Military Review

Development Prospects for the Third World Air Force

92



The experience of military operations gained in recent decades clearly shows that air supremacy is the key to victory. Aviation became a means capable of turning the tide of a war even in the event of multiple enemy superiority in tanks, artillery and manpower. However, modern jet aircraft capable of developing supersonic speeds and delivering high-precision strikes at long distances from home airfields, due to their high cost, are not affordable for most developing countries.

During World War II, the price of a fighter was comparable to the cost of manufacturing a medium tank, and the planes, like tanks, were built in thousands of copies. However, already in 60-s, with the growth of speed and altitude, the introduction of sophisticated radio systems into the avionics and the transition to guided weapons, the price of jet combat aircraft increased sharply. However, here it is also necessary to add a very high cost of training pilots. This inevitably affected the number of built supersonic machines. Creation and mass production of truly modern combat aircraft has become a very expensive pleasure, available to very few. In this regard, some states follow the path of international cooperation and the creation of consortia. This is especially true for Western European countries that want to maintain at least some independence from the United States and maintain their own scientific and industrial potential.

The first "European fighter" became Aeritalia G.91. Few people remember about this plane now, but in the middle of the 50's he won the competition to create a new NATO light fighter bomber, beating around the British and American aircraft. G.91 was built in Italy and Germany, the last fighter-bombers of this type were written off at the beginning of the 90's.

Development Prospects for the Third World Air Force

Aeritalia G.91


The Italian-German G.91 was followed up by Panavia Tornado, created jointly by Italy, Great Britain and West Germany, its production began at the beginning of the 80's and the Eurofighter Typhoon - operated from the year 2003. In the conditions of excessively expensive R & D, European countries have chosen to unite and share technological and financial risks. However, the "smearing" of development in different countries, designers and the military, who had their own views on the technical appearance and the main field of application, inevitably affected the result. As a result, France came out of the project, which decided to create its own combat aircraft, independently of other European states. In fairness, it should be said that the European Typhoon fighter, which first flew in March 1994, does not exceed the characteristics of the modernized 4 generation aircraft.

Only France with Dassault Rafale and Sweden with Saab JAS 39 Gripen still build fighters on their own. However, in the Swedish lightweight fighter, the share of foreign components and assemblies is very large, and Sweden is unable to produce Gripenes without foreign components. As for France, then "Rafale", apparently, will be the last French model. An aging Europe, despite the declared independence, is increasingly politically, economically and technologically dependent on its “overseas partner”.

China went the other way. Not being able to create modern models of aviation technology, in the 70-80-s in the People's Republic of China built obsolete Soviet-made aircraft from the USSR in the mid-to-late 50-s in large quantities. Until the second half of the 90, the main part of the PLA Air Force's combat force consisted of Chinese copies of the IL-28, MiG-19 and MiG-21. China, yielding to the quality of the USSR and the USA, contained a very significant fleet of obsolete combat aircraft. The situation began to change at the beginning of 90, when, after the normalization of relations with our country, technical documentation and assembly kits of Su-27 fighters were supplied to the PRC. Russian aid has allowed us to seriously raise the level of the Chinese aviation industry, and now Chinese fighters are already competing with us in the global arms market. The explosive economic growth, the absence of any restrictions regarding unlicensed copying and the huge amount of money invested in our own projects brought China to the level of advanced aviation countries.

In the past, the main suppliers of military aviation in developing countries were the USSR, the USA and France. Until now, airplanes built during the Cold War years have flown into the air: MiG-21, MiG-23, F-4, F-5, Mirage F1 and Mirage III. Both in the USSR and in Western countries, export versions of fighters with simplified avionics were created, intended for operation in countries with a low level of development. The Americans went the farthest in this, creating an “export” F-5 fighter, which was not distinguished by high flight performance, but was simple, reliable and unpretentious at a relatively low cost. During the war in Southeast Asia, the United States also adopted a number of light anti-partisan warplanes. Subsequently, some of them - jet A-37 and twin-engine turboprop OV-10 enjoyed great popularity in the states of the "third world".

Today, neither in Russia, nor in the United States, nor in France such planes are no longer built, and modern fighters are rarely “affordable” for developing countries, even if they have the means to buy them. A very illustrative example of South Africa, having purchased a batch of JAS-39 Gripen, in South Africa suddenly found out that there are no funds in the budget for their operation. The cost of the flight hour of one of the most inexpensive 4 generation fighters exceeds 10 000 dollars. Currently, of the 26 fighters received, only 10 are regularly lifted into the air, and the rest are “in storage”.

After the end of the Cold War and the reduction of international tensions, many countries began to get rid of redundant arsenals. On the world arms market, modern combat aircraft in good technical condition were offered at very reasonable prices. In the 90-s, along with new export modifications, Russia actively traded second-hand MiG-29, Su-25 and Su-27. Ukraine and Belarus lagged behind this in Russia. Typical buyers of Soviet-made combat aircraft were poor African countries that had internal problems with all sorts of rebels or unresolved territorial disputes with their neighbors. So, at the end of the 90-x - the beginning of the 2000-x, during the Ethiopian-Eritrean war, Su-27 fighters, delivered from Russia, and Ukrainian MiG-29 came together in the African sky.

At the beginning of 2000-s, after receiving large orders from China and India, the delivery of new aircraft received priority in Russian arms exports. Unlike second-hand fighter aircraft that did not bring much profit, trade in new aircraft allowed, in addition to replenishing the budget, to support their own enterprises and retain specialists. In addition, by the beginning of the 2000's, the Russian Air Force had already run out of “extra” combat aircraft, while vehicles still suitable for long-term operation needed repair and modernization. The operation of modernized fighters built in the USSR made it possible to hold out until the new models entered service. However, second-hand trading continues. Despite the fact that the fleet of combat aircraft in its own air force was reduced to a critical level, Belarus several years ago sold the remaining Su-24M front-line bombers to Sudan, and Ukraine before the start of known events supplied MiG-29, which had undergone a refurbishment.



In 2000-s, the double Russian fighter Su-30 of various modifications became a sales hit, its export production many times over the number of built vehicles exceeded the supply to its own air force. Despite the high cost (the price of Su-30MKI exceeds $ 80 million), more than 400 ready fighters and assembly kits have been shipped abroad. Air forces of Algeria, Angola, Venezuela, Vietnam, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, China, Malaysia and Uganda became the operators of the Su-30. Unfortunately, not all countries from this list were paid off with “real money”, some of them were supplied by Russia with fighters on credit, and it is unlikely that these funds will be returned in the foreseeable future.


F-16 fighters in storage in Arizona


Members of the North Atlantic Alliance sold their second-hand aircraft to a lesser extent. After the collapse of the USSR and the reduction of the threat of a global war to a minimum, in the 90-2000-s, European countries often found it easier to write off used warplanes than to bother with their repair and modernization. In addition, in contrast to the former Soviet republics, the NATO countries “with experience” were much more scrupulous about the issue of arms supply to authoritarian regimes and countries that are in a state of armed conflict with their neighbors. In this regard, Hungary and Bulgaria showed less restraint, and even bought Soviet-made aircraft, because of their lower cost and maintainability, much more readily. Much freer members of NATO exchanged extra weapons inside the block. So, Romania received the X-NUMX fighter aircraft F-12, which previously flew the Portuguese Air Force, and Hungary became the first foreign user of JAS-16, paying around $ 39 billion for leasing 1 aircraft. Although Sweden is formally not a member of NATO, it maintains active military-technical cooperation with the countries of the alliance. The practically inexhaustible source of the flying "second-hand" is the storage of aviation equipment Davis-Monten in Arizona. In 14, Indonesia began to receive repaired and upgraded F-2014C / D Vlock 16, which had previously been stored.


Indonesian F-16C


As the life of the still-flying MiG-21, Skyhawks and Kfirs is developed, the military of the Third World countries think about how to replace them. Currently, there is no modern low-cost single-engined combat aircraft in Russia that is suitable for the “cost-effectiveness” criterion. And even the supply of used American F-16 is not always possible for political reasons. In this regard, JF-17 Thunder, created at the beginning of 2000 by the Chinese company Chengdu Aircraft Corporation with the financial support of Pakistan, is of great interest among potential buyers. In China, this aircraft has the designation FC-1. In 2009, China and Pakistan entered into an agreement to jointly build the JF-17 Thunder fighter.


JF-17 Thunder Pakistan Air Force


The JF-17 genealogy leads from a joint Chinese-American fighter, the Super-7. Work on this project was carried out in 80-ies, when communist China and the United States were "friends" against the USSR. The “Super-7” was a deep modernization of the J-7 fighter (the Chinese MiG-21), from which it was distinguished by a wing of a larger area with slats and overflows, side unregulated air inlets, a lantern with an improved view. The fighter was supposed to be equipped with modern avionics: radar AN / APG-66, ILS, modern means of communication. According to its combat characteristics, the “Super-7” was supposed to approach the F-16А fighter.

After the events on Tiananmen Square, Sino-US military-technical cooperation was curtailed, and Russia became the main partner in creating a new Chinese fighter. Specialists from the OKB Design Bureau named after the 33 front-line fighter 33 shared their experience with the Chinese. A.I. Mikoyan. The single-engine lightweight 29 fighter was supposed to complement the MiG-21 and occupy the niche of the MiG-17 in the external market. As a power plant for the JF-93, the Russian RD-29 engine was selected, which is a modification of the RD-ZZ used on the MiG-93 fighter. Currently, a copy of the RD-13 - WS-17 is created in the PRC. It is with this Chinese-made engine that JF-XNUMX exports to third countries are supposed to be maintained.

The Sino-Pakistani lightweight fighter with a normal take-off mass of just over 9 tons fits well into the niche vacated by the Soviet MiG-21. Its export price is $ 18-20 million. For comparison, the American F-16D Block 52 fighter is sold for $ 35 million.

