and Su-35.

          The question is, when did you adopt the SU-35 and SU-30? We needed fighters that meet modern realities, and quickly, while the PAK FA is tested and brought to mind. The MIG-35 appeared later.
          Quote: seti
          I hope that the MiG-35 will also differ from the MiG29.

          But he is different. Yes, only the Mikoyanites were late with the 35th. Look at his range and thrust-weight ratio and compare at least a lot with the same SU-30, I hope you will understand.
          So that I can finally understand, I’ll say that 70% of all aviation fighter exports are accounted for by LFI. And for this reason, too, now in Russia they are working on the creation of a fifth-generation LFI so that it is competitively capable in comparison with light fighters of other countries.
          And about the MIG-35 ... why buy it, spend money when this money is needed to purchase a serial T-50? Or did the MO have extra billions of dollars?
      2. Pirogov
        Pirogov 14 January 2016 20: 45
        +2
        What did you strike up the Nexus .. fifth generation ... fifth generation ... Who argues? but while the 5th fighter will bring to mind what to fly on?
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 14 January 2016 21: 37
          +1
          Quote: Pirogov
          What did you strike up the Nexus .. fifth generation ... fifth generation ... Who argues? but while the 5th fighter will bring to mind what to fly on?

          Did you decide to replace the LFI with an average MFI for $ 45 million (the price was at the time of the 11th year)? And then, when the PAK FA is brought to mind and put into series, the first you will vote, let's have a big batch. What is there to fly with? 29M, MIG-29S (advanced), MIG-29SM, M
          IG-29SMT (export), MiG-29UBT (double modification for special missions) ... enough? Or again there’s nothing to fly on, smart guy?
          1. Pirogov
            Pirogov 14 January 2016 22: 55
            0
            The first is our wise guy! Second, why do you think that only stupid people are sitting in my room? Third, I’m not a pilot and I don’t understand much, but apparently the modifications of the twigs you mentioned are not enough.
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 14 January 2016 22: 58
              +2
              Quote: Pirogov
              The first is our wise guy! Second, why do you think that only stupid people are sitting in my room? Third, I’m not a pilot and I don’t understand much, but apparently the modifications of the twigs you mentioned are not enough.


              Dear, since you don’t understand what you’re writing about, at least bother to study the subject of conversation at least on the Internet.
              1. Kasym
                Kasym 14 January 2016 23: 37
                +1
                In my opinion. Due to the size of Russia, heavy fighters are naturally needed in the first place. Which have a large range and combat load. Therefore, for the Russian Federation, the Su-27 family was a priority.
                But on the commercial side, the MiG-29 family has a much larger market. There are a lot of small countries. On the other hand, in Syria, the Su-30SM are engaged in maintenance, which are many times more expensive than the MiG-29 in operation (I will refer to the VAF again, I think the elder will not be offended). This is probably why they brought in the Syrian MiG-29s to escort the Su-25 yesterday in Syria. In the case of the downed Su-24M, in my opinion, accompanied, with the F-16 would have to enter the near air. the fight. And here the MiG-29 (this was confirmed by the training air battles between the Su-30SM and MiG-29 in Kazakhstan) is better. In Kazakhstan, in my opinion, we need a larger MiG-29 (35) and a smaller Su-27 (35). 4 regiments of the first and 1-2 regiments of the second. Moreover, the MiG-35 solved the main problems of the MiG-29 (range, resources, new equipment, redesigned glider using composites). Even if we take all the other countries of the former USSR, the Su-27 family is redundant due to the size of the countries.
                For the commercial success of the MiG-35, Russia needs to take at least a regiment into service. Otherwise, it will be very difficult to sell it. I don’t remember who, but they wrote that only a regiment remained in the MiG-29 in the Russian Federation. hi
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 14 January 2016 23: 49
                  +2
                  Quote: Kasym
                  But on the commercial side, the MiG-29 family has a much larger market.

                  Imagine that you are a buyer and you are offered Eurofighter, F-35, J-20, etc., and our MIG-35. At the same time, you know that our machine has a much less modernization resource than the NEW competitors. Question-What to buy, when that you buy not for 5 years of operation of the machine?
                  To date, Russia has 189 Mig-29 of all modifications left. Why so few?
                  When the EBN sent most of the equipment for conservation, including part just rusting on the street, no one thought that the Mig-29 would go fatigue cracks on vertical keels. When it began to take out of the conservation it was discovered. Moreover, those that did not fly very much suffered, and who stood, almost everyone. That's the situation today.
                  And for export, I already said here, there are modifications of the MIG-29, which are cheaper than the MIG-29SMT, for example.
                  1. Kasym
                    Kasym 16 January 2016 01: 58
                    0
                    Andrey, good to you, and why do you think that the MiG-35 has a less modernization resource? Here I do not agree. Fazatron has already taken up a new radar for him since 2012!
                    So I write that the resources of the airframe and the engine are increased. That engine on the MiG-29 was only for 500 hours, which is why many of the cars were grounded. As well as because of the "fatigue" of the metal of the fuselage. While there are no new MiG-35s, it makes no sense to talk about resources. But everyone says that they are significantly increased in the MiG-35 - the designer says so. Therefore, Russia needs to build for itself in order to offer others.
                    Well, you correctly noticed about the cost. The MiG-29 family is the cheapest in its class. All others are more expensive. Rafale is generally over 100 mil., Like Grippen. Of course there are Chinese, but so far I have not taken them into account. Too little information about them, I mean exploitation. hi
                    1. NEXUS
                      NEXUS 16 January 2016 10: 26
                      +1
                      Quote: Kasym
                      Andrey, good to you,

                      And you, Dauren. hi
                      Quote: Kasym
                      why do you think that the modernization resource of the MiG-35 is less?

                      Because, in essence, the MIG-35 is, although deeply modernized, but still the 29th, which has been in service since the 80s ... Think for yourself how many do not upgrade even that MIG-35, and how many pluses are not draw to the four, he will not be a fighter of the 5th generation.
                      Quote: Kasym
                      Here I do not agree. Fazatron has already taken up a new radar for him since 2012!

                      I will have to disappoint you ... AFAR for the MIG-35 has not been completed ... in fact, the 35th is all unfinished and unfinished.
                      Quote: Kasym
                      Well, you correctly noticed about the cost.

                      MIG-35 costs 45 million dollars (at the time of 11 years), SU-30SM-50 million dollars. So for me it is better to buy for our videoconferencing systems Drying, with a greater range, thrust-to-weight ratio and with an expanded arsenal than a "raw" MFI with, directly let's say an incomprehensible future.
              2. Pirogov
                Pirogov 15 January 2016 19: 11
                0
                Nexus !!!!!: not exactly you’re the most intelligent .. ..? I love airplanes since childhood, my father’s grandfather flew for a moment 21 and believe me .... Know-it-all .... I know enough about fighters, and I specifically had in view of Drying, and MIG 35 agrees there is no great need for it.
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 15 January 2016 20: 34
                  +2
                  Quote: Pirogov
                  Nexus !!!!!: not exactly you are the most .. smart ..!?

