Military Review

Kalashnikov with wings

135
Since Soviet times, it has happened that all weaponwhich the adversary can boast of, must have a domestic counterpart. Although our experience says: there are far more effective means of struggle than copying ideas. And than trying to catch up, especially in areas where we are not particularly strong, would it not be better to look for other solutions that would negate the technological advantages of the likely adversary?


F-22 "Raptor" - a car of prohibitive cost, approaching three hundred and more than millions of dollars, and with a minimum serial production for the fighter (one hundred forty-five pieces). According to common sense, this "bird of prey" can hardly be attributed to a new generation of combat aircraft with the possibility of widespread and mass application. But it so happened with the notorious fifth generation that the ambitious Americans themselves came up with a new brand, believed in it and swelled crazy money. Well, it's a master's business. But why and why on aviation a gamble we succumbed to our PAK FA?

We are comforted that it will cost much less — a hundred million. Thank you, of course, but why pay a hundred million for a plane that, at best, will be able to produce in quantities of 50 – 70 units? And then, if it comes to production. All this takes place in a country where the basis of the Air Force (now the VKS) is still made up of Soviet-built airplanes (70 – 80-s) and which barely copes with the production of 60 – 70 military and military transport aircraft for its VKS a year.

The race for Americans on the same laid track is hopeless and senseless. We still won't be able to catch up, but for some reason we try to participate in their stupidity as an outsider and a loser. There also Chinese. But American manners with our Russian poverty and accumulated technological backwardness are no longer just wasteful.

Russia's lack of complexes about the fifth generation has several explanations. Perhaps, even since the Soviet times, our fears of falling behind the Americans in something very important, substantial and permanent rivalry with them are having an effect. But there is no Union with its power, and such reflection is inappropriate. But no. Having crushed our giant aviation industry, not being a superpower already, and finishing with the last crackers of the Soviet aviation industry, we pretend that nothing terrible has happened. And now, after twenty years of degradation and the devastation we have made, for which the Americans and Europeans certainly consider us to be imbeciles, we are trying to inflate our cheeks and participate in the dispute of “adult uncles”.

Our passionate desire to get into the “fifth class” has a completely self-serving, pragmatic explanation. This is the focus of the United Aircraft Corporation together with the Sukhoi Design Bureau on budgetary bounties. And the money under the "fifth class" allocated huge.

Generation reset

Now, from subjective assessments and opinions, we turn to common sense. They say the Raptor is a wonderful aircraft. In computer battles with all hypothetical opponents, including our Su and MiG, he smashes them with a dry account, leaving no chance. We believe and suppose. But a reasonable question arises: why should we stand against such an ultra-modern and expensive American car with probably the best e-filling, ours, which is also very expensive, but much less perfect? What, we have with the Americans in this regard there is a contract that requires to act according to the dueling rules of the Musketeers of the Middle Ages?

Kalashnikov with wings


After all, it is obvious that the entire sickly fleet of Raptors (only 140 units), since they are so good and priceless, can be disabled by much cheaper in terms of the cost of ground-to-air missiles, without bringing their aircraft to meet with this predator. It turns out and cheap, and angry. In this case, we do not risk our pilots and aircraft. In modern conventional war, with sufficient density of air defense systems with C-300, C-400 missiles and the like, the entire flock of the fifth generation will be destroyed in two to three weeks of intense combat operations. After that, the existence of "Raptors" can be forgotten. In a conventional war with a serious adversary with powerful ground-based air defense systems, the life of a costly fighter, say, the Raptor, will be reduced to one or two sorties. Based on this logic, the fifth generation machine is just a tribute to ambitions or a platform for working out new technical solutions, no more. In other words - an experiment.

There is one more argument, absolutely deadly for all modern, combat aircraft of the fourth, and especially the fifth generation, supersaturated with e-stuffing.

None of them, with all their computer stuffing, is designed for the use in the medium of electronic over-perturbations caused by the explosions of even a small amount of nuclear ammunition. Now imagine what could happen to the whole of this supersensitive system, its software, the actuators themselves, if they were in the field of the impact of a nuclear explosion or its consequences. Technique simply go crazy. The plane will turn into an uncontrollable body. The implications are clear. And the conclusion suggests a single and sad: modern aerial equipment is not produced for real combat use in a future war, but for the sake of maintaining the aircraft industry itself and as a deterrent factor.