Aircraft under construction in the People's Republic of China are equipped with radar, avionics and Chinese-made UR. Pakistani fighter aircraft assembly should be equipped with radar radar and avionics of European development. Negotiations on this issue are conducted with representatives of France, Italy and the UK. Acceptable cost and good flight data make the JF-17 attractive to poor countries. It is known that Azerbaijan, Zimbabwe, Kuwait, Qatar and Sri Lanka showed interest in JF-17.

Quite often for actions against irregular armed formations are involved jet TCB Aero L-39 Albatros. Aircraft of this type were built by the Czech company Aero Vodochody before 1999. It has been shipped to more than 30 countries, with more than 2800 units built in total.


L-39 Albatros


L-39 develops maximum speed up to 900 km / h. With a maximum take-off mass of 4700, kg can carry 1100 kg of combat load, as a rule, these are uncontrolled means of destruction - free-fall bombs and NAR. The low cost of used cars, $ 200-300 thousand, makes them attractive for tight buyers, but, in turn, very high operating costs and the lack of a controlled ground-to-ground aviation ammunition is a limiting sale factor.

With an export target in the USA, Textron created the Scorpion combat jet. 12 December 2013 of the Year The Scorpion flew the first flight from the runway of the McConell USAF Air Force Base in Wichita Kansas. This jet aircraft is assembled mainly from components used in the manufacture of civilian vehicles, which should reduce its cost. As the creators of the aircraft hope, it will occupy a vacant niche between light turboprop and expensive jet warplanes.


Textron AirLand Scorpion


The Scorpion is a two-seat aircraft with a high-positioned straight wing with two turbofan engines. The mass of an empty aircraft is 5,35 tons, the maximum take-off a little more than 9 tons. According to the calculated data, the attack aircraft will be able to develop in horizontal flight a speed of more than 830 km / h. 2800 kg payload can be placed on six suspension nodes. Fuel tanks with a volume of about 3000 liters should be enough for 5 hour patrols at a distance of 300 km from the base aerodrome. The cost of the flight hour is expected to be $ 3 000, which, given the estimated price of the aircraft itself $ 20 million, should make it well-selling. The US National Guard is interested in acquiring a Scorpion light jet combat aircraft.


However, jet planes for many Third World countries are too expensive to operate and require well-equipped airfields with a capital runway. The capabilities of modern jet fighters and attack aircraft are often excessive for use in low-intensity conflicts and in the fight against partisans. For this reason, turboprop engines, originally created for training purposes, have become widespread. In a number of countries in combat operations, until recently, transport aircraft were actively used, converted into bombers (more details here: Antonov Bombers).

The concept of a strike and reconnaissance aircraft combining the functions of an air command post deserves special mention. As part of this concept, Alliant Techs based the Cessna AC-208 Combat Caravan counter-aircraft on the basis of the lightweight Cessna 208 Grand Caravan passenger and transport aircraft.


AC-208 Combat Caravan


The plane is equipped with advanced avionics, allowing it at any time of the day to conduct reconnaissance, observation, coordinate the actions of ground forces and issue target designation to other combat aircraft. In addition to all this, operators of optoelectronic systems AC-208 Combat Caravan have the opportunity to independently deliver high-precision strikes using AGM-114М / К Hellfire air-to-ground missiles. The aircraft can patrol in the air for about 4,5 hours. Top speed about 350 km / h. Operation from unpaved airfields with a strip of at least 600 meters in length is possible. The cockpit and some parts of the aircraft are covered with ballistic panels. Aircraft of this type are actively used by the Iraqi Air Force in combat operations against the formations of the "Islamic State".

On the basis of the AT-802 agricultural aircraft, the American company Air Tractor created a lightweight anti-guerrilla AT-802U attack aircraft (for more information, see: Combat Agricultural Aviation).

With a maximum speed of 370 km / h, this double aircraft can hang in the air for up to 10 hours and carry a combat load of up to 4000 kg. AT-802U light attack aircraft passed the “baptism of fire” over the jungles of Colombia and in a number of anti-terrorist operations in the Middle East, where they showed themselves well.


AT-802U


The AT-802U has a lot in common with the Archangel BPA, built on the basis of the agricultural aircraft Thrush 710. The AT-802 and Thrush 710 are variants of the same aircraft designed by Leland Snow. Unlike the AT-802U, the combat “Archangel” is equipped with more advanced avionics. This aircraft is used reconnaissance-sighting system, allowing you to strike with high-precision ammunition, without entering the zone of destruction of the MPA and MANPADS. In this regard, the small-arms armament on the "Archangel" is missing.


Archangel BPA Block III


AGN-12 Hellfire missiles, 114 16-mm Cirit missiles, 70 JDAM or Paveway II / III / IV missiles can be deployed on the six Archangel BPA attack pods. The Archangel in the shock version is capable of carrying more weapons on external hangers than any other aircraft of a similar weight category. It may conduct independent search and destruction of small militant groups when the use of other aircraft is irrational from the point of view of combat effectiveness or impractical for economic reasons.

During the design of the "Archangel" much attention was paid to improving the survival rate of the aircraft over the battlefield. In addition to introducing a set of passive protection tools in the form of protecting the fuel tanks and pressurizing them with nitrogen, reducing thermal visibility, booking with composite ballistic materials for the engine and cabin, a container is provided with laser equipment blinding the self-homing head of the MANPADS.

But the most active in fighting against all sorts of rebels in recent decades have been used light turboprop vehicles, the initial purpose of which was the education and training of pilots (more here: "Toucan Class").

Due to its low cost, good performance, versatility and high flight data, Embraer Brazilian EMB-312 Tucano has become a bestseller among the turboprop TCBs. As you know - demand creates supply, based on the ECB-312 Tucano, based on the experience of combat use and advances in modern sighting and reconnaissance systems and high-precision weapons, in 2003, the serial production of the improved EMB-314 Super Tucano began. The plane received a new engine and modern avionics, its weapons became much more powerful, the cabin and the engine were partially covered with Kevlar armor.


EMB-314 Super Tucano


Due to the increased flight data, the presence of built-in weapons and advanced search and navigation equipment, the Super Tukano is effectively used not only as a light attack aircraft, but also as a reconnaissance aircraft and a fighter for intercepting light aircraft that carry drugs illegally.

Another direction in the field of creation of counter-insurgency aircraft was the South African light reconnaissance-strike combat aircraft AHRLAC (Advanced High Performance Reconaissance Light Aircraft) - this can be translated as "Light reconnaissance-combat aircraft of high performance."

Aircraft AHRLAC created by South African firms Paramount Group and Aerosud as a versatile low-cost alternative to UAVs. He made his first flight on 26 July 2014, and the first public demonstration took place on 13 August 2014 at Wonderboom Airport.


Light reconnaissance and strike combat aircraft AHRLAC


AHRLAC has a very unusual appearance and is a cantilever high-wing aircraft with one Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-66 turboprop engine with a capacity of 950 hp. Features of the aircraft are: reverse sweep of the wing, spaced tail and pusher propeller in the rear of the fuselage. All this provides excellent forward and downward visibility from the two-seater cab. The maximum speed is 500 km / h, and the duration of the air patrol can exceed 7 hours.

Despite the futuristic design, the South African aircraft in the future may be in demand in the global arms market. It is possible to use a wide range of controlled and uncontrolled means of destruction. The 20-mm gun is used as a built-in weapon. Aircraft ammunition with a mass and dimension up to 500 pound (227 kg) aerial bombs can be placed on six external nodes. The total weight of the combat load in different sources varies from 800 to 1100 kg. The lower part of the fuselage consists of a set of interchangeable conformal modular units equipped with a variety of sensor systems, such as infrared and optical cameras, synthetic aperture radar, electronic intelligence systems and electronic warfare systems. According to the information published at the presentation of the aircraft, its price should be within $ 10 million. The developer announced his intention to build several dozen planes per year. At the moment, AHRLAC is undergoing a set of tests, and if the stated characteristics are confirmed, then the plane does have a good chance of commercial success.

In the very near future, hundreds of combat aircraft built in 70-80-s are to be written off in countries of Asia, Africa and Central and South America. Obviously, the emphasis in the purchase of new combat aircraft will be on reducing the price of both the aircraft itself and the flight hour. Therefore, a significant part of the new combat aircraft will make turboprop attack aircraft. At the moment in our country there is no inexpensive light "export" fighter. This niche could take a combat aircraft, created on the basis of the FC Yak-130, but so far progress in this direction is not visible. It is clear that for Rosoboronexport, billion-dollar deals for the supply of supersonic fighters are of much greater interest, but it is unwise to refuse market share. As you know, the buyer of weapons in the future is in a certain dependence on the seller, because without spare parts, consumables and technical support, modern aircraft cannot fly. Thus, even “cheap” deals always bring political dividends.

Based on:
http://russiancouncil.ru/inner/?id_4=4158#top-content
http://www.f-16.net
http://www.ahrlac.com
Author:
92 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Professor
    Professor 21 June 2016 08: 51
    +25
    Excellent article. good More to such.
    1. Bongo
      21 June 2016 09: 38
      +12
      Quote: Professor
      Great article. More to such.

      Hi Oleg! Thanks! Yesterday about "Tukanoclass" was, it seems like a logical continuation.
      1. xetai9977
        xetai9977 21 June 2016 10: 26
        +5
        Great article! As for Azerbaijan, our Air Force planned to update the fleet, but the crisis confused all the maps. But in articles and in some interviews, it is noticeable that potential sellers do not lose hope of future orders. Apparently, Pakistan with the JF-17 Block 3 and Russia with the Su-30 are in every possible way pounding the ground and trying to stake out the site in case of possible orders in the future
        1. alexmach
          alexmach 22 June 2016 00: 21
          +4
          I really liked this JF-17, a great concept in my opinion. It is a pity that such an airplane is not produced in Russia. Would be a great export product.
    2. Now we are free
      Now we are free 21 June 2016 10: 47
      +10
      Quote: Professor
      Excellent article. good More to such.