                  Well no, laughing ..just a bit in topic hi
                  Quote: Pirogov
                  MIG 35 agrees there is no great need for it.

                  What I’m talking about, dear.
      3. Ros 56
        Ros 56 15 January 2016 07: 31
        0
        Quote: NEXUS
        What is the MIG-35? Although it is a deep modernization, but still the MIG-29


        What do you mean by modernization? Only replacing the engine with a more powerful one is already a modernization, and in terms of flight performance it is already another plane. And the introduction of some changes in the aggregate, let’s say, in the airframe, in the power plant, in avionics, in armaments, etc. is already a completely different aircraft, which at times increases its combat effectiveness.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 15 January 2016 09: 54
          +1
          Quote: Ros 56
          What do you mean by modernization? Only replacing the engine with a more powerful one is already a modernization, and in terms of flight performance it is already another plane. And the introduction of some changes in the aggregate, let’s say, in the airframe, in the power plant, in avionics, in armaments, etc. is already a completely different aircraft, which at times increases its combat effectiveness.

          True, the plane is completely different ... but the resource of the modernization can be said to have been worked out. I'm not talking about the 35th being bad, I'm talking about the fact that it was 15 years late, and now all the "players" are working hard on creating and when purchasing the MiG-35 to our Ministry of Defense, the question arises, will our fighter be able to compete on equal terms with the machines of partners and adversaries? And I mean not only in terms of air combat, but also in the commercial sphere on the arms market ...
          1. Kasym
            Kasym 16 January 2016 02: 24
            0
            Andrei, it is enough that both Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan show great interest in the MiG-35. The National Academy of Sciences specially approached him at the exhibition and asked a lot. Well, what's the matter. We wanted to take 96 cars.
            Well, why does Baku need a range of 3000 km? And for guidance there are ground-based radars! You, in my opinion, do not see the difference in the tasks of the Su-27 and MiG-29 family. The former can work behind enemy lines, and the latter cover ground troops - the difference is still significant. And as he wrote, it is much cheaper to operate, which is very important for small countries. hi
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 16 January 2016 10: 31
              +1
              Quote: Kasym
              You, in my opinion, do not see the difference in the tasks of the Su-27 and MiG-29 family.

              I just see the difference ... read my posts in this thread, everything is outlined there.

              Quote: Kasym
              And as he wrote, it is much cheaper to operate, which is very important for small countries.

              The fact is that work is underway around the world on LFIs of generation 5. Question 35 will in 10 years compete on an equal footing with new LFIs of the adversary? After all, this technique is not taken for 5-10 years ... that's why I talked about modernization resource and its feasibility.
  • Cobra77
    Cobra77 14 January 2016 18: 15
    0
    Comrades, are there any new Dryers involved in the avionics? I wanted to know what is now going on as an electronics?
  • KnightRider
    KnightRider 14 January 2016 18: 28
    +2
    The photo is old ... Now in the VKS receive airplanes with blue-blue camouflage. Statistics on the supply of aircraft here http://www.sdelanounas.ru/blogs/72699/
    Quite a lot of GOZ-2015 aircraft did not manage to be transferred in 2015, now they are catching up. Until February 1, they promise to put about ten Su-35S into a regiment in Primorye
  • Vitaly Anisimov
    Vitaly Anisimov 14 January 2016 18: 30
    +2
    They worked in Syria and now to us ... Great cars!
  • Cobra77
    Cobra77 14 January 2016 18: 38
    -3
    Quote: c-Petrov
    Now Russia has a portfolio of export orders for the defense industry - $ 45 billion

    Then we borrowed 12 billion

    Rosatom's foreign orders portfolio amounted to $ 100 billion

    etc. Of course, it decides the price of oil, but this money was not consumed at one time, but invested.

    Give Ukraine now 10 billion for the defense industry, do you think they will start pipelines? Everything will dissolve, even if those who master them have good intentions.

    The work carried out in our army is colossal. And the oil price is not the point.


    You would tell Iosif Vissarionovich about the colossal work in the army, I would laugh .... There is no colossal work there (except for Serdyukov, here he stole colossal, my respect), there is, thank God, stopping the fall and degradation of the army. In fact, in 95, the army was more efficient than it is now. There were still Soviet officers. The technology hasn't aged yet. And they made it in the USSR, and not the current manufacturers of black boxes for Dryers. Quite a few people still considered their homeland as their homeland, but were not "literate consumers".

    And now let’s recall about 85% of the budget due to the sale of oil and gas. And about 80-90% of imports of everything and everything. From socks to the military-industrial complex and space. Just somewhere a little more, somewhere less than this percentage. Remember corporate and regional debts yourself? Have you watched the ruble exchange rate for a long time? Duck is zrada or peremoga, Komrad?
    1. St Petrov
      St Petrov 14 January 2016 18: 52
      +3
      and now let’s recall how they looked for those who would take part in the second Chechen company and how many people from a millionth (combat-ready, better prepared army than now) were recruited

      Watch the video chronicle of that time, look at the form. It’s just that over time, the bad is forgotten, and the good in memory multiplies.

      In 95, the army on black thumped and could not absolutely * er. Remember the days when officers paid their salaries (after breaks of a couple of months) and where this salary was spent and what (from the prospects of that army I wanted to strangle myself or forget)

      Remember the military service in the army of the sample of the 90s and look at the soldier now (at uniform, at feeding, at the service itself).

      PS in 2014, oil and gas revenue was already 51%.

      And every year, I hope it will decrease at the same pace. Given the price of oil, even more so. + Now there is a roll towards oil refining. Constructed and modernized refineries for a reason.

      PPS Maybe the fleet was fresher in '95 due to the time. True, he was standing against the wall.

    2. bober1982
      bober1982 14 January 2016 19: 15
      +2
      "In fact, in 95, the army was more efficient than it is now," even sickening to comment, in 1995 the army did not exist as such.
      1. dvina71
        dvina71 14 January 2016 20: 48
        0
        Quote: bober1982
        "In fact, in 95, the army was more efficient than it is now," even sickening to comment, in 1995 the army did not exist as such.

        You tell General Rokhlin this .. when you see ..
        1. Your friend
          Your friend 14 January 2016 20: 54
          +2
          Quote: dvina71
          Quote: bober1982
          "In fact, in 95, the army was more efficient than it is now," even sickening to comment, in 1995 the army did not exist as such.

          You tell General Rokhlin this .. when you see ..