Therefore, such projects are just a way to siphon huge funds from the state budgets of their countries. And here we need weighty arguments to influence politicians, who, as a rule, are people with little knowledge of technology.

Such systems are able to work only in benign conditions, and even then with the multiple overall superiority of one of the sides of the confrontation, as in the conflicts of NATO - Serbia, the USA - Iraq or the USA - Afghanistan. A collision with the participation of nuclear powers, even with their limited use of nuclear weapons in near space and in the air (in the range of combat aircraft heights), simultaneously resets their entire aviation potential and the very possibility of its use.

Let us ask ourselves another such question: from what airfield pavements does all military aviation take off today? With concrete strips in length from one and a half kilometers. What objects with the outbreak of hostilities always bombed first? Just these same airfields with concrete lanes and aircraft stops. The use of cruise missiles has turned the airbase into the most vulnerable and defenseless attack targets. Thus, the tight linkage of modern combat aircraft to airfields and concrete in the case of the application of preventive strikes on them turns aviation into an ideal target. That is how the Israelis smashed Egyptian aviation in a six-day war. The same happened with the Yugoslav, Iraqi, Libyan Air Forces.

What are the conclusions from this? Mixed (soil-concrete) type of basing and use of combat aircraft is the most important factor in the survival of the aircraft on the ground. This means that in any next generation of combat fighter-assault aircraft, the technical capability of its ground-based base and work from temporary forward airfields must be realized without fail. So, the sixth generation aircraft must certainly take off from the packed soil and land on it. And therefore, it should have a takeoff and landing speed of no more than 130 – 140 km / h, and not at 250 – 270 km / h, as it is now.

And here we are approaching the main criterion that determines the belonging of an airplane to the “five – six” generation. In any case, for Russia (let's leave the Americans alone).

The future is in the past

In modern combat aircraft, the handle or the steering wheel (on heavy vehicles) in the hands of the pilot is essentially just a joystick that sends signals to a powerful computer charged with the necessary control programs. From the same computer, the combat information center, the processed control signals through electric or fiber-optic networks are fed to actuators and drives, and from them to aerodynamic control surfaces and engines. As we see, there is no direct connection between the pilot and the machine; in fact, all the control functions are taken over by the electronic filling of the aircraft. And the pilot is powerless to do anything if the enemy manages to turn off the "brains" of the aircraft. In addition to EW systems, the most powerful factor affecting the aircraft’s electronics is the already mentioned effect of nuclear explosions: high-intensity electromagnetic and other exposures. So no one today can guarantee that in extraordinary, and even more fatal circumstances, complex and expensive aviation technology will not turn into rubbish at once.

From the foregoing, a vision arises of the appearance of our Russian aircraft of the sixth, let's say, generation. It must be manned, inert to all appearances and sources of impact (EW, effects of a nuclear explosion), massive, relatively cheap, without electronic extravagance, with a conventional cable-booster control system like that of the same MiG-15. The functions of the pilot, as usual, are reduced to piloting, selection of targets and decision-making on the use of weapons. Everything else is a matter of homing his guided weapons. The uniquely low take-off speed (about 140 km / h) will provide the possibility of mobile-based aircraft and its work from advanced ground airfields, since the concrete runways required for modern samples are destroyed by the enemy in the first place and are much more vulnerable than the aircraft themselves.

The cost of the machine should allow to produce it in thousands of copies. In this sense, a combat aircraft is a kind of aviation Kalashnikov.

For us, the general criterion is low cost, hence the possibility of mass production in thousands of lots. The new aircraft must take on board the combat load within one and a half to two tons, be barely noticeable thanks to a glider made of composite materials, have an engine with a variable thrust vector and, as already mentioned, take off and land on the ground. The take-off weight of such a single-engine vehicle is about 4,75 – 5 tons. For an emergency take-off, it is necessary to provide for the possibility of a forced vertical-horizontal start from a transport platform with normal then landing on the ground or concrete. On board, a compact system of following the terrain can be installed, similar to those operating on long-range aviation and sea-based cruise missiles of class X-55, X-101, and Caliber.