      I agree with the Professor by the way, I welcome Oleg by the way hi
      The "kids" are doing much more work today than Mastodons such as F-15/16/18/22 SU-27/30/33/34/35 and similar machines. Raising the purchased "Multimillion Face of the Country" into the sky on trifles is troublesome, costly and most often unjustified if we are not talking about intercepting an offender or "showing eggs" to a neighbor / potential enemy. In the conditions of the dominance of the network-centric and hybrid type of wars today over wars in the usual sense of the word and, most importantly, their effectiveness, the "Kids of Military Aviation" have a lot of work to do.
      Combination:
      - Cheap
      -Reliability
      -Possibilities of embedding into a single info network on the field / above the battlefield
      -Ability to effectively find / track / destroy small groups of the enemy
      (which includes both an excellent overview and the search for the enemy in several ranges / spectra)
      -Ability of all-weather / all-day patrolling of the area
      - Low visibility of the machine itself in various ranges / spectra
      -Diversified weapons

      Close to the maximum combination of all the above qualities with an emphasis on the combat component (direct support of your troops on the battlefield) include the American aircraft Cessna T-37 / A-37 Dragonfly and, of course, the Brazilian EMB-314 Super Tucano with considerable practical experience of the database.

      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Now we are free
        Now we are free 21 June 2016 10: 49
        +7
        The T-710 aircraft had an armored cockpit of the Su-25 UB aircraft, part of its systems, and landing gear. Tail beams, plumage (G.O.) - were used from the M-55 aircraft (Smolensk Aviation Plant). The aircraft could take various weapons, transport an infantry compartment with weapons in the cargo compartment.

        LTH

        Max. take-off weight, kg 7500
        Max. empty weight kg 4320
        Curb weight, kg 4600
        Max. fuel mass, kg 1500
        Max. combat load, kg 2500
        Normal The weight of the combat load, kg 1400
        Max. payload weight, kg 2900
        Range at max refueling, km 2800
        Maximum speed, km / h 485
        Cruising speed, km / h, 380-400
        Radius of action, km 480
        Crew, people. 2
        Number of passengers, people 7
        Practical ceiling, m 7400
        Take-off distance (N = 15 m), m 690
        Landing distance (N = 15 m), m 360
        Max. exploit overload 5 / -2,5
        Maximum power, h.p. 2 X 1400-2500
        Wing Area, sq.m. Xnumx
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Now we are free
          Now we are free 21 June 2016 11: 31
          +7
          In terms of patrolling / detection / tracking / guidance, these are: (hello from the famous FW-189 "Rama") American-North American OV-10 Bronco and, as a derivative of it, the South African light reconnaissance and strike combat aircraft AHRLAC (even the construction scheme is the same with a difference only that AHRLAC has one engine and it is a pushing one, which by the way has improved the already good visibility even more (even the F-16 "canopy" and the AH-64 cockpit are tearfully jealous).

          For domestic aircraft of this class, many Yak-130s come to mind first, but this is rather an easy combat training attack aircraft. You can still recall the machine that recently got on the wing of the CP-10, which is very interesting, but so far only undergoing a run-in (pah-pah-pah), however, little can be said about its useful combat load.
          Work on a machine that combines most of the characteristics was carried out (see photo above), a wild symbiosis of the American Bronco and the domestic SU-25UB was ready to appear on an initiative basis, the project, by the way, is very interesting and NECESSARY (hello to the Afghan war and two Chechen companies). But "Russian heavenly shredder"; "Soviet Right Hand"; "Russian grandson of Rama"; "Flying Nishtyak" with American roots never saw the light of day. But if it was created in the light of today's events of the ways of waging wars, one can only assume how it would be in demand especially in the African and Asian markets among buyers who received at the same time:
          Scout
          BMP
          attack plane
          Patrol plane
          In one person with the ability (at the request of the customer) to strengthen the car in one direction or another.

          P.S. I hope that our country will pay attention to this growing demand in modern aviation for which there is a great future and will give rise to the still outdated and quite capable of competing with its foreign opponents T-710. Moreover, the domestic Air Force (and even more the ground forces in such an aircraft is VERY interested), the Afghan and Chechen experience cannot be forgotten ...
        4. The comment was deleted.
      3. The comment was deleted.
  2. Taygerus
    Taygerus 21 June 2016 09: 15
    +5
    I liked the scout AHRLAC, krasava
    1. lelikas
      lelikas 21 June 2016 12: 00
      +3
      +1 - great done!
    2. Mister X
      Mister X 21 June 2016 13: 53
      +7
      Quote: Taygerus
      I liked the scout AHRLAC, krasava

      Yeah, good!
      I rummaged on the manufacturer's website and found a bunch of modifications of this aircraft:
      - Civil / private;
      - Policeman / to combat poaching;
      - Training;
      - Security / for protection;
      - Military.
      The equipment of the machine also depends on the application.

  3. Maegrom
    Maegrom 21 June 2016 09: 37
    +5
    It is interesting to consider the need for the air forces of third world countries depending on the needs and tasks:
    1) protection of the political system, the fight against the rebel movement, organized crime. Only cheap mass aviation.
    2) the struggle with a neighbor from the third world. The rebel movement, which has serious external (orange events) and / or internal (regional separatism) support. There are increased requirements for resistance to portable and, often, artillery air defense.
    3) The desire for regional leadership or the creation of a serious political risk to the leading powers in aggression. (now Indonesia, Algeria, Iran, North Korea, etc.). There are completely different TK.
    Of course, I want to have all the money, but I have to choose, including due to staff limitations, financial, etc.
    1. Verdun
      Verdun 21 June 2016 18: 06
      0
      Quote: Maegrom
      It is interesting to consider the need for the air forces of third world countries depending on the needs and tasks:

      And what about needs and tasks when it comes to opportunities? What, someone believes that if third countries had the opportunity, they would be limited to the acquisition of light-engine and used aircraft? In fact, all this strongly resembles the Polish aviation in front of WWII. There is national pride, but there is no real military value. As soon as third countries have money - like Indonesia itself - they immediately strive to buy something more serious.
  4. avt
    avt 21 June 2016 09: 45
    +5
    At the moment, in our country there is no inexpensive lightweight “export” fighter.
    Well, something like that. There is no analog of the MiG-21 and the campaign is not expected. Here the author is right.
    In the very near future, hundreds of combat aircraft built in the 70-80s are to be decommissioned in the countries of Asia, Africa, and Central and South America. It is obvious that the emphasis in the purchase of new combat aircraft will be on reducing the price of both the aircraft itself and the flight hour.
    And here I’ll reveal a terrible secret - yes, for any transaction for the purchase of airplanes, they lower the price, and even try to get a loan from the seller.
    Therefore, a significant part of the new combat aircraft will be turboprop attack aircraft.
    wassat Well, it may be so, that ALL turntables will fall somehow, or it will be forgotten how to make small jet engines in general, well, it's not like turbine engines - they will switch to piston ones! laughing ,, Robinson "over there his turntables from pistons to gas turbine are changing shoes .... but this is not an attack aircraft, however. But in general, the author is right, as in aviation, not only the poor, for the poor, crafts like the same camel Dromadera will be in demand. But with Why did the author decide that I can’t buy stuffed with electronics for the most part as for exhibitions? It is your will, but they will take a handful for ruble.
    AHRLAC aircraft was created by the South African companies Paramount Group and Aerosud as a universal inexpensive alternative to UAVs.
    wassat This is strong! USA must show it! And then they, suckers pedal, someone imagined that UAVs are cheaper to use remotely than a flyer on some sort of controlled airplane they send to the battle zone. laughing Although Africans and what you will not write in an advertising booklet for the sake of the future gesheft.
    1. Bongo
      21 June 2016 09: 56
      +8
      Quote: avt
      This is strong! USA must show it! And then they, suckers pedal, someone imagined that UAVs are cheaper to use remotely,

      It may well turn out that such an aircraft will be cheaper than a modern attack drone, especially taking into account the complex of ground equipment. In addition, the United States is very selective in supplying and selling UAVs, and it is problematic to get them for "non-democratic" countries. In addition, the set of weapons on the AHRLAC will be differently larger than on the Predator, and the manned aircraft is much more flexible in application.
      1. Maegrom
        Maegrom 21 June 2016 10: 10
        +1
        He is more flexible while the pilot is not afraid. To death a man for the sake of another autocrat may not smile to go. And UAVs do not know doubt.
        1. Bongo
          21 June 2016 10: 19
          +3
          Quote: Maegrom
          He is more flexible while the pilot is not afraid. To death a man for the sake of another autocrat may not smile to go. And UAVs do not know doubt.

          Maybe this is my omission, in this and previous publications I did not write enough about the features of UAV use? The main purpose of even armed drones is surveillance, reconnaissance and patrolling. The capabilities of a modern combat turboprop aircraft are much greater with approximately the same cost and more significant resource and less vulnerability. Avionics armament of modern light attack aircraft allows, if necessary, not to enter the affected area of ​​the MZA and MANPADS, striking with precision-guided munitions.
      2. avt
        avt 21 June 2016 10: 35
        +3
        Quote: Bongo
        It may well turn out that such a plane will be cheaper than a modern shock drone,

        That's exactly what
        Quote: Bongo
        , especially considering the complex of ground equipment.

        and training the pilot in comparison with the operator. And then the question is who comes into the practical rather than the theoretical phase, which USs have already passed.
        Quote: Bongo
        In addition, the United States very selectively supplies and sells UAVs, and it is problematic to get them for "non-democratic" countries.

        "And this professor is another question." laughing As well as
        Quote: Bongo
        In addition, the set of weapons on the AHRLAC will be differently larger than on the Predator, and the manned aircraft is much more flexible in application.

        Who is “more flexible” than whom - an airplane with a pilot, or some kind of UAV, but even a “kamikaze” under the control of an operator, the question is again debatable and ..... frankly speaking - stupid. By and large, they complement each other, and as the experience of Syria shows, the presence of UAVs as a means of constant observation and reconnaissance, as well as target designation and confirmation of the results of bombing, is quite self-sufficient, charged "airplanes from the category of not cheap, chances for" partisans "in the absence sane air defenses are reduced to a minimum mountain-a-a-azdo faster than using the same L-kami converted into combat ones.
        1. Professor
          Professor 21 June 2016 10: 42
          +7
          Quote: avt
          Who is “more flexible” than whom - an airplane with a pilot, or some kind of UAV, but even a “kamikaze” under the control of an operator, the question is again debatable and ..... frankly speaking - stupid.