          You tell that to those who fought on 08.08.08. How much did they defeat the Georgian army, armed and trained by the USA, the country's army of 4 million people? How many years have 1,5 million been trying to "compel Chechnya to peace"? How many people were killed on our side in these wars?
        2. bober1982
          bober1982 14 January 2016 21: 55
          -2
          this is the army of the 1995 model, the Soviet crews all fled.
          1. Bongo
            Bongo 15 January 2016 05: 57
            +4
            Quote: bober1982
            this is the army of the 1995 model, the Soviet crews all fled.

            Here you are disingenuous negative This photo was taken (I even know by whom) at the Vozdvizhenka airfield near Ussuriisk not so long ago. Now "patriotic" citizens do not like to remember this, but in 2011, the Russian Navy, with the approval of the "Supreme Commander", by order of the General Staff of the Ministry of Defense, liquidated the naval missile-carrying aviation. All Tu-22M3 aircraft capable of taking off were transferred to the DA and relocated to the European part of the country at the Olenya and Shaikovka airfields. The rest, having even minor malfunctions, but unable to rise into the air, were cut into metal.
            1. bober1982
              bober1982 15 January 2016 06: 07
              -2
              That's right, Vozdvizhenka airfield, photo from the website: russianplaness.net
              Now, regarding patriotic citizens, such citizens will never call the Russian fleet, as you called it: the Russian Navy, it is not USA.
              Regarding the elimination of MPA, by 1995 it had virtually ceased to exist;
              1. Bongo
                Bongo 15 January 2016 06: 15
                +3
                Quote: bober1982
                Now, regarding patriotic citizens, such citizens will never call the Russian fleet, as you called it: the Russian Navy, it is not USA.

                Well yes, that is probably all you can answer.
                Quote: bober1982
                Regarding the elimination of MPA, by 1995, it had virtually ceased to exist

                You will forgive in Vozhenka or in the Stone Stream What would such statements do?
                Quote: bober1982
                GSh MO there is no fault.

                Yes, the General Staff of the Ministry of Defense in itself could not make such a decision, the top political leadership of the country is responsible for this. Or do you need a specific name?
                1. bober1982
                  bober1982 15 January 2016 07: 38
                  -1
                  Regarding slyness: of course you gracefully transferred everything to 2011, General Staff of the Moscow region and V.V.P
                  You know (or were prompted?) The following names: Deer, Shaikovka, Stone Stream, Vozdvizhenka - you should know the state of affairs in 1995 in these garrisons, and if you know (pogrom of the beginning of the 90s) your comments are just cunning.
                  1. Bongo
                    Bongo 15 January 2016 09: 02
                    +1
                    Quote: bober1982
                    then you should know the state of affairs at 1995 in these garrisons, and if you know (the pogrom of the beginning of the 90) your comments are one cunning.

                    The regiment in Vozdvizhenka was rearmament from Tu-16 to Tu-22М3 at the beginning of the 90's, and in the 1995 year these machines were in excellent condition. I can say the same thing about Stone Stream (Mongohto).
                    1. bober1982
                      bober1982 15 January 2016 09: 24
                      0
                      in 1995 the vehicles could not be in excellent condition. There was complete chaos, in DA and MRA - especially. If the Su-24 and Su-25 were in demand, and somehow supported, then the "long-range" and "sailors" were completely abandoned.
                      1. Bongo
                        Bongo 15 January 2016 09: 33
                        +1
                        Quote: bober1982
                        in 1995, cars could not be in excellent condition. There was complete chaos, in YES and MPA - in particular.

                        This is your purely personal, unconfirmed opinion, in general I have the impression that you are simply arguing out of harm. Moreover, part of the Tu-22M3 from the Far Eastern airfields survived. Now they are waiting in line for repairs and modernization at the Olenya aerodrome (pictured).
                      2. bober1982
                        bober1982 15 January 2016 09: 42
                        0
                        I agree that this is my personal opinion, the debate has dragged on, it's time to end, you only all the best.
                      3. Bongo
                        Bongo 15 January 2016 09: 44
                        +3
                        Quote: bober1982
                        I agree that this is my personal opinion, the debate has dragged on, it's time to end, you only all the best.

                        And all the best to you!
          2. Alexander Romanov
            Alexander Romanov 15 January 2016 06: 47
            +1
            Quote: bober1982
            Now, regarding patriotic citizens, such citizens will never call the Russian fleet, as you called it: the Russian Navy, not USA

            Well, yes, here you are not here laughing Where did you yourself serve?
            1. bober1982
              bober1982 15 January 2016 07: 26
              0
              in the Soviet and Russian Army, and my shoulder straps were not cardboard, dear.
              1. Alexander Romanov
                Alexander Romanov 15 January 2016 07: 33
                +1
                Quote: bober1982
                in the Soviet and Russian Army, and my shoulder straps were not cardboard, dear.

                And I’m in Russia and just when they destroyed long-range aviation.
                And I can name the Russian Navy
                1. bober1982
                  bober1982 15 January 2016 07: 43
                  0
                  .... And I can name the Russian Navy (end of quote)
                  Flag in hand, dear, as they say
        3. Falcon
          Falcon 15 January 2016 09: 33
          0
          Quote: Bongo
          By order of the General Staff of the Moscow Region, naval missile aircraft were eliminated. All Tu-22M3 aircraft capable of flying into the air were transferred to the YES and were relocated to the European part of the country to the Olenya and Shaikovka airfields.


          Hello, Sergey!

          I consider this decision to be fully justified, and the presence of the Tu-22 in naval aviation is more likely to be archaism than a necessity.
          As they themselves are very peculiar aircraft, their anti-ship missiles - rather created an illusion than actually carried a threat.

          For me, naval aviation needs to concentrate on the Su-30 / 35 with Bramos or X-35, rather than pay for maintaining the Tu-22 airworthiness
          1. Bongo
            Bongo 15 January 2016 09: 41
            +3
            Quote: Falcon
            Hello, Sergey!

            Hi, Kirill!
            Quote: Falcon
            I consider this decision to be fully justified, and the presence of the Tu-22 in naval aviation is more likely to be archaism than a necessity.
            As they themselves are very peculiar aircraft, their anti-ship missiles - rather created an illusion than actually carried a threat.

            Sorry, but with all due respect I can not agree! No. The naval Tu-22M3 posed a real and deadly threat to any enemy fleet, primarily for the American AUG. Of course, they are quite problematic in the operation of the X-22 anti-ship missiles. But comparing them with the X-35 is not at all correct. In terms of its striking capabilities, the Tu-22М3 is several times superior to the Su-30, and the Su-35C currently does not carry anti-ship missiles.
            1. Falcon
              Falcon 15 January 2016 09: 56
              +1
              Quote: Bongo
              But comparing them with the X-35 is not at all correct. In its shock capabilities, the Tu-22М3 is many times superior to the Su-30


              Well, of course, it’s not correct - X-22 is a healthy supersonic carcass with a huge B / h - no doubt.
              But the rest:
              It flies along a high-altitude trajectory, or along a "very high-altitude". What is the problem of defeat at the height of such a carcass of modern air defense? In my opinion it is easier not to come up with.