It is my deep conviction that this should be the prototype of our sixth generation Russian combat aircraft.

Suppose our own "Raptor" will show off at air shows with his American twin brother, to rush, to craft aerobatics, in a word, with might and main to promote. So what? Who he is, a piece and wildly expensive, will be needed in the absence of our workhorse, which must do all the dirty work. It is also unclear why one should be proud of the extreme cost of an absolutely unnecessary and useless object, given our blatant unpreparedness for the imminent inevitable trials. Therefore, it is worth considering the alternative: is it not better to produce the necessary machines 40 – 50 against one absolutely useless in the serious “fight” ahead of us?

The XX-Century MiG-15 is our asymmetric response to the American aviation fashions imposed on the world. This will be a furious blow to the jaw of any adventurer on Russian territory and at the same time a state order for the decaying or almost dead aircraft factories: Saratov, Smolensk, Myasishchev and others.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/31304
135 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. PKK
    PKK 10 July 2016 07: 05
    +3
    The Stalinist approach to the construction of Aviation was the only effective one. At that time, there was a Decree to build 100 thousand MiG15s, but they didn’t have time. I support the author and add to the airplane the functions of controlling the swarm of his drones and destroying the clouds of unmanned enemies.
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 10 July 2016 07: 11
      +29
      Quote: PKK
      Decision to build 100 thousand MiG15, n

      So you yourself are aware that you write crap?
      1. PKK
        PKK 10 July 2016 07: 24
        -4
        Pilots of Soviet times told about the construction of the MiG15x swarm. It is appropriate to recall Tukhachevsky about the construction of 100 thousand. tanks. In those days, it was a common practice.
        1. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov 10 July 2016 07: 32
          +9
          Quote: PKK
          Pilots of Soviet times told about the construction of the MiG15x swarm. It is appropriate to recall Tukhachevsky about the construction of 100 thousand. tanks. In those days, it was a common practice.

          Well, everything is clear, all the best to you. And good mood.
          1. sivuch
            sivuch 10 July 2016 08: 39
            +4
            Well, why. Planning a series of hundreds of thousands - it really was such a practice
            1. saniajan
              saniajan 10 July 2016 11: 36
              +9
              Well, yes, as in tsarist Russia, - airplanes are expensive, tanks are futile, a fool ... and then it turned out that we urgently needed to make up ...
              1. Pushkar77
                Pushkar77 10 July 2016 13: 16
                +14
                In the 14th minute film ea, it is briefly and clearly stated what mandatory qualities a fighter must possess. The participation of our astronauts in the Syrian war, revealed a very serious problem for our heavy vehicles. To the great price of the machines themselves was added a hyper expensive sortie. The money allocated for the war "to the bitter end" ended in just a couple of months. This despite the fact that the main load for the machines were four OFAB-250-270. The use of guided weapons raised the cost of departure, at least an order of magnitude, despite the fact that the militants lacked air defense and we did not have to participate in air battles (although of course there are losses, the kingdom of heaven is for all our pilots who died). If we add these two circumstances, then the numbers will grow exponentially, since the work of modern air defense and air battles are the inevitable losses of aircraft and here their cost comes first, and of course the cost of a combat mission. The fact that the state thought about this was primarily shown by the events in Syria, where they decided to bring in the Syrian MiG-29s to accompany our attack aircraft, and they, along with our Rusks, controlled the border with Turkey. This is also evidenced by the equipment of the MiG-35, which should go into service, as I understand it, the machine should not be more expensive than 25-30mln. green and possibly they will be diluted with MiG-29 SMT fighters, to further reduce the cost of materiel. We played in supercomplexes without thinking about the fact that they could literally ruin the state. JSC "Sukhoi" without finishing the T-50, has already managed to "win the tender" for the construction of the sixth generation machine, which must be both hypersonic and inconspicuous (how they are going to cross these two incompatible concepts is unknown), Although the pure hypersonic interceptor MiG-41, looks much more real and cheaper. By the way, Dmitry Olegovich Rogozin, the tender implies the creation by companies of competitors of prototype fighters and only after that you can choose a project, for example, when choosing a fifth-generation fighter in the states. And you say that we had a tender in which the creator of high-speed fighters RSK MiG suddenly loses to the Suoi design bureau, which even has experience in similar programs. Only two firms in the world had them, Lockheed and of course RSK MiG. How did the documentation and developments get to Sukhoi? Or do you think that they believed in you that DGC did not provide anything intelligible and intelligible. This is nonsense and untruth. You will again create the superpelazet, for tens of billions. green and then you will think what to do with it. RSK had R&D and at one time it was approved by the president of the country, as stated by Sergey Korotkov. Since he suddenly according to your words turned into a misunderstanding. The same can be said about the UAV, the prototype of which the RSK already had, but it was also pushed back, along with a cheap training aircraft. At RSK even the models were blown in a "pipe", and on you they again pushed in for the sake of another supercomplex, which no one will ever let into battle because of their exorbitant cost.
          2. razmik72
            razmik72 10 July 2016 12: 10
            0
            I don’t understand where the author of the article got this figure: F-22 costs 300 million dollars, in addition, F-22 is no longer produced, you need to compare the cost of the fifth-generation Russian aircraft with F-35, it will be produced, and in the series, I read, it will cost about $ 100 million.
            1. gladcu2
              gladcu2 11 July 2016 15: 30
              +2
              The author has an interesting approach and a good level of common sense.
        2. EvilLion
          EvilLion 2 November 2016 20: 43
          0
          Ah, well then they looked at Tukhachevsky as an idiot.