          I cannot ignore a single "stupid" question. wink

          Quote: avt
          By and large, they complement each other, and as the experience of Syria shows, the presence of UAVs as a means of constant observation and reconnaissance, as well as target designation and confirmation of the results of bombing, is quite self-sufficient, charged "airplanes from the category of not cheap, chances for" partisans "in the absence sane air defenses are reduced to a minimum mountain-a-a-azdo faster than using the same L-kami converted into combat ones.

          The experience of Syria is not an indicator in view of the absence of shock drones in Russia. Bourgeois also used shock drones in Syria. The drone’s flexibility is much greater than that of an attack aircraft, if only because of its duration in the air over a take-off. About the morally strong-willed qualities of the operator and the pilot, I am generally silent. hi
          1. Bongo
            21 June 2016 10: 51
            +9
            Quote: Professor
            I cannot ignore a single "stupid" question.

            Who would doubt that... lol
            Quote: Professor
            The experience of Syria is not an indicator in view of the absence of shock drones in Russia. Bourgeois also used shock drones in Syria. The drone’s flexibility is much greater than that of an attack aircraft, if only because of its duration in the air over a take-off.
            What is flexibility? Yes, the drone can be in the air for a very long time. But will he be able to press fire on a detachment of militants for a long time? No. UAVs have less ability to operate in difficult weather conditions. The drone carries less combat load and a set of weapons and it is more vulnerable.
            Quote: Professor
            About the morally strong-willed qualities of the operator and the pilot, I am generally silent.

            Oleg, and you don’t know how many drones are lost in Afghanistan and Iraq, and mainly for what reason?
            1. Professor
              Professor 21 June 2016 11: 10
              +9
              Quote: Bongo
              What is flexibility?

              Read at your leisure. Interesting horror. Operational Flexibility

              And this is a case study for advanced:
              Operational Flexibility in Complex Enterprises: Case Studies from Recent Military Operations

              Quote: Bongo
              Yes, the drone can be in the air for a very long time. But will he be able to press fire on a detachment of militants for a long time?

              Already it can, and in the near future when there are flocks of drones, the efficiency of drones will increase many times over.

              (write an article)

              Quote: Bongo
              UAVs have less ability to operate in difficult weather conditions.

              More. No problems with overloads and risk to life.

              Quote: Bongo
              The drone carries less combat load and a set of weapons and it is more vulnerable.

              Less load is compensated by the number of drones. The vulnerability is due to the fact that no one is afraid to lose the drone and there is no point in booking it. Trend make drone cheaper.

              Quote: Bongo
              Oleg, and you don’t know how many drones are lost in Afghanistan and Iraq, and mainly for what reason?

              Of course I know, but I also know how much they flew there.
              1. Bongo
                21 June 2016 11: 28
                +5
                Quote: Professor
                Read at your leisure. Interesting horror. Operational Flexibility

                And this is a case study for advanced:
                Operational Flexibility in Complex Enterprises: Case Studies from Recent Military Operations

                Thanks, looked. yes Really interesting.
                Quote: Professor
                More. No problems with overloads and risk to life.

                There is really no risk to the life of the operator, if only the hemorrhoids earn from a long sitting or hot coffee spills on something. laughing
                But with a strong wind or in conditions of poor visibility, the plane is much preferable. The reaction of a well-trained pilot is in any case higher than the reaction of the operator, also the plane has more angular speeds, permissible rolls and overloads.
                Quote: Professor
                Less load is compensated by the number of drones. The vulnerability is due to the fact that no one is afraid to lose the drone and there is no point in booking it. Trend make drone cheaper.

                Of course there is such a trend. yes But let's not talk about the "wonderful future" but about what is now?
                Quote: Professor
                Of course I know, but I also know how much they flew there.

                But they and ground complexes are not as cheap as it is commonly believed, and as already mentioned, many countries do not have modern drones. The same "Supertukano" is much more affordable.
                1. Professor
                  Professor 21 June 2016 12: 28
                  +3
                  Quote: Bongo
                  There is really no risk to the life of the operator, if only the hemorrhoids earn from a long sitting or hot coffee spills on something.

                  You will not believe it, but autopilot does most of the work there too. The operator practically does not engage in piloting. Takeoff and landing are automatic.

                  Quote: Bongo
                  But with a strong wind or in conditions of poor visibility, the plane is much preferable. The reaction of a well-trained pilot is in any case higher than the reaction of the operator, also the plane has more angular speeds, permissible rolls and overloads.

                  You think by the standards of the 20th century. It is necessary to compare the reaction of the computer with the reaction of the pilot. Comp wins.

                  Quote: Bongo
                  But let's not talk about the "wonderful future" but about what is now?

                  Come on. One country I know has already changed all of its Cobras to drones ...

                  Quote: Bongo
                  But they and ground complexes are not as cheap as it is commonly believed, and as already mentioned, many countries do not have modern drones. The same "Supertukano" is much more affordable.

                  Manned aircraft are difficult to reduce in price. Pilot life support systems will never be cheap. One catapult is worth it. Drns will become cheaper (and already cheaper) day by day.
                  1. Bongo
                    21 June 2016 12: 37
                    +4
                    Quote: Professor
                    You will not believe it, but autopilot does most of the work there too. The operator practically does not engage in piloting. Takeoff and landing are automatic.

                    From what? I believe you! wink
                    Quote: Professor
                    Come on. One country I know has already changed all of its Cobras to drones ...

                    Cobras in one country known to me were written off for resource development, but the Apaches remained in this country, right?
                    Quote: Professor
                    Manned aircraft are difficult to reduce in price. Pilot life support systems will never be cheap. One catapult is worth it. Drns will become cheaper (and already cheaper) day by day.

                    I agree, but the drone is different. How many countries have MQ-9 Reaper drones, and how many will appear in the near future?
                    1. Professor
                      Professor 21 June 2016 13: 00
                      +4
                      Quote: Bongo

                      Cobras in one country known to me were written off for resource development, but the Apaches remained in this country, right?

                      There is generally an interesting story. It turned out that only the pilot can be the commander of the air base (and this is a super duper position). So in this country, manned aircraft were left at a very famous air base only so that the general would retain his post. And these Cobras, by the way, presented them to another less well-known country. Soon they will begin to get rid of Apaches.

                      Quote: Bongo
                      I agree, but the drone is different. How many countries have MQ-9 Reaper drones, and how many will appear in the near future?

                      That’s all the salt. The Papuans will soon have drones. There even Iran stamps them.
                      1. Bongo
                        21 June 2016 13: 26
                        +6
                        Quote: Professor
                        There is generally an interesting story. It turned out that only the pilot can be the commander of the air base (and this is a super duper position). So in this country, manned aircraft were left at a very famous air base only so that the general would retain his post. And these Cobras, by the way, presented them to another less well-known country.

                        Some were written off, some were presented, although recently this country is no less famous.
                        Quote: Professor
                        Soon they will begin to get rid of Apaches.
                        Are there really such plans, something I can not believe. No.
                        Quote: Professor
                        That’s all the salt. The Papuans will soon have drones. There even Iran stamps them.

                        As I wrote, drone-drone is different, I haven’t heard something, that someone would buy Iranian drones. At the same time, Israeli exploited a lot where, including in Russia. Creating a drone itself is not too difficult. Another thing is the control equipment, transmission and reception of information and software. You yourself understand this better than me.
                      2. Professor
                        Professor 21 June 2016 13: 49
                        +4
                        Quote: Bongo
                        Are there really such plans, something I can not believe.

                        And think for yourself how much Apache is worth, its maintenance, training of crews. The star song of helicopters was by the way in the same country when cheap and simple turntables at known heights burned the tanks of another country that is very famous today. Now the pinwheel costs 10 times more than the tank, which in turn is incredibly expensive.

                        Quote: Bongo
                        As I wrote, drone-drone is different, I haven’t heard something, that someone would buy Iranian drones. At the same time, Israeli exploited a lot where, including in Russia. Creating a drone itself is not too difficult. Another thing is the equipment for managing, transmitting and receiving information and software. You yourself understand this no worse than me.

                        It’s like a car. Some make Cossacks, others Mercedes. But both cars drive along the roads and carry out their task. Management, payload, etc. are becoming more accessible. Today, even a smartphone is equipped with all the sensors necessary for a drone (GPS, accelerometer, jiro, photo and video camera with high resolution), has a closed data channel for tens of kilometers, it weighs tens of grams and costs about $ 50. (By the way, some fit smartphones to control drones). 5-6 years and the entire payload of the drone will be available in the civilian market. And yes, Iranian drones are already exported. Not everyone needs and not everyone can buy a Mercedes.
                    2. mav1971
                      mav1971 21 June 2016 16: 15
                      +6
                      Quote: Professor

                      Quote: Bongo
                      I agree, but the drone is different. How many countries have MQ-9 Reaper drones, and how many will appear in the near future?

                      That’s all the salt. The Papuans will soon have drones. There even Iran stamps them.


                      Oleg!
                      I do not agree with you.

                      The Papuans can and will have drones, but they will be small with a small radius.
                      For, as I wrote above, the Papuans do not have developed communication channels for controlling these very drones.
                      Guessing about the schemes and MTO control birds such as Riper, you clearly understand that this is possible only for 5-6 countries of the world.
                      And the rest only if the above 5-6 countries allow them to use their communication channels with UAVs.
                2. engineer74
                  engineer74 21 June 2016 16: 41
                  +6
                  Quote: Professor

                  Manned aircraft are difficult to reduce in price. Pilot life support systems will never be cheap. One catapult is worth it. Drns will become cheaper (and already cheaper) day by day.