              With a long range - she needs to climb even higher, and I very much doubt that you can give tsu so far.

              X-35 or for example X-59MK fly low, it is much more difficult to detect. For me, this is a much more complex threat. The radio horizon gives very little time to make a decision. Plus, a decent amount - which one Su-30 can take!

              Quote: Bongo
              Of course, they are quite problematic in the operation of the X-22 anti-ship missiles

              In fairness, the Tu-22 itself is very problematic and expensive to operate.

              Quote: Bongo
              Su-35C currently does not carry RCC

              Of course, yes and count Su-30 on the fingers - no doubt. Here, as they say, there would be a desire and opportunities ...
              1. Bongo
                Bongo 15 January 2016 10: 06
                +3
                Quote: Falcon
                Well, of course, it’s not correct - X-22 is a healthy supersonic carcass with a huge B / h - no doubt.
                But the rest ...

                Remember when it was created ... In addition, the tactics of using these missiles provided for their launch during the "star raid" of the whole regiment. So they had a chance to break through.
                Quote: Falcon
                In fairness, the Tu-22 itself is very problematic and expensive to operate.

                Do not confuse front-line and long-range aircraft; their tasks and capabilities are somewhat different. Tu-22М3 showed their relevance in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Georgia and Syria. Of course they are more expensive to operate than the Su-30. But then maybe because of the high cost of abandoning the Tu-95MS and Tu-160? No. The problem of the Tu-22M3 is different; it needs a radical update of avionics and weapons. And the glider resource in most of the cars is still very decent.
                1. Falcon
                  Falcon 15 January 2016 10: 29
                  0
                  Quote: Bongo
                  Remember when it was created ... In addition, the tactics of using these missiles provided for their launch during the "star raid" of the whole regiment. So they had a chance to break through.


                  Here I am about it. When they were created, they were certainly a big threat.
                  But time has passed, it’s time to move on.

                  Quote: Bongo
                  Of course they are more expensive to operate than the Su-30. But then maybe because of the high cost of abandoning the Tu-95MS and Tu-160?


                  You will probably kill me, but yes repeat
                  They are needed only as part of the nuclear triad.
                  Using them in a different capacity, from my point of view, is complete stupidity and a demonstration of strength (window dressing repeat ) So to speak goat dereza for the west.
                  It seems to me that this is not an efficient expenditure of our modest resources ...
                  1. Bongo
                    Bongo 15 January 2016 10: 41
                    +5
                    Quote: Falcon
                    Here I am about it. When they were created, they were certainly a big threat.
                    But time has passed, it’s time to move on.

                    Improve electronic warfare equipment, avionics and armament ... this modernized aircraft equipped with supersonic modernized missiles is capable of solving not only tactical, but also strategic tasks.
                    Quote: Falcon
                    You will probably kill me, but yes

                    No, live already ... it is interesting to communicate with you! wink
                    Quote: Falcon
                    They are needed only as part of the nuclear triad.
                    Using them in a different capacity, from my point of view, is complete stupidity and a demonstration of strength (window dressing). So to speak goat dereza for the west.
                    It seems to me that this is not an efficient expenditure of our modest resources ...

                    Our resources are really not rich and we do not always manage them in a businesslike way, in this you are right. Nevertheless, if there is money in the country for "image projects" and Yeltsin centers, it is a crime to write off sufficiently effective combat vehicles.
                    Tu-22M3 is perhaps the most flexible of our YES bombers, capable of performing a very wide range of tasks. By the way, were you not interested in the history of its combat use?
                  2. Falcon
                    Falcon 15 January 2016 10: 56
                    +2
                    Quote: Bongo
                    Improve electronic warfare equipment, avionics and armament ... this modernized aircraft equipped with supersonic modernized missiles is capable of solving not only tactical, but also strategic tasks.


                    I don’t know. If you are talking about X-32? Well, theoretically - if it is capable of flying along a low-altitude trajectory at supersonic range (in different sources) the declared range - then yes. But it seems that the trajectory is nevertheless implied high-altitude - and here I remain categorically against it.

                    Quote: Bongo
                    No, live already ... it is interesting to communicate with you!

                    Mutually drinks I can splurge laughing



                    Quote: Bongo
                    Tu-22M3 is perhaps the most flexible of our YES bombers, capable of performing a very wide range of tasks. By the way, were you not interested in the history of its combat use?


                    I was most likely superficially interested ... Judging by your articles, I don’t have so much patience

                    What I can recall is the Afghan and Syrian FAB and the Georgian intelligence officer, shot down by the Georgians ...
                    But the FAB can also be thrown off with the Su-25 cheaper, and there were projects to run them off the Il-76 carpet-wise.
                  3. Bongo
                    Bongo 15 January 2016 11: 13
                    +5
                    Quote: Falcon
                    I don’t know. If you are talking about X-32?

                    Most likely, for a number of reasons, things will not reach the adoption of this particular missile, but as they say - the light on it did not converge.
                    Quote: Falcon
                    I was most likely superficially interested ... Judging by your articles, I don’t have so much patience

                    Take an interest, maybe your opinion will change. So, for example, during the 1 Chechen Tu-22М3, in addition to bombing, they were involved in illuminating the battlefield at night with the help of SABs wassat
                    Quote: Falcon
                    What I can recall is the Afghan and Syrian FAB and the Georgian intelligence officer, shot down by the Georgians ...

                    The loss of a scout is rather the result of the stupidity of our command and the sloppiness of the crew, and not the fault of the plane.
                    Quote: Falcon
                    But the FAB can also be thrown off with the Su-25 cheaper, and there were projects to run them off the Il-76 carpet-wise.

                    Well, you compared the range and bomb load of the Su-25 and Tu-22M3 request With An-12 in Afghanistan, of course, they bombed well, but this is possible only in the case of air supremacy and the complete absence of air defense. And the accuracy of transporters is lame.
                  4. Falcon
                    Falcon 15 January 2016 11: 29
                    +1
                    Quote: Bongo
                    Most likely, for a number of reasons, things will not reach the adoption of this particular missile, but as they say - the light on it did not converge.


                    Also heard such thoughts. And then what? What is his path? request

                    Quote: Bongo
                    With An-12 in Afghanistan, of course, they bombed well, but this is possible only in the case of air supremacy and the complete absence of air defense. And the accuracy of transporters is lame.


                    That's right! And is the Tu-22m3 capable of operating in a zone of strong air defense, especially phabs? That’s why I oppose it.