          For reference, the Il-2 in wartime, when machines either flew into the ground or simply wear out faster than cartridges in an office printer that produces hundreds of pages per day, they built 36000 in total.
      2. Malkor
        Malkor 10 July 2016 21: 36
        +1
        Ground defense without one of its components (aviation) will not be able to keep the enemy (probable). Why chop off your left hand and pump your right one, just like don’t swing your right one - the enemy with two hands is stronger.
    2. Alekseev
      Alekseev 10 July 2016 21: 04
      +8
      Quote: PKK
      , to the airplane, add the functions of managing their swarm

      The point of the article is not at all in this ...
      The author reasonably draws attention to the fact that in a war with a strong enemy, it is primarily the high-tech controls and infrastructure of the enemy’s troops that are affected: air bases, GDP, communications and radar systems, enterprises and bases that produce and service complex military equipment, fortunately, these are not workshops in the basement , there are not many such enterprises.
      Therefore, the tank must shoot using the camera and using simple optics, and refuel not only with the DT EURO5, but also with a mixture of gasoline, fuel oil and jet fuel (which, in principle, is now possible).
      The plane should be able to take off from unpaved GDP and reach the target not only according to GLONASS, but also the old fashioned way.
      Not only digital radio stations are needed, but also a TA-57 with a vole and signal flags.
      And so on and so forth.
  2. Cat
    Cat 10 July 2016 07: 12
    +3
    Made you think? This is good, thanks.
  3. demiurg
    demiurg 10 July 2016 07: 55
    +9
    What the author offers is a plane for a big war. Plus, there are good ideas, there are controversial, but still, these are ideas. One is only alarming. But will fighters be needed in case of a big war?
    1. Alf
      Alf 10 July 2016 20: 02
      +4
      Quote: demiurg
      But will fighters be needed in case of a big war?