                  Add: The standards for the design, production and testing of manned aircraft are literally written in blood, this is not a metaphor. And for UAVs - mountains of broken plastic and electronics, which as a result greatly reduces the cost of development and production, shortens the test period, etc. As a result, progress in the development of unmanned aircraft will soon go into an insurmountable gap from the manned one! hi
        2. avt
          avt 21 June 2016 11: 00
          +3
          Quote: Professor
          The experience of Syria is not an indicator due to the lack of shock drones in Russia. Bourgeois also used shock drones in Syria.

          Similarly
          Quote: Professor
          Can't get past any "stupid"

          but already a comment. Where exactly in
          Quote: avt
          By and large, they complement each other, and as the experience of Syria shows _ the presence of UAVs as a means of constant observation and reconnaissance, as well as target designation and confirmation of the bombing results, it is quite possible for them to be charged "airplanes from the category of not cheap, chances for" partisans "in the absence sane air defenses are reduced to a minimum mountain-a-a-azdo faster than using the same L-kami converted into combat ones.

          it is written about the use of the really missing from the Russian aerospace forces in Syria in particular
          Quote: Professor
          shock drones.
          ??
          About the morally strong-willed qualities of the operator and the pilot, I am generally silent.
          laughing But I didn’t even speak at all. And what does the operator even have physical overload tests for? wassat Well, I lost a drone in a combat mission - wait for a new one to be sent .... without a pilot with high moral-volitional qualities and physical fitness.
          . By and large, they complement each other
          but they do not replace in any way, and all the more so, I have never opposed one to the other.
          1. Professor
            Professor 21 June 2016 11: 22
            +2
            Quote: avt
            it is written about the use of the really missing from the Russian aerospace forces in Syria in particular

            I'm about flexibility.

            Quote: avt
            but they do not replace in any way, and all the more so, I have never opposed one to the other.

            They replace it. Look at the number of manned aircraft put into service and the number of drones. The trend is on the face. In a "couple of years" military pilots can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
            1. Maegrom
              Maegrom 29 June 2016 18: 47
              0
              It will be necessary to raise this comment in "a couple" years. What is the scale of the pair and the scope of the thesis - all countries or the third world? In the second case, it may be partly when solving the issue of long-range control or improving the autopilot to the point of indecency, in the first case, specificity is possible due to the use of radio-electronic warfare.
          2. Alex_Tug
            Alex_Tug 21 June 2016 16: 21
            0
            avt (3) RU Today, 11:00 a.m. ↑
            Quote: Professor
            The experience of Syria is not an indicator due to the lack of shock drones in Russia. Bourgeois also used shock drones in Syria.
            Similarly


            Strange you, on YouTube, the shock drone ran away from the SU-35.
            But nobody was going to shoot him down.
        3. Alex_Tug
          Alex_Tug 21 June 2016 16: 37
          +2
          In principle, the American drone is also an indicator.

          1. Operator
            Operator 21 June 2016 16: 52
            +1
            This is not called "leaving", but "intercepted". Another thing is that the Su-35S pilot did not receive a command to defeat the drone.

            In any case, the excellent maneuverability of the Su-35С is visible at the drone's flight speed.
      3. Bongo
        21 June 2016 10: 44
        +5
        Quote: avt
        and training the pilot in comparison with the operator. And then the question is who comes into the practical rather than the theoretical phase, which USs have already passed.

        I see no reason to oppose UAVs, combat helicopters and "toucan class" to each other. The impact capabilities of, say, the same "Archangel" are an order of magnitude greater than that of a drone, and the cost of an hour of flight is several times less than that of a helicopter.
        Quote: avt
        By and large, they complement each other, and as the experience of Syria shows, the presence of UAVs as a means of constant observation and reconnaissance, as well as target designation and confirmation of the results of bombing, is quite self-sufficient, charged "airplanes from the category of not cheap, chances for" partisans "in the absence sane air defenses are reduced to a minimum mountain-a-a-azdo faster than using the same L-kami converted into combat ones.

        I agree with this, but again, not all countries have UAVs and "charged" airplanes. Some are forced to save. However, the same Americans successfully used "agricultural attack aircraft" in Colombia, although drones also took part in the operations.
  5. mav1971
    mav1971 21 June 2016 15: 59
    +9
    Quote: avt
    wassat This is strong! USA must show it! And then they, suckers pedal, someone imagined that UAVs are cheaper to use remotely than a flyer on some sort of controlled airplane they send to the battle zone. laughing Although Africans and what you will not write in an advertising booklet for the sake of the future gesheft.



    Once again about causal relationships.
    You again and again miss the most important parameter.

    An impact UAV needs developed and secure communication channels with a range of 500-1000km, perhaps even (in the case of strategic UAVs) a satellite constellation is required to ensure full communication.
    In addition to the United States, Russia, NATO, Israel, China and India - so far no one can do it.
    If only the seller from among the above will not share his channel.

    Accordingly, no other country in the world can independently lay claim to an independent combat full-size drone with an independent solution for use in isolation!

    That's just why drones are the lot of the "elite", inaccessible to everyone else.
  • Winnie76
    Winnie76 21 June 2016 10: 52
    +1
    SAMs spread around the world, good and different. And in this light, the prospects for full-size 4-5 generation aircraft are vague, to say nothing of these corn mills. Will a Su-27 type fighter be able to work in the area of ​​the S-300 type air defense system without its suppression, the question is ...

    For example, in the Donbass, aviation is clearly not in trend, why would it ... But after all, there were quite serious machines for themselves, far from Toucans with machine guns
    1. Bongo
      21 June 2016 11: 06
      +6
      Quote: Winnie76
      SAMs spread around the world, good and different.

      This is not supported by statistics. No. The number of full-fledged air defense systems in the "third world" countries in recent years has greatly decreased due to the banal development of the resource and the lack of money to buy modern ones.
      Quote: Winnie76
      Will a Su-27 type fighter be able to operate in the area of ​​the S-300 type air defense system without suppressing it, the question is ...
      This is not a question, most likely it will not be able, although it is not clear what you mean by the word "work". The impact capabilities of even the upgraded Su-27SM are minimal. But among the countries of the "third world" I don't know a single one where there would be S-300P request
      Quote: Winnie76
      For example, in the Donbass, aviation is clearly not in trend, why would it ... But after all, there were quite serious machines for themselves, far from Toucans with machine guns

      The state of combat aviation in Ukraine is deplorable, as is the level of combat training of most pilots. And compare, for the sake of interest, the Su-25 PRNK with the Supertukano, AT-6 or with the latest version of the Archangel.
      1. alexmach
        alexmach 22 June 2016 09: 51
        +1
        Will a Su-27 fighter be able to work in the zone of operation of an S-300 type air defense system without its suppression, the question is ..



        This is not a question, most likely it will not, although

        Flying at low altitudes, hiding behind the terrain (if any)?
  • Operator
    Operator 21 June 2016 11: 03
    -5
    The article is full of enthusiasm for the Western wunderwafers, which in fact are completely sucks compared to the Russian Yak-130 and CP-10, the name of the first of which is mentioned only for a tick, and the author did not consider it necessary to mention the existence of the second, while the one built in the only a copy of the American Scorpion is painted as allegedly in high demand among customers.

    Excellent article for Maarehot magazine, cho.
    1. Bongo
      21 June 2016 11: 10
      +6
      Quote: Operator
      The article is full of enthusiasm for the Western wunderwafers, which in fact are completely sucks

      True? Well, what else to expect from you? As always in your repertoire - throw yourself poop ... negative
      Quote: Operator
      whereas the American Scorpion built in a single copy is painted as supposedly in great demand among customers.

      stop Please quote where it says about "crazy demand"? fool
  • Alex_Tug
    Alex_Tug 21 June 2016 12: 18
    +3
    Quote: Operator
    The article is full of enthusiasm for the Western wunderwafers, which in fact are completely sucks compared to the Russian Yak-130 and CP-10, the name of the first of which is mentioned only for a tick, and the author did not consider it necessary to mention the existence of the second, while the one built in the only a copy of the American Scorpion is painted as allegedly in high demand among customers.

    Excellent article for Maarehot magazine, cho.


    The CP-10 also seems to be in a single copy, Scorpion is also not available due to the lack of orders, although it is considered as one of the options to replace the Warthog.
    1. Bongo
      21 June 2016 12: 31
      +4
      Quote: Alex_Tug
      CP-10 also seems to be in a single copy

      There is very little information about this aircraft and its prospects are foggy. request
      Quote: Alex_Tug
      Scorpion is also not available due to lack of orders, although it is considered as one of the options to replace the Warthog.
      As far as I know, the full test cycle of the "Scorpion" has not yet been completed, and it is unlikely that it will be able to serve as a full replacement for the A-10. If it will be used, then when working on the ground, the stake will be made on controlled weapons.
      As for the rest, I have not taken the statements of the "Operator" seriously for a long time.
    2. Operator
      Operator 21 June 2016 14: 21
      -1
      A gop-company of the three "coolest" firms Textron, AirLand Enterprises and Cessna (which have never built a single jet before) has proactively developed a light attack aircraft in the 10-ton class for the US Air Force. The Air Force sent them far and for a long time (since now the main trend in developed countries is the development of UAVs of all types and classes, with the exception of fighters and bombers).

      Lead member Textron left the project, after which Scorpion died. The project was initially doomed due to an absolutely ineffective aerodynamic scheme with an integrated tail unit, suitable only for aircraft with a high thrust-to-weight ratio, controlled thrust vector and, most importantly, equipped with fly-by-wire control of the deflected surfaces of the tail. Scorpion had neither one nor the other, nor the third.

      Compare, for example, this marketing victim with a classmate Yak-130, already released in a series for 100 units, the production of which continues - aluminum glider (cheap and maintainable), 100-percent digital control system, fully display representation of information in the cabin, engine production localized in Russia .

      CP-10 is tested to obtain a certificate of airworthiness, after which it will be built in series. CP-10 in its class of 2,5 tons has no analogues in the world even in the drawings - innovative, reactive, highly maneuverable, with a minimum cost of acquisition and operation among classmates.