                    Accuracy is certainly not that!
                  5. Bongo
                    Bongo 15 January 2016 11: 47
                    +4
                    Quote: Falcon
                    Also heard such thoughts. And then what? What is his path?

                    X-32 work on which has been ongoing for 20 years is an option for the development of X-22. It seems to me that this project has no future.
                    Quote: Falcon
                    That's right! And is the Tu-22m3 capable of operating in a zone of strong air defense, especially phabs? That’s why I oppose it.

                    Remotely with the help of the KR or UAB - of course capable. Yes, and the FABs should not be discounted with the competent use and use of modern electronic warfare systems.
                  6. Falcon
                    Falcon 15 January 2016 11: 54
                    0
                    Quote: Bongo
                    Remotely with the help of the KR or UAB - of course capable.


                    So no one planned to integrate the X-101 and calibers into it, have I missed something? request

                    And even if you hang them there, why is it better than a Su-30 with a caliber? ..

                    Quote: Bongo
                    Yes, and the FABs should not be discounted with the competent use and use of modern electronic warfare systems.


                    Of course - the price of the issue with the FAB is phenomenally low!

                    I don’t know what kind of electronic warfare should be then and what kind of air defense request

                    I saw his future only hung with containers of electronic warfare, the finest of F-18 go with anti-radar X-32 ...
                    But with this everything is already clear crying

                  7. Bongo
                    Bongo 15 January 2016 12: 38
                    +4
                    Quote: Falcon
                    So no one planned to integrate the X-101 and calibers into it, have I missed something?

                    I can't tell you that request
                    For clarification on this subject, please contact Sergey Ivanovich (SSI).
                    Quote: Falcon
                    Of course - the price of the issue with the FAB is phenomenally low!

                    I don’t know what kind of electronic warfare should be then and what kind of air defense

                    Maybe it will come as a surprise to you, but in our air defense 20 years ago, the Tu-95MS, thanks to the electronic warfare system perfect at that time, had a reputation as an "unbreakable aircraft". Modern systems, with competent tactics, are quite capable of countering air defense military systems.
                    Quote: Falcon
                    I saw his future only hung with containers of electronic warfare, the finest of F-18 go with anti-radar X-32 ...

                    You are again trying to compare the Tu-22M3 with front-line (tactical or deck) aircraft. The internal volumes on the Tu-22М3 are significantly larger than on the F-18.
                  8. Falcon
                    Falcon 15 January 2016 12: 47
                    +2
                    Quote: Bongo
                    Maybe it will come as a surprise to you, but in our air defense 20 years ago, the Tu-95MS, thanks to the electronic warfare system perfect at that time, had a reputation as an "unbreakable aircraft". Modern systems, with competent tactics, are quite capable of countering air defense military systems.


                    Yes, I have not heard that. What could be - is it curious what such power was?

                    Quote: Bongo
                    You are again trying to compare the Tu-22M3 with front-line (tactical or deck) aircraft. The internal volumes on the Tu-22М3 are significantly larger than on the F-18.


                    Rather, I cited it as an example - as a modern electronic warfare. Probably yes, not correct.
                  9. Bongo
                    Bongo 15 January 2016 13: 49
                    +3
                    Quote: Falcon
                    Yes, I have not heard that. What could be - is it curious what such power was?

                    The Tu-95MS electronic warfare system was able to disrupt the tracking of radar interceptors and air defense systems of medium and long range, as well as effectively clog surveillance radars. In addition to the perfect hardware at that time, the matter was apparently still in very powerful energy. I don’t know what power is removed from the electric generators on the Tu-95MS, but judging by the noise interference they caused, this is not a little for an aircraft.
                2. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 15 January 2016 12: 50
                  +1
                  Quote: Bongo
                  Maybe it will be a surprise for you, but in our air defense 20 years ago, the Tu-95MS, thanks to the electronic warfare system that was perfect at that time, had a reputation as an "unbreakable aircraft".

                  Recently there was an infa that all the same they are developing a certain stealth technology using a plasma cocoon on Swans ... 10 did not work back years, but now it seems to have found a solution.
                3. Falcon
                  Falcon 15 January 2016 13: 10
                  +1
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  Recently there was an infa that all the same they are developing a certain stealth technology using a plasma cocoon on Swans ... 10 did not work back years, but now it seems to have found a solution.


                  They say how to give a drink!
                  What kind of cloud is there from a meteorite around an airplane, how much energy is needed to heat it, and why does a plasma absorb radio waves?
                4. Bongo
                  Bongo 15 January 2016 13: 50
                  +4
                  Quote: Falcon
                  They say how to give a drink!
                  What kind of cloud is there from a meteorite around an airplane, how much energy is needed to heat it, and why does a plasma absorb radio waves?

                  Then I agree with you. yes
                5. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 15 January 2016 18: 53
                  +2
                  Quote: Falcon
                  What a cloud from a meteorite around the plane, how much energy is needed to heat it,

                  Cyril, have you heard anything about cold plasma?
                  Quote: Falcon
                  why does plasma absorb radio waves?

                  It does not absorb ... it’s just on a radar such a plasma cloud, let's say, blurry and unclear ... something like that
                6. Falcon
                  Falcon 15 January 2016 20: 17
                  +2
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  Cyril, have you heard anything about cold plasma?


                  Cold plasma is a temperature below 1mln Kelvin.
                  What is plasma - a bonfire is a plasma. The torch of the airplane engine is of course plasma, but it does not reflect the radio signal
                  Why? Since the degree of ionization is small, and the size is negligible.

                  Over-the-air radars - track launches of ICBMs. They begin to distinctly see them at the heights of 40-60km. Why? A torch is formed with decent ionization and reflects a radio wave more strongly than the EPR of a rocket.

                  What is needed for the plasma around the aircraft? A generator capable of creating a cloud at times more than an ICBM torch !!! Otherwise, the degree of ionization will not correspond to the need. What is needed for this is a nuclear power plant supplying the whole of Moscow.

                  Quote: NEXUS
                  It does not absorb ... it’s just on a radar such a plasma cloud, let's say, blurry and unclear ... something like that


                  Plasma cloud is just very clear! ICBMs are tracked by it - it is thanks to the plasma that its EPR almost doubles!

                  And how can EPR be blurred? This is not EW interference - which erodes the side lobes of the bottom of the locator. Blurring or not - we just increase the concentration, it is just waiting for the supers. Gift on a saucer.

                  Do you have other data? I enjoy reading scientific articles or patents on this subject.
                7. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 15 January 2016 20: 32
                  +2
                  Quote: Falcon
                  Plasma cloud is just very clear!

                  Roughly speaking, it glows like a super new on the radar, and therefore there are blurry outlines (this is so on the fingers) ...
                  Quote: Falcon
                  Do you have other data? I enjoy reading scientific articles or patents on this subject.