      Are needed. In the event of a major war, the matter will not immediately reach nuclear weapons. On both sides of the ocean, they are well aware that pressing a button will mean the death of civilization. So, first they will beat the face in classical ways. On this occasion, there are wonderful books by Vadim Lvov-Russian Breakthrough and On the Edge of the Sword. Fiction, of course, but very believable.
      1. LastPS
        LastPS 16 January 2017 03: 55
        0
        Well, what nonsense, countries with nuclear weapons, in principle, will not wage war among themselves in the classical sense. The war of the 21st century is being waged on neutral territory, the author of the article correctly noted that the fifth generation fighter is effective against a much weaker enemy in the first place. This is not a "road to nowhere" for huge grandmothers, but just a means for solving problems in a modern theater of operations, and, oddly enough, reducing costs, because such a machine with a powerful avionics, an extremely efficient engine and a wide range of weapons is capable of performing many tasks, replacing the motley aircraft fleet.
  4. Ruby
    Ruby 10 July 2016 08: 18
    +9
    In my opinion, there is some truth in the words of the author. However, history refutes his conclusions. Look at how the great wars began, and how they ended.
    I16-Yak3 / La5
    BF109E-BF262 / BF109K / Dora
    P40-P51
    And this is generally a mass segment of aviation, the same picture in tanks.
    I think that yes, in a total war involving such states as Russia, the USA, and China, modern high-tech equipment will end very quickly. Another question will the war end there? It seems to me that yes, because neither side has the ability to reproduce weapons of this level on a WW2 scale. And somehow I have little idea of ​​the level of Kursk or Stalingrad battles in the context of the use of nuclear weapons. And the fact that it will be applied is beyond doubt.
    1. iouris
      iouris 10 July 2016 20: 59
      +1
      Quote: Yakut
      And the fact that it will be applied is beyond doubt.

      If I were also sure, I would have slept calmer.
  5. Sergey333
    Sergey333 10 July 2016 08: 20
    +9
    The author’s ideas are good, but the general approach ... request If you do not develop something new now, then the technological lag will increase exponentially. The author forgot that half of the country participates in the development of a new progressive aircraft and in the future each company uses its new developments for the modernization of serial aircraft (a vivid example of the Su-30 and Su-35), as well as its old serial nomenclature. It is always easier and cheaper to make a spear with a stone tip, but the appearance of the musket put an end to the spears.
    1. Verdun
      Verdun 10 July 2016 11: 58
      +3
      Quote: Sergey333
      The author’s ideas are good, but the general approach ..

      It seems that with modern technologies a kind of separation can occur. It is, in fact, already maturing. Quite expensive, but technically and technologically advanced combat aircraft will be created separately. And the role of the "swarm of thousands" will be taken over by drones. In order for there to be no technological lag in any of the areas, it is necessary to constantly conduct new developments, create prototypes and take some of them into service, without waiting for the moment when the cock bites in the ass. At the same time, any computer simulations and theoretical calculations proving the superiority of one type of aircraft over another can only be confirmed by a real battle. Otherwise, they remain a beautiful theory.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. evge-malyshev
        evge-malyshev 10 July 2016 14: 14
        0
        Quote: Verdun
        Quite expensive, but technically and technologically advanced combat aircraft will be created separately. And the role of the "swarm of thousands" will be assumed by drones


        I agree. The future lies with drones. And not only fighter and attack aircraft. And all types of aviation: Reconnaissance, Bomber Front and Long, Shumoviki, etc.
        1. Ratmir_Alex
          Ratmir_Alex 13 July 2016 16: 26
          +1
          Wise guys will eventually create a warhead with EMP (radius of 100 kilometers) and a big hello ...
      3. Alf
        Alf 10 July 2016 20: 10
        +2
        Quote: Verdun
        It seems that with modern technology a kind of separation may occur. In fact, it is already brewing.