      The Russian estimate of the capacity of the export market of the Yak-130 in the version of a light attack aircraft and TCB to developing countries to replace 10-15 tons of exhausted aircraft with a take-off weight is 2500 units. The capacity of the export market of CP-10 in the variant of an ultralight strike aircraft and TCB in the same countries can be estimated at hundreds of units.

      Against this background, the author of the article, under the applause of the Israelis, is trying to rub in the myth of the existence of any intelligible alternative to these Russian aircraft abroad.
      1. Alex_Tug
        Alex_Tug 21 June 2016 15: 37
        +2
        Operator RU Today, 14:21 ↑
        Against this background, the author of the article, under the applause of the Israelis, is trying to rub in the myth of the existence of any intelligible alternative to these Russian aircraft abroad.


        Joint development with the Yak-130.
        The M-346 is a product of Alenia Aermacchi, now part of Leonardo Aircraft and part of Leonardo Finmeccanica, and so far has been ordered by the Air Forces of Italy (18), Singapore (12), Israel (30) and Poland ( 8) for a total of 68 orders.
        (Translate laziness, so understandable)
        1. Operator
          Operator 21 June 2016 17: 07
          -1
          The Yak-130 was considered a joint Russian-Italian development, but in fact it was designed from beginning to end in the Yakovlev Design Bureau, the participation of Italians was limited to financing the project. Now, on the basis of this development, there are two separate aircraft - the Yak-130 and Aermacchi M-346 (it differs twice as much in price, a glider with partial use of composites, engines and avionics).

          The first was produced in quantities of about 100, the second - about 50, of which it was delivered to third world countries: Israeli Air Force 20 units (10 still planned), Singapore 12 units and Poland 8 units (signed contract).

          That is why the author of the article and the Israeli participants in VO so diligently ignore the Yak-130 - they do not want to recognize the adoption by the IDF of the modification of the Russian aircraft.
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 21 June 2016 17: 22
            +6
            "The Israeli participants in the VO so diligently keep silent about the Yak-130 - they do not want to recognize the adoption by the IDF of the modification of the Russian aircraft" ////

            Why feel shy? - Russian, so Russian drinks .
            The glider is good at Yakovlev, we took its Italian version.
            1. Operator
              Operator 21 June 2016 17: 59
              -1
              An additional bonus - you can easily switch from the UTS Yak-130 to the MFI Su-35С with Israeli avionics (for example, the Penguins surrendered to you) laughing
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. Alex_Tug
            Alex_Tug 21 June 2016 18: 08
            +4
            Actually, the Yak-130 is higher than the level of the topic of the article. It is you who climbed onto the URA patriotism. Therefore, I did not comment on anything about the Yak-130.
            1. Operator
              Operator 21 June 2016 18: 28
              -3
              If you haven’t noticed, the F-16 appears in the article with twice as much weight and price.

              And yet, yes - it was very liberal of you to compare Yak-130 with An-3 in comments.
      2. Alex_Tug
        Alex_Tug 21 June 2016 16: 00
        +1
        Operator RU Today, 14:21 ↑
        100 percent digital control system, fully display cab information


        To be surprised again? This is no super-duper plane. Just a class like AN-3.
        Asked a flight plan, switched to autopilot and smoke to the destination airfield.
        1. Operator
          Operator 21 June 2016 17: 20
          -1
          Do you understand the phrase "digital control system" only as a way of displaying information on displays, and not on traditional aircraft instruments with scales?

          Actually, this means a complete break in the direct connection between the aircraft controls and the deflected aerodynamic surfaces and the engine. Communication is exclusively through a computer to electric and hydraulic drives, while the computer can simulate the controllability of the TCB from Su-27 to Tu-160. In the combat version, the computer allows stable piloting of the aircraft at supercritical modes.

          The computer also simulates Yak-130 air battles with virtual targets that have the characteristics of specific models of aircraft, helicopters and cruise missiles of a potential enemy.

          Why mention the An-3 with its autopilot from the last century?
          1. Alex_Tug
            Alex_Tug 21 June 2016 18: 11
            +3
            He wrote that the AN-3 class jet (9 passengers), and not the AN-3.
            As for avionics, I don’t need to train, I have been working in this industry for 15 years.

            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. Operator
              Operator 21 June 2016 18: 38
              -1
              No need to mix an unmatched digital combat training system Yak-130 with a digital system of passenger aircraft.

              It's cool, of course, to count the An-3 and Pilatus PC-12 in the same "businessjet" class, based on their passenger capacity (as Omsk people will be delighted) laughing

              The only one in nature An-3 was developed by the Kiev Antonov Design Bureau, produced in a small series from 2000 to 2009 by the Omsk PO Polet
              1. Alex_Tug
                Alex_Tug 21 June 2016 19: 09
                +6
                In order:
                - why there are no analogues. the F-35 also has the same displays. Not only displays, but also systems projecting data on helmet glasses, on cab glass.
                - In principle, the AN-3 can be used as a business jet, make a normal cabin and add a little speed (for some reason, Omsk people do not know about it). They are also released pieces 10-12 only. How agricultural aircraft can be used easier. Let's say BEKASY.
                It seems that Irkut is going to attach wings from the composite to them.
                1. Operator
                  Operator 21 June 2016 19: 35
                  -1
                  On F-35, a computer is not able to simulate control of any other aircraft (God forbid the Penguin avionics to cope with the Penguin himself), as well as simulate aerial combat with a virtual aircraft (with real overloads, which ground simulators lack).

                  This is precisely what distinguishes the Yak-130, which has no analogues, from all other aircraft, both training and combat.

                  One should be proud of this world achievement, and not label the jingoists.
                  1. Alex_Tug
                    Alex_Tug 21 June 2016 22: 16
                    +5
                    Operator RU Today, 19:35 ↑ New
                    On F-35, a computer is not able to simulate control of any other aircraft (God forbid the Penguin avionics to cope with the Penguin himself), as well as simulate aerial combat with a virtual aircraft (with real overloads, which ground simulators lack).

                    This is precisely what distinguishes the Yak-130, which has no analogues, from all other aircraft, both training and combat.

                    One should be proud of this world achievement, and not label the jingoists.


                    Let's decide:
                    - Participated in software development?
                    - Participated in software testing?
                    - Give me at least one example of an erroneous program code for the Yak-130 and how it was fixed. (There were tens of thousands of these errors in the first version).

                    If you don’t have this in the mess, then this is URA patriotism.

                    And answer the little question:
                    1)
                    float a
                    float b
                    float c = a * b
                    float d = c
                    d = d + 2
                    2)
                    float a
                    float b
                    float d = a * b
                    d = d + 2
                    In which version of the code is the error for aviation (it may turn out to be fatal)? Formally, in no case is there an error. And explain why.
                    1. Operator
                      Operator 22 June 2016 09: 32
                      -1
                      I didn’t pass pigs with you, therefore, you.

                      Do not engage in demagogy: it is known that the Yak-130 software is not working - please report, no - do not flood.

                      Engage in applied programming at work, for example, I have system programming (developing a DBMS).
                      1. Alex_Tug
                        Alex_Tug 22 June 2016 21: 27
                        +4
                        If you didn’t herd the pigs ... then don’t pull the patriot with a bang. Error in option 1). On a superjet (option 1), sometimes it knocks out an air conditioning system (not critical, it will fly and land ... inconvenience for the crew and passengers). And about the Yak-130 I will not say anything. (infa is not for the site). There is a catapult for pilots, unlike a superjet.
      3. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 21 June 2016 18: 40
        +4
        "the myth of the existence abroad of any intelligible alternative to these Russian aircraft." ////

        There is a South Korean T-50. But it is already supersonic. More likely combat
        than training.
        He was against the Italian Yak at a tender for Air Force
        1. Operator
          Operator 21 June 2016 20: 12
          -2
          KAI T-50 Golden Eagle - a painfully healthy fool (13,5 tons) for the TCB with outdated avionics of the 2003 model of the year. In addition, the cost of operating with an 8 engine thrust is over the top.
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 21 June 2016 23: 46
            +5
            The Korean T-50 is a simplified F-16. As a combat aircraft, he is superior to the Yak-30,
            but as a training one, it is redundant. Therefore, Israel chose the Italian Yak.
            Although, they say, it was a "gift" from Natanyahu for Berlusconi. They are friends.
            In my opinion, military ties with Korea are much more important for Israel than with Italy.
            Be that as it may, the Yak-130 is an excellent training aircraft.
            1. Operator
              Operator 22 June 2016 09: 47
              -1
              KAI T-50 Golden Eagle - completely sucks 2003 model of the year. South Koreans understand - have experience - in the aircraft industry like a pig in oranges laughing

              In terms of flight performance, the KAI T-50's analogue is not the F-16 fighter (take-off weight 21,7 tons), but the Jaguar fighter (15,5 tons.)

              Aermacchi threatens to launch a single-seat combat version of the M-346 within a year or two.
              1. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 22 June 2016 11: 17
                +3
                "South Koreans understand - have experience - in aircraft construction like a pig in oranges laughing" ////

                Do you seem to look down on South Korea? belay
                They export high-tech products at 500 billion a year.
                with GDP of 1,4 trillion.
                South Korea, by the way, is number 1 in the world for innovation.
                1. Operator
                  Operator 22 June 2016 12: 10
                  0
                  I can not say anything about South Korean civilian exports.

                  I can say about Russian arms exports - a lot and very high-tech (second place in the world, so far).