                  One clever man, described the guy who wrote this koment sick to the head, but who knows what he is talking about ...
                  "the Himalayas electronic warfare station, which provides not only flight characteristics," - as it seems, the FLIGHT characteristics and not the BEO can be provided in this case unless a plasma cover is created at a part of the airframe, for example, in front of the leading edges with flow compression - a close to laminar or flow with controlled turbulence.
                  International Meeting on Magnet Plasma Aerodynamics
                  International Workshop on Magneto-Plasma Aerodynamics for 2009:
                  "The purpose of this
                  areas of experimental and theoretical calculations are: 1)
                  improved handling of aircraft by exposure to plasma
                  formations on the parameters of the oncoming flow, boundary layer and conical
                  vortices; 2) reducing aerodynamic drag and improving heat transfer; "
                  http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a531773.pdf


                  Vladislav Lebedev · St. Petersburg
                  State Polytechnic University
                  The site is American, as well as part of the work was funded by the USA, and in any case the vast "Defense Technical Information Center" was drained there.
                  8725 John J. Kingman Road
                  That is, we are generally talking about a plasma cover that allows you to "slide" through the air flow faster ... a kind of cavitation, only air.
                8. Falcon
                  Falcon 15 January 2016 20: 59
                  +2
                  I get on the pavement I’m shod in skis, the roofing felts don’t go, I’m felting .....
                  I don’t understand what you wanted to convey?

                  Quote: NEXUS
                  Roughly speaking, it glows like a super new on the radar, and therefore there are blurry outlines (this is so on the fingers) ...


                  What does "super new on the radar" mean ??? EPR of an aircraft is not an EPR of the earth, it is not fundamentally new or old. Need a point. Blurred - outlines - this is if highly ionized plasma spreads to 10s! meters from LA! At the same time, with a frantic temperature, otherwise - you can take the Il-96 instead of the Tu-160 in you and a large EPR.

                  Quote: NEXUS
                  "the Himalayas electronic warfare station, which provides not only flight characteristics," - as it seems, the FLIGHT characteristics and not the BEO can be provided in this case unless a plasma cover is created at a part of the airframe, for example, in front of the leading edges with flow compression - a close to laminar or flow with controlled turbulence.


                  What is it? Understood nothing. Lamination of the surface is achieved, for example, on A-380, but not by a reb station. And here is the pull - it does not give lift? Again, how a highly ionized plasma is generated BEFORE and not on its surface

                  Quote: NEXUS
                  "The purpose of this
                  areas of experimental and theoretical calculations are: 1)
                  improved handling of aircraft by exposure to plasma
                  formations on the parameters of the oncoming flow, boundary layer and conical
                  vortices; 2) reducing aerodynamic drag and improving heat transfer; "
                  http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a531773.pdf


                  Here, at least I can understand something. The creation of plasma on the aircraft skin will lead to its lamination - it will improve the flow around it. But how to create it there.

                  They also wanted to make the radar for stealth less noticeable (the radar is not skinned !!!) But even there the plasma is either not too ionized or the aircraft will burn itself.


                  As a result, radar stealth is achieved in another way ...
                9. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 15 January 2016 21: 11
                  +2
                  Quote: Falcon
                  this is if the strongly ionized plasma spreads to 10s! meters from LA! At the same time with a frantic temperature,

                  The fact of the matter is that I thought so too ... but somehow I got on an article about work in the 80s on the plasma cocoon ... and all this was tested on the TU-160. And as I understood, the plasma was not the same as, say, the exhaust from the engine nozzle ... it was different and the best word that you can pick up is "cold" ... to be honest, I myself was puzzled by this and how in your verse I stood on my skis ...
                  Quote: Falcon
                  Here, at least I can understand something. The creation of plasma on the aircraft skin will lead to its lamination - it will improve the flow around it. But how to create it there.

                  When I started digging this topic, I found out that work is underway not only to create stealth with the help of plasma, but also with the help of it, the aircraft can become many times faster ...
                  In general, in order to understand this, it is necessary to study this specialty for more than one year ... but the essence is this: In Russia, plasma is being used in combat aircraft in Russia (they have no idea which of its varieties) and they are quite successful ...
                10. Falcon
                  Falcon 15 January 2016 21: 21
                  +3
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  but somehow I got an article about the work in the 80-s on the plasma cocoon ... and all this was tested on the TU-160


                  Did this article remain somewhere? link scan or what?

                  In general, not all articles can be trusted. I have so much nonsense, especially about the stealth read. Not that it’s not entirely true, but in the roots, on the contrary ...

                  Quote: NEXUS
                  When I started digging this topic, I found out that work is underway not only to create stealth with the help of plasma, but also with the help of it, the aircraft can become many times faster ...


                  Until I understood even the logic of the process, how this should happen
                11. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 15 January 2016 21: 27
                  +2
                  Quote: Falcon
                  Did this article remain somewhere? link scan or what?

                  In general, not all articles can be trusted. I have so much nonsense, especially about the stealth read. Not that it’s not entirely true, but in the roots, on the contrary ...

                  Cyril, there’s no link ... but, please contact Sergey Ivanovich (nickname SSI), I think I am familiar with him ...
                  I spoke with him about these works and he confirmed that such works were really carried out ...
                  Regarding the article ... I will try to find it ...
                  Quote: Falcon
                  Until I understood even the logic of the process, how this should happen

                  Here is the same trouble ... I couldn’t catch the essence, but the meaning is exactly the same as I wrote ... about acceleration, I did not find a more suitable definition as cavitation ... although this is incorrectly said, I have no other word characterizing this process.
                12. Falcon
                  Falcon 15 January 2016 21: 35
                  +2
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  Cyril, there’s no link ... but, please contact Sergey Ivanovich (nickname SSI), I think I am familiar with him ...
                  I spoke with him about these works and he confirmed that such works were really carried out ...


                  Communicated a couple of times. Maybe he gave you some specifics?
                13. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 15 January 2016 21: 40
                  +2
                  Quote: Falcon
                  Communicated a couple of times. Maybe he gave you some specifics?

                  The answer was something like this ... work on the plasma generator on the TU-160 was carried out (in the 80s). And quite seriously. But at that time, it was not possible to "cover" the plane completely with a plasma cocoon, because the electronics were out of order .. .after, the work was curtailed.
                  Now, apparently, they returned to this issue, given the latest technology ...
                  Talk to him ... he knows more about Swans than all the specialists here put together ...
  • NEXUS
    NEXUS 15 January 2016 11: 19
    +2
    Quote: Falcon
    I don’t know. If you are talking about X-32? Well, theoretically - if it is capable of flying along a low-altitude trajectory at supersonic range (in different sources) the declared range - then yes. But it seems that the trajectory is nevertheless implied high-altitude - and here I remain categorically against it.