        As an example, I can cite the equipment of Soviet tank troops in the early 80s.
        In the event of a war, the T-80s were supposed to break through the NATO defense, and then the simpler ones rushed into the breakthrough, both in terms of performance and cost of the T-72.
        So there is common sense in the division. Not for nothing that in all the armies of the world at all times all the same was in the units of the first line, and the rest were armed and equipped in the second place.
  6. V.ic
    V.ic 10 July 2016 08: 29
    +5
    Anyway, the rise of the Russian aircraft industry to the level of the USSR is necessary, but who will give the money for this? Are they not "our" oligarchs? They usually only have money for Courchevels and superyachts ...
  7. evil partisan
    evil partisan 10 July 2016 08: 31
    +2
    The question is still haunting me: what will happen to modern aircraft if, as a result of exposure to high-power EMR, they get at least part of the REO? Indeed, to excite the EMP of the required power, it is sufficient to use nuclear weapons of relatively low power, which is not fatal for both the population and the troops. In addition, there are non-nuclear EMP bombs. The Americans still used them in the bombing of Baghdad in Iraq. Maybe this ... back to the lamps? what
  8. Razvedka_Boem
    Razvedka_Boem 10 July 2016 08: 33
    +2
    In the event of a major war, with the massive use of nuclear weapons, how many Raptors the enemy has and how many we have will no longer matter. And in conditions of local conflicts, the use of cheap aircraft is justified. Here you can recall, for example, the Skyraider attack aircraft.
  9. Aurelius
    Aurelius 10 July 2016 08: 36
    +6
    - low cost, hence the possibility of mass production thousandths in series.
    - be invisible thanks to a glider made of composite materials,
    - have a variable thrust vector engine
    - take off and land on the ground.
    Take-off weight of about 4,75-5 tons.
    -the ability to force vertical-horizontal start.

    What a fellow: the plane should be ultra-modern, but ultra-cheap. Lip no fool. By the way, under this description, although with a weight of 15 tons, the f-35 is well suited you know what the cost is.
    1. demiurg
      demiurg 10 July 2016 08: 48
      +6
      Most of the cost of the second lightning is just electronics, and composites. If you create a machine specifically for nuclear war, then, in principle, even stealth can be neglected. So it’s quite realistic to create a fighter with the ability to carry 1-2 tons of air bombs for 3-5 million greens.
      Same thing with tanks.
      There is one caveat. As soon as someone begins to build such cars in droves, this will be a clear signal of the intentions of this country hi
      1. Aurelius
        Aurelius 10 July 2016 08: 54
        +4
        Quote: demiurg
        If you create a machine specifically for nuclear war
        And why in a nuclear war a fighter? Exterminate the six-headed pterodactyls?
        By the way, in the storage of such junk in bulk, which generally costs nothing wink
        1. demiurg
          demiurg 10 July 2016 09: 28
          +2
          Tanks don't really care about a nuclear strike. So they will need to be destroyed by something.
          Although the very meaning of capturing enemy territory is not clear. Anyway, everything will be destroyed there, crowds of hungry people with radiation sickness, why do they need parasites?
        2. Ratmir_Alex
          Ratmir_Alex 13 July 2016 16: 31
          0
          Uh, then it would be generally nice to have 20-50 in stock, well, for example, LA-9
  10. Kostya Andreev
    Kostya Andreev 10 July 2016 08: 59
    +5
    I wonder how the author is going to shove it in a weight of 5 tons. One of the best fighters in the world, Mig 21 weighed heavier. In general, the article was not impressive, as the author plans to rotate the elevators with supersonic cables with booster ropes and hand over to the mat instead of anmat, and how the difference in the suspension on the roofs will be taken into account, now it’s makes electronics. And so on and so forth. I will give an analogy. The author suggests making a bow instead of a machine gun. A bow is cheaper, it can be made from improvised materials, and arrows can be made without meta color and provide everyone with work. And what will happen when they fight a cheap bow and an expensive machine gun. Who will win? Is the author a pest?
    1. demiurg
      demiurg 10 July 2016 09: 38
      +5
      I will answer in the spirit of Gridasov. Positive and negative feedback systems do not have to be electronic. The same can be said about tracking machines.
      And by simple, the power steering in the tractor is very dispensable with electronics
      1. Alf
        Alf 10 July 2016 20: 15
        +3
        Quote: demiurg
        power steering in the tractor is very dispensable with electronics

        That's just the effort to turn the steering wheel in the tractor and in the fighter is somewhat different.
  11. DimanC
    DimanC 10 July 2016 10: 10
    +4
    I agree with the people that the author clearly contradicts himself: we need a cheap, inconspicuous aircraft with the ability to control wirelessly, but with UVT. Etc. Only the author forgets that the military man drags a whole complex of interdisciplinary research and technical works, the same computers, microcircuits, and so on. On the contrary, the development of such high-tech products will allow Russia in the future to gain real independence. Plus, the author has forgotten about the LFI program, which so far is represented by modernized MiGs, but they plan to develop it ...
  12. Kirill
    Kirill 10 July 2016 10: 11
    +5
    Quote: Kostya Andreev
    And what will happen when they fight a cheap bow and an expensive machine gun. Who will win? Is the author a pest?