                  In the BT business, South Korea smokes bamboo even when compared to a small country like Israel.
      4. The comment was deleted.
  • engineer74
    engineer74 21 June 2016 12: 50
    +5
    Thanks, great article! good
    At the moment, in our country there is no inexpensive lightweight “export” fighter. A combat aircraft created on the basis of the Yak-130 TCB could occupy this niche, but so far no progress has been seen in this direction.
    Now is not the time to ship the aviation industry with purely exported products ...
    Wangyu: the demand for cheap and angry ZU-23-2 and ZU-23-4 "Shilka" will soon increase, it's time to restore production! smile
    IMHO
  • Odysseus
    Odysseus 21 June 2016 12: 53
    +1
    A very interesting and informative article. Thanks to the author.
    But I fundamentally disagree with the initial thesis. The fate of the war is decided on the ground. The ground forces are the key to victory. Lordship in the air, although important, but still a secondary factor.
    The only exception is the situation when the countries do not have a common border, and one of the opposing sides "bombs without restrictions", that is, uses all of its arsenal, including nuclear weapons. Then, yes, air supremacy can become a decisive factor. In all other cases, everything is decided on the ground.
    But this, so to speak, is a remark along the way. From a purely aviation point of view, the article is very useful and informative.
    1. Bongo
      21 June 2016 13: 30
      +9
      Quote: Odyssey
      But I fundamentally disagree with the initial thesis. The fate of the war is decided on the ground. The ground forces are the key to victory. Lordship in the air, although important, but still a secondary factor.

      Sorry, but as a former Air Defense Officer, with all due respect, I can not agree with you. Without air supremacy and effective protection of their troops and objects from air strikes, victory is impossible. And numerous wars and conflicts of the second half of the 20-th and the beginning of the 21-th century only confirm this.
      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus 21 June 2016 16: 13
        +3
        Quote: Bongo

        Sorry, but as a former Air Defense Officer, with all due respect, I can not agree with you.

        So after all, I am not a "landowner" either. But professional preferences should not overshadow the truth from us.
        Quote: Bongo
        And numerous wars and conflicts of the second half of the 20th and beginning of the 21st century only confirm this.

        Well, let's take a look at all the major ongoing conflicts.
        1) The war in the Donbass. The role of aviation is zero. Moreover, the use of aviation by Ukraine Maidan created significant image problems for it.
        2) The war in Yemen. The coalition’s aviation was very powerful, it bombed in purely polygon conditions. The result was zero. Moreover, even the coalition’s absolute technological superiority in land weapons did not work. The old conclusion only confirmed that motivation and the ability to fight, and not number of weapons.
        3) The war in Syria. This is generally "some kind of shame" (Shvonder TM). ISIS is bombed by the whole world for 2 years, and even if only henna. Moreover, until three ground coalitions were created: the Iraqi-Iranian, The Kurdish-American and Syrian-Russian ISIS under the bombing perfectly expanded their territory.
        4) The war in Afghanistan. Also an impressive example. The USA with satellites bombed the Taliban for about 15 years, and things are still there. Moreover, the Taliban are successfully fighting the puppet Afghan army.
        5) The war in Libya. Finally, the first example where aviation played at least some role. But the role is very small. All the actions of the combined European Air Force plus US Air Force assistance were limited to the military potential of the Libyan army, and bombed again in the proving ground. To the West to bribe Libyan tribes and create a strange coalition of Islamists, Arab mercenaries and Western special forces.
        The general conclusion is that the role of aviation is very small. Moreover, now, in the age of the Internet, when it has become difficult to hide the "carpet bombing" and for image reasons, the Air Force has to switch to "pinpoint bombings", the role of aviation began to fall even in comparison with the 50-we-60-we for years.
        The Air Force, of course, can play a big role, but only in a very limited number of conflicts.
        For example, for Russia, the Air Force and Air Defense play an important role only in the event of a reflection of NATO’s global aerospace attack, then they give time for a retaliatory counter-strike for the strategic missile forces that play a decisive role. In all other hypothetical conflicts, the ground forces and the Strategic Missile Forces decide everything.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 21 June 2016 16: 42
          +7
          Your analysis, in my opinion, is erroneous.
          Before any war, there are always 3 outcomes: victory, draw, loss.
          Dominance in the air immediately provides at least a draw.
          Sometimes air domination is not enough to win - I agree.
          But losing is no longer possible. And this is an important psychological factor.

          "Uf-f" - I will not lose, half of the work is done, you can calmly, without nerves, think about how to win with the least losses in manpower.
          1. Odysseus
            Odysseus 21 June 2016 17: 18
            +2
            Quote: voyaka uh
            Before any war, there are always 3 outcomes: victory, draw, loss.

            There are more options, for example, France formally won the FDA, and de facto lost. But we are already moving on to another topic.
            Quote: voyaka uh
            Dominance in the air immediately provides at least a draw.
            Sometimes air domination is not enough to win - I agree.
            But losing is no longer possible. And this is an important psychological factor.

            I disagree. An example - the War in Vietnam. The Golden Age of Aviation - "genocidal" carpet bombing was still possible. The USA had air supremacy, the Air Force and Air Defense of North Vietnam only partially covered their troops. So what ? Did the US help the B-52 armada? No, their combined army with South Vietnam was thrown into the sea.
            And besides, of course, I do not deny the factor of the importance of dominance in the air. I already wrote that this is significant, but in most cases, nevertheless secondary factor.
        2. Operator
          Operator 21 June 2016 17: 34
          -1
          Your roof went off about Syria - it was the Russian Aerospace Forces that broke the situation in the Civil War in Assad’s favor and have now begun to grind ISIS.

          Where did you see the contraction of the territory controlled by the Syrian government - exactly the opposite, since the deployment of the Russian air base in Khmeimim, it has grown significantly and, most importantly, has become coherent.

          At the moment, government troops have broken into the province of Raqqah and are conducting an attack on the capital of ISIS due to the total destruction by the Russian limited contingent from the air of any concentration of the enemy - arms depots, command centers, strongholds. Another thing is that for non-military, political reasons, Russia does not want to do all the work for the Syrian government (the experience of Afghanistan is taken into account).

          The Russian Aerospace Forces does not use shock drones in Syria for a simple reason - to bomb stationary objects of slippers from a height of 6000 meters outside the reach of MANPADS, cast iron + computer sights on board manned aircraft are enough.

          Reconnaissance drones in terms of opening ground targets and monitoring the effectiveness of strikes are used by the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria to the fullest.
          1. Odysseus
            Odysseus 22 June 2016 00: 36
            +2
            Quote: Operator
            Your roof went off about Syria - it was the Russian Aerospace Forces that broke the situation in the Civil War in Assad’s favor and have now begun to grind ISIS.
            Where did you see the contraction of the territory controlled by the Syrian government - exactly the opposite, since the deployment of the Russian air base in Khmeimim, it has grown significantly and, most importantly, has become coherent.

            This is called "in the garden of an elder. And in Kiev, uncle." Please read what I wrote about the war in Syria - "This is generally" some kind of shame "(Shvonder TM). ISIS has been bombing the whole world for 2 years, and At least they would have henna. Moreover, until three ground-based coalitions were created: the Iraqi-Iranian, Kurdish-American, and Syrian-Russian ISIS was perfectly expanding its territory under the bombing. "
            And then read what you write in your quote. You simply did not understand what I wrote.
            Quote: Operator
            it was the Russian aerospace forces that broke the situation in the civil war in Assad’s favor

            This is essentially false and does not apply to the war with ISIS.
            First: the army of Syria, Hezbollah, Iranian volunteers are fighting. This is the main force, and not the VKS or Syrian aviation.
            Secondly: there is no "turning point". Assad is fighting not only with ISIS, but also with the "democratic" opposition on the Northern and Southern fronts. And the main strategic problem is the open border with Turkey and Jordan. Until it is resolved by ground forces there will be no break.
            1. Operator
              Operator 22 June 2016 09: 54
              -1
              You argued that Assad is losing controlled territories, while everyone knows that from the moment the RF Aerospace Forces entered the battle, Assad only began to expand them.

              This is called a turning point in the war.
              1. Odysseus
                Odysseus 22 June 2016 23: 19
                +4
                Quote: Operator
                You argued that Assad is losing controlled territories, while everyone knows that from the moment the RF Aerospace Forces entered the battle, Assad only began to expand them.

                Here zhezh damn. Once again, the quote- "" some kind of shame "(Shvonder TM). ISIS bombed by the whole world for 2 years, and at least henna. Moreover, until three ground coalitions were created: Iraqi-Iranian , Kurdish-American
                sky, and the Syrian-Russian ISIS under the bombing perfectly increased its territory "
                It says that before three were created ground ISIS coalition under bombing expanded its territory. What does Assad have to do with it? Not Assad lost, but ISIS expanded. Do you understand the difference? Or do you not know who is fighting with whom?
                I explain: after the beginning of the US air operation and ISIS satellites successfully attacked Iraq and northern Syria against pro-American rebels. Assad has nothing to do with it. And by the way, after the start of our operation, its main target was pro-American rebels in the north, and not ISIS at all. This is now during "truce" ISIS main goal.
                Quote: Operator
                This is called a turning point in the war.

                Assad’s image-building operation doesn’t strategically change Assad’s position. A turning point will come if you can close the border. And here you need to deal with pro-American rebels, and not with ISIS.
    2. mav1971
      mav1971 21 June 2016 16: 21
      +5
      Quote: Odyssey
      A very interesting and informative article. Thanks to the author.
      But I fundamentally disagree with the initial thesis. The fate of the war is decided on the ground. The ground forces are the key to victory. Lordship in the air, although important, but still a secondary factor.


      One fact.
      With the overwhelming air superiority of the "ground forces" there is no logistics support as a class. Basically.
      For it is easier to destroy than troops, and the effect is much stronger.
      1 conventional fuel truck = estimated loss of combat capability of 10 tanks.
      Etc.
      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus 21 June 2016 17: 04
        +3
        Quote: mav1971
        With the overwhelming air superiority of the "ground forces" there is no logistics support as a class. Basically.
        For it is easier to destroy than troops, and the effect is much stronger.

        The criterion of truth is practice. And practice, for example, shows that the United Air Force of the whole world (except the PRC) is unable to liquidate the rear support of even such an insignificant enemy as ISIS, which is quite logical if it is possible to spend fuel for each machine on an expensive guided missile, then even the United States can fly into the pipe.
        But there, the Air Force bombed without any resistance and in ideal desert conditions. So your example does not work.
        1. mav1971
          mav1971 21 June 2016 17: 07
          +3
          Quote: Odyssey
          Quote: mav1971
          With the overwhelming air superiority of the "ground forces" there is no logistics support as a class. Basically.
          For it is easier to destroy than troops, and the effect is much stronger.