    I’ll interfere in your conversation, if you, citizens do not mind. wink But what about the X-101? Moreover, given its range, the 22 is ideal as a carrier.
    Quote: Falcon
    But the FAB can also be thrown off with the Su-25

    You can ... but it's one thing to throw 2 bombs on the head of an adversary, and another thing is 20 tons of "gifts from Yelopukki" wink
  • Falcon
    Falcon 15 January 2016 11: 40
    0
    Quote: NEXUS
    But what about the X-101? Moreover, given its range, the 22 is ideal as a carrier.


    But were there any plans for its integration into the Tu-22m3?

    Under the x-101, the Tu-160 is ideal, I think, since it can carry it far and BCH.
    Tu-22 is not able to refuel in the air - therefore, the radius is very limited.

    What is the X-101? As it is sung - "but a fiery motor in the heart"
    A motor TDD-50. And he stands on calibers and others like them.

    You probably heard about the aviation version of the Caliber. Which is cheaper, and it needs to be done en masse.
    Which should be able to let the Su-30 / 35 / 34m. And the range of these dryers with refueling will be no less than Tu-22.
    And again, I throw a stone at this plane ...

    Quote: NEXUS
    The Tu-22 is, first of all, a bomber that is capable of working not only on the AUG. Yes, it is capable of carrying cruise missiles with nuclear warheads, but this is one of the properties of this aircraft (by the way a very useful property).


    If I am not mistaken, then X-55 and X-101 can not be allowed from the Tu-22m3?

    About Aug and Tu-22 already wrote, I do not believe in its effectiveness - taking into account the characteristics.
  • NEXUS
    NEXUS 15 January 2016 12: 03
    +3
    Quote: Falcon
    But were there any plans for its integration into the Tu-22m3?

    Something I wandered the wrong way laughing ... I mean the air-based caliber ... everything mixed up in the Oblonsky house laughing .
    Quote: Falcon
    You probably heard about the aviation version of the Caliber. Which is cheaper, and it needs to be done en masse.

    I meant for him ... confused ... sorry hi
    Quote: Falcon
    Which should be able to let the Su-30 / 35 / 34m. And the range of these dryers with refueling will be no less than Tu-22.
    And again, I throw a stone at this plane ...

    And put the satellites into orbit, (On the basis of the Tu-22М3, an aerospace system is being developed to put small satellites weighing up to 300 kg into orbit), or take the version of the Tu-22М3Р (the aircraft was originally intended for reconnaissance, jamming and target designation of the Tu strike group -22М) although they haven’t finalized it ... and so on ... do the same 30 / 35 / 34 have such properties? Even there was a version of the long-range interceptor-Project of the long-range strike interceptor - Tu-22DP.
    In vain do you feel about this wonderful car ... By the way, by upgrading (and in fact this is a new bomber) the TU-22 M3M will extend the service life to 40 years.
    Best regards hi
  • Falcon
    Falcon 15 January 2016 12: 15
    +1
    Quote: NEXUS
    And put the satellites into orbit, (On the basis of the Tu-22М3, an aerospace system is being developed to put small satellites weighing up to 300 kg into orbit), or take the version of the Tu-22М3Р (the aircraft was originally intended for reconnaissance, jamming and target designation of the Tu strike group -22М) although they haven’t finalized it ... and so on ... do the same 30 / 35 / 34 have such properties? Even there was a version of the long-range interceptor-Project of the long-range strike interceptor - Tu-22DP.


    Well, you went into romance!
    The launch vehicle was a project and launch heavy from Ruslan. What is the use of it? ...

    About the rest - a good spoon for dinner, time has already passed. Reconnaissance and Tsu must have long been given to the UAV. (Georgia recalled ...)

    Quote: NEXUS
    In vain do you feel about this wonderful car ... By the way, by upgrading (and in fact this is a new bomber) the TU-22 M3M will extend the service life to 40 years.
    Best regards


    Maybe we are all subjective.
    Mutually hi
  • NEXUS
    NEXUS 15 January 2016 12: 24
    +2
    Quote: Falcon
    Well, you went into romance!

    And aviation, by and large, is pure romance, however, like the fleet. Or do you think otherwise? wink
    Quote: Falcon
    About the rest - a good spoon for dinner, time has already passed. Reconnaissance and Tsu must have long been given to the UAV.

    Well, take your time ... for the time being in the army for the year 15 there are only 1700 UAVs of different classes.
    But I agree with you that UAVs are slowly giving out reconnaissance and target designations.
  • NEXUS
    NEXUS 15 January 2016 11: 13
    +3
    Quote: Falcon
    Quote: Bongo
    Of course they are more expensive to operate than the Su-30. But then maybe because of the high cost of abandoning the Tu-95MS and Tu-160?

    You will probably kill me, but yes
    They are needed only as part of the nuclear triad.
    Using them in a different capacity, from my point of view, is complete stupidity and a demonstration of strength (window dressing

    Hmm, is it really the launch of ships at sea, the exercises, and finally the use of high-precision weapons is not a demonstration of strength? The Tu-22 is primarily a bomber that is capable of working not only on the AUG. Yes, it is capable of carrying cruise missiles with nuclear warheads, but it one of the properties of this aircraft (by the way a very useful property).
    And to show that we are capable, if something to be kicked in the teeth is not only necessary, but also necessary. By the way, the Americans do not hesitate to use the "brandish weapon" technique.
  • NEXUS
    NEXUS 15 January 2016 10: 02
    +3
    Quote: Bongo
    Sorry, but with all due respect I cannot agree! The naval Tu-22M3 posed a real and deadly threat to any enemy fleet, primarily for the American AUGs. Of course, they are quite problematic in the operation of anti-ship missiles X-22. But comparing them with the X-35 is not at all correct. In terms of its striking capabilities, the Tu-22M3 is several times greater than the Su-30, and the Su-35S currently does not carry anti-ship missiles.

    Greetings, Serge. drinks
    I’ll add in support ... The TU-22 now shows itself very well as a carrier of cruise missiles and bombs. It is simply ridiculous to call it an synchronism ... then what is a B-52 or TU-95 or the same B-1 Lancer? , although it was developed back in the USSR and for other tasks.
    Best regards hi
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 15 January 2016 10: 11
      +4
      Quote: NEXUS
      Greetings, Serge.

      Andrew, hello! drinks
      Quote: NEXUS
      I’ll add in support ... The TU-22 now shows itself very well as a carrier of cruise missiles and bombs. It is simply ridiculous to call it an synchronism ... then what is a B-52 or TU-95 or the same B-1 Lancer? , although it was developed back in the USSR and for other tasks.

      Then I absolutely agree with you! yes Moreover, with proper modernization, the potential of this wonderful aircraft can be significantly increased.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 15 January 2016 10: 18
        +2
        Quote: Bongo
        Then I absolutely agree with you! Moreover, with proper modernization, the potential of this wonderful aircraft can be significantly increased.

        And so, with the development of long-range anti-ship missiles and missiles, its purpose, for which it was actually created, fades into the background, giving way to new tasks that it copes with perfectly, given the range, thrust-weight ratio and super-sound ...
  • Your friend
    Your friend 14 January 2016 20: 48
    +4
    You would tell Iosif Vissarionovich about the colossal work in the army, I would laugh .... There is no colossal work there (except for Serdyukov, here he stole colossal, my respect), there is, thank God, stopping the fall and degradation of the army. In fact, in 95, the army was more efficient than it is now. There were still Soviet officers. The technology hasn't aged yet. And they made it in the USSR, and not the current manufacturers of black boxes for Dryers. Quite a few people still considered their homeland as their homeland, but were not "literate consumers".

    Seriously? In 1995, my father, a colonel of the Air Force, a 1st-class pilot, went on patrols to guard entrances in Moscow (everyone was afraid of house bombings). For a year, I never flew an airplane. There was a fucking alert.
  • red_october
    red_october 14 January 2016 19: 00
    +1
    Quote: seti
    However, I would like for the adoption of the MiG-35 to take place this year. VKS really need a light fighter and a massive one.


    Interestingly, is there at least some progress in the MiG-35 project? Brought to mind the radar with AFAR?
    1. seti
      seti 14 January 2016 19: 41
      0
      Quote: red_october
      Quote: seti
      However, I would like for the adoption of the MiG-35 to take place this year. VKS really need a light fighter and a massive one.


      Interestingly, is there at least some progress in the MiG-35 project? Brought to mind the radar with AFAR?

      I’m looking for information myself, but it’s mean. It seems that there is progress, the work is almost over, but MiG is still not Drying. Support for this project is still weaker. It seems that by the end of the year they are launching a series, but who knows. Maybe they will transfer it to 17.
      1. Kasym
        Kasym 15 January 2016 00: 11
        0
        In 2014, in the summer, they wrote that for a pair of MiG-29s, the Fazotron Research Institute had installed a "Zhuk-?" for testing.
        It was also said that work is underway on a new radar to replace the Beetle in the same place, on the Phazotron.
        In my opinion there is no money for the purchase of the MiG-35. hi
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 15 January 2016 00: 14
          +1
          Quote: Kasym
          In 2014, in the summer, they wrote that for a pair of MiG-29s, the Fazotron Research Institute had installed a "Zhuk-?" for testing.
          It was also said that work is underway on a new radar to replace the Beetle in the same place, on the Phazotron.
          In my opinion there is no money for the purchase of the MiG-35. hi

          So AFAR on the MiG-35 was never finished. hi
  • Cobra77
    Cobra77 14 January 2016 19: 18
    -4
    Quote: c-Petrov
    and now let’s remember how they searched for those who would take part in the second Chechen company and how many people from the one millionth (better prepared than now, army) recruited

    In 95, the army on black plumped and could not absolutely * er. Remember the days officers pay salaries (after breaks of a couple of months)

    PS in 2014, oil and gas revenue was already 51%.

    And every year, I hope it will decrease at the same pace. Given the price of oil, especially


    And by what miracle then did they conquer Chechnya? Did the braces help? Or is it the army? The number of contingent that was used in Chechnya do not remind? About the thrashing army, you do not tell your story. It was different.

    Yeah 51%. This is you more than Ulyukaev-Medvedev listen. In 2011, it approached 70%. It's easy to google. Do you think that has since dramatically become better? Hundreds of new plants started to work? Take a look around, I do not see them. Or is it like a gopher which no one sees? I do not think the trend however. Note that the price of energy has fallen since then by 3 times. Therefore, we have an extremely deficit budget, cap payment. repair, retirement points instead of savings and Plato.

    It will decrease only against the background of a collapse in oil. But not because we launched industrialization in the manner of at least China. And our government does not have such plans, it does not have them at all. It is waiting for a rebound in oil, but for now it plugs holes. So it’s easier.
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 14 January 2016 19: 21
      +5
      Quote: cobra77
      And by what miracle then did they conquer Chechnya? Did the braces help? Or is it the army? The number of contingent that was used in Chechnya do not remind?

      Watch a movie about Putin ... about that war, he said so-We barely barely recruited 50 thousand combat-ready personnel throughout Russia. From a little less than a million.
      These were the pies at that time. hi
    2. Marconi41
      Marconi41 15 January 2016 02: 24
      0
      Quote: cobra77
      And by what miracle then did they conquer Chechnya? Did the braces help?

      Look at the ATO in Ukraine. This is our first Chechen company. I am not talking about political goals, I am talking about the level of training of troops.
  • newcomer
    newcomer 14 January 2016 19: 56
    +5
    Nexus, I agree with you about the moment lfi. but he talked about replacing horse-breeding horses instant 29 to instant 35. on anology from su 27 to 30. you see, you will agree that in the near future (10_15 years) there will be no mass workhorse. and the 35th here is what is called at hand. Of course, I don’t own the full info, but analyzing the situation, according to the information that gets to me, I can say: instantly 35 is a breakthrough project that is stifling. I can only compare with the situation t34, remember?
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 14 January 2016 20: 07
      +2
      Quote: newbie
      Nexus, I agree with you about the moment lfi. but he talked about replacing horse-breeding horses instant 29 to instant 35. on anology from su 27 to 30. because you will agree a moment lfi in the near future (10_15 years)

      Why such a conclusion then? I repeat, KB MIG, DRY and possibly YAKOVLEVA have already taken up the development of the next generation LFI, taking into account developments on MIG-1.44, BERKUT (deck) and PAK FA.
      Quote: newbie
      and the 35th is at hand

      Do you finally look at its mass and don’t write nonsense, sorry ... what kind of LFI is it? This is an average MFI. Now look at its cost and ask yourself the question of what mass can be discussed.
      Quote: newbie
      Mig35 breakthrough project

      Today it’s possible ... and in five years? Each aircraft has a modernization resource and modernization expediency. You look around. Even Japan is developing 5-generation LFIs, not to mention Europe, China, the USA ... and there will never be a MIG-35 5th generation fighter, all the more light.
  • Dmitry Potapov
    Dmitry Potapov 14 January 2016 22: 02
    0
    Handsome man! And the Lord saw that it was good!
  • The comment was deleted.
  • red_october
    red_october 15 January 2016 00: 02
    +2
    New Su-30 and even in the Rostov region - this is very correct!
  • 4ekist
    4ekist 15 January 2016 21: 58
    0
    In South-Eastern Military District, more new aviation is needed, along with unpredictable and possessed neighbors.