          The criterion of truth is practice. And practice, for example, shows that the United Air Force of the whole world (except the PRC) is unable to liquidate the rear support of even such an insignificant enemy as ISIS, which is quite logical if it is possible to spend fuel for each machine on an expensive guided missile, then even the United States can fly into the pipe.
          But there, the Air Force bombed without any resistance and in ideal desert conditions. So your example does not work.


          Look at decentralized systems.
          And compare them, for example, with existing military support systems.
          Those. that which is unable to corrode in a partisan war is easily cleaned up with a regular army and vice versa.
          1. Odysseus
            Odysseus 21 June 2016 17: 34
            +1
            Quote: mav1971
            Those. that which is unable to corrode in a partisan war is easily cleaned up with a regular army and vice versa.

            Please give a specific example of this "easily". And then your reasoning is abstract. I have already given many examples, I can still-
            The war in Vietnam. The USA, plus their Vietnamese puppets, are fighting the regular army of North Vietnam. Genocide bombing is still possible, the United States uses all its power.
            So what ? They destroyed the supply system of the Vietnamese army. Not at all.
            The maximum that aviation is capable of fighting against a weak enemy makes it difficult to supply the regular army. And then, for example, the moral factor from bombing is more significant than the factor of disruption of logistics. Example-Desert Storm.
            1. mav1971
              mav1971 21 June 2016 22: 32
              +2
              Quote: Odyssey

              Please give a specific example of this "easy". Otherwise, your reasoning is abstract.


              Iraq wars are both.
              Yugoslavia.
              Libya.
              Arab-Israeli war.
              where there was a regular army as a target, all rear service was "carried out" immediately and irrevocably.
              For it works systemically. Centrally.

              Or do you think that hundreds of Tomahawks and thousands of sorties went only against tanks and headquarters?

              All that you describe as examples are semi-partisan wars.
              I’m talking about attempts to confront regular armies.
              We have a regular army, NATO has a regular army - therefore, just as I described and will act in the event of a military confrontation, both sides.
              1. Odysseus
                Odysseus 22 June 2016 00: 46
                +1
                Quote: mav1971
                Iraq wars are both.
                Yugoslavia.
                Libya.
                Arab-Israeli war.
                where there was a regular army as a target, all rear service was "carried out" immediately and irrevocably.
                For it works systemically. Centrally.

                Your examples only confirm the decisive role of the ground forces. Even in Libya, in ideal conditions, the air forces did not become a decisive factor. If there were no land operation, Gaddafi would still be in power.
                But even on the narrow issue of destroying logistics support, you exaggerate the power of aviation. In Yugoslavia, with a pure air operation of the army, insignificant damage was inflicted, in Iraq the creation of a giant coalition made logistical support for the army difficult, but in general the army continued to function, where there were big problems with the moral condition of the troops.
                In Libya, in absolutely polygon conditions, the maximum that was achieved was the disruption of the Gaddafi army's offensive in the desert.
              2. Odysseus
                Odysseus 22 June 2016 00: 56
                +1
                Quote: mav1971
                Our army is regular, NATO has a regular army - therefore, just as I described and will act in the event of a military confrontation - both sides

                In the event of NATO aggression against Russia (the reverse is unrealistic), the Air Force will really play an important role, I already wrote about this. But there is nothing to do with rear support.
                NATO Air Force - release as many KR as possible to destroy strategic missile forces and headquarters, plus KR with nuclear weapons.
                The Russian Air Force - destroy as many KR as possible or, ideally, their carriers, creating additional opportunities for attacking the Strategic Missile Forces. For strategic aviation, strike at targets in Europe using KR with nuclear weapons.
                In a word, the decisive role will belong to the carriers of nuclear weapons. The rest is just their support.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • sivuch
    sivuch 22 June 2016 00: 58
    0
    Sergei
    regarding pr. 33-it would be nice to clarify
    Here
    http://www.almanacwhf.ru/?no=4&art=8
    write a little differently
    And here is the same Alexei Zakharov rode on projects
    http://forums.airbase.ru/2005/11/t35600,7--v-rossii-mozhet-byt-razrabotan-odnodv
    igatelnyj-istrebitel-py.html
  • Arikkhab
    Arikkhab 22 June 2016 14: 39
    0
    "the Americans created an" export "fighter F-5, which did not stand out for its high flight characteristics" ... it did not stand out so much that not only the MiG-21, but also the MiG-23 won in training battles ???
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 22 June 2016 15: 00
      0
      Yeah, that’s what they write on most sites — first the Tiger piled on the 21st, and then the Mig-23M.
      Regarding the latter, it was not quite so
    2. Operator
      Operator 22 June 2016 15: 43
      -1
      F-5 is a combat version of the T-38 TCB with more powerful engines and increased weight. Production ceased in the year 1986. F-5 is in service with Saudi Arabia, Taiwan and Iran.

      The take-off weight of the F-5 is equal to 11,5 tons, i.e. he is a classmate of the Yak-130 / Aermacchi M-346 weighing 10,3 tons. According to its performance characteristics, the combat F-5 completely merges the Yak-130 trainer: thrust-weight ratio, respectively, 0,2 and 0,5 t / ts, specific load on the wing 664 and 434 kg / sq.m.

      Aermacchi M-346 from the Air Force AOI
  • exo
    exo 23 June 2016 17: 59
    0
    There are great doubts about the quality of Chinese airplanes. The advertising characteristics are, of course, good. But they don’t really believe in them. On the example of their cars: beautiful shell and very mediocre quality. In principle, they do not make very good copies. I think that the myth about the high qualities of the JF-17, will scatter after the first conflict, where on the opposite side there will be Russian or Western cars, close to it, generations. Especially if the JF-17 will have engines made in China.
    1. alexmach
      alexmach 23 June 2016 18: 09
      +3
      But you do not seem that these are incomparable things. And how many Chinese cars have you seen? Consumer goods, especially the economy class, are one thing quite expensive military equipment. Different manufacturers, different quality control systems ....

      I think that the myth of the high qualities of the JF-17 will be dispelled after the very first conflict, where on the opposite side there will be Russian or Western cars of a generation close to it.


      What kind of cars are those close to his generation? Who else has such cars at all?
      1. exo
        exo 26 June 2016 13: 54
        +1
        I have seen enough Chinese cars. From cars to tow trucks. Their owners are not thrilled. The only plus is the price. As soon as the opportunity arose, they got rid of them.
        On the quality of construction of Chinese ships, there are a lot of reviews on the network. Although, here: http: //www.surpr.ru/novosti/suda-kitayskoy-postroyki397/
        Horseradish quality. And this is already closer to the defense industry.
        Aircraft close to JF-17: F-16, the last blocks. Swedish Gripen. Our MiG-29SMT, which we got from Algeria, I think that the MiG-29 of India, after modernization, is unlikely to be worse.
        Engines, even such as the ancient D-30KP, China cannot copy normally yet. Also, an indicator.
  • Idel
    Idel 28 November 2016 19: 21
    0
    I think that the author correctly established the tendency of transition, in some cases, to light bombers. I myself recently wrote a letter on this subject addressed to the President of Russia. It was transported, as expected, in Mo. There is no answer for a month now and this is not surprising. It is not surprising because in some moments, our defense department is extremely slow. It is enough to recall our failure with the UAV. Well, the military commanders did not see them in modern combat. Yes, that was: Flight and all sorts of bees, but everything, like in Soviet, childish, without imagination. Meanwhile, the adversary developed this direction. Even the Israelis did something there on their knees. And this despite the fact that Russia has an excellent aviation school, a sufficient electronics base. But there was no need. Rather, she was, but not in the minds of the captains.
    It must be admitted that the events in Syria have convincingly shown that there is a need for "toucan class" aircraft. Where ultra-modern aviation is being burned up millions of rubles, small aircraft could easily cope with it for negligible money. The trouble is that we have "higher, higher and higher ...". Money is not considered comme il faut. Moreover, they are not out of their own pockets, but the fact that the war is the hardest test for the economy: it is not a headache for the military. There are economists - let them think. He is a military man (although I myself am a military man, but not like that).
    So here. Russia needs a light bomber. Not a ground attack aircraft, but a bomber. And not even a bomber, but a reconnaissance and strike platform. In Ukraine, aviation was cleverly beaten by primitive means. The experience of Syria has shown that solving problems using SVP-24 is very comfortable. I got on the echelon of 4 km and bomb as much as you want. Identify targets in real time, coordinate with KP and destroy. UAVs are intercepted (this is a discussion of UAV champions) and the trend will only intensify. The carpool and similar systems begin their victorious development. There is no point in arguing.
    Let's try to determine what such a plane should be.
    I think that definitely should be double: a pilot and a weapon operator. Engines? ICE And not just an internal combustion engine, but with air cooling. Why? Less susceptible to damaging elements. ICEs are more economical than pipe propellers, which means they can be in the air much more. How many? Hours 6. This means that the plane must provide where to pee. So, the pilots must sit in one row (the logic is clear?). In addition, with this arrangement of pilots, you can significantly save on electronics, eliminating its duplication, and this is good money.
    Carrying capacity up to 1 ton. Such aircraft are not intended to destroy armadas of tanks. Terrorists, partisans, drug dealers ... He identified the target, put a bomb of 250 kg. Few? repeated.
    Speed. 500-600. Ceiling. Not more than 5000. Naturally, take-off from non-equipped runways.
    And most importantly, the price. The ICE is simple, cheap and excellent in operation, which means that the whole aircraft will be cheap. For such aircraft, pilot training, like fighter jets, will not be required. The military personnel of South America, Africa and other regions can easily master it. Export potential is great.
    Now I think how great it would be if in Afghanistan we had such an aircraft for direct support of the troops. He was really lacking there. I will never forget requesting air support. The Mi-24 arrived. Spun around. They asked to identify themselves, and we were surrounded. Designated. The pilot says: "Sorry, friend: I'm leaving for the base for fuel ...."