    Well, there is no need to bring the idea to the point of absurdity. However, the "Tiger" was more perfect and more efficient than the T-34, but the decisive factor was the number and the ability to train the crews in a short time. I just imagine who will put the levers of the T-14? Who will serve them? Who and where to repair? This is even more important for aviation. The author raised the question correctly.
    1. Kostya Andreev
      Kostya Andreev 10 July 2016 11: 00
      -1
      t-34 if not inferior to the tiger it is not much (t-34/85). collectively, this is a different category of heavy and medium tanks.
      And the author suggests making a 5-ton de.ma which will be as if comparing bt against a tiger.
      And I imagine that we will plant a person who will manage it, for some reason I think. that it’s not difficult. equipment in management is being simplified. I will give an example. Now, despite all the bells and whistles, machines are no more difficult to manage. but in something easier than those that were 20-30 years ago. although it’s more difficult to repair. also with televisions and other equipment
  13. pimen
    pimen 10 July 2016 10: 29
    0
    to develop and do, of course, it is necessary, though to be able, if that ... How much to do is another matter. But the ability to simplify the most sophisticated product relatively painlessly and not to make the F-35 after the F-22 is hard to overestimate
  14. K-50
    K-50 10 July 2016 10: 37
    +7
    The MiG-15 of the XNUMXst century is our asymmetric response to the American aviation fashion imposed on the world.

    the author, do not publish such nonsense !!!!!!
    a massive, relatively cheap, no-frills machine with the usual, like the same MiG-15, cable-booster control system.

    Can you imagine the effort on the control sticks at high speeds? Moreover, the mass of modern aircraft is five times greater than that of the MiG-15, the area of ​​control surfaces is also somewhat larger, and the flight time is also. There, no Hercules can cope with the cable management system.
    As the saying goes, "don't carry a blizzard!" fool
    1. Arikkhab
      Arikkhab 10 July 2016 15: 24
      +1
      for example, the IL-62 aircraft does not have a booster system (with a take-off mass of 165 tons). Steering wheels and ailerons are made only due to the muscular power of pilots or electric steering cars autopilot. This decision was made possible thanks to the features of the weight distribution of the aircraft, in which a large area of ​​rudders is not required for takeoff and leveling.
      1. K-50
        K-50 10 July 2016 15: 38
        +5
        Quote: ArikKhab
        for example, the IL-62 aircraft does not have a booster system (with a take-off mass of 165 tons). Steering wheels and ailerons are made only due to the muscular power of pilots or electric steering cars autopilot. This decision was made possible thanks to the features of the weight distribution of the aircraft, in which a large area of ​​rudders is not required for takeoff and leveling.

        Does it maneuver? Performs aerobatics?
        Do not smack nonsense !!!!!! fool
      2. Andrey VOV
        Andrey VOV 10 July 2016 16: 42
        0
        The booster system on IL 62 was installed on subsequent modifications, at first yes, it was not
    2. Looking for
      Looking for 11 July 2016 22: 08
      -1
      The man did not write, with cable management wires, but wrote, cable-booster !!! So, do not consider yourself smarter than others.
  15. Pimply
    Pimply 10 July 2016 10: 39
    +4
    To begin with, write articles - do not piss on the wall, although in this case, too, you need to attach your head. 187 - this is the number of F-22 aircraft produced in series. 187 - not 140.
    $ 146,2 million - this is the cost of the F-22 series-produced fighter without R&D (and we consider it without it because our cost is also considered exactly - without R&D).
    Why the author did not mention the F-35 in the article - the very same cheap mass-produced aircraft that the author sings about is even more strange.
    And so on and so forth, a cant on a cant, a tantrum on a tantrum. Not an article, but crap
    1. demiurg
      demiurg 10 July 2016 10: 55
      0
      Just 187 million per fighter say, yes? What a trifle. Germany in the Second World War lost 85 thousand aircraft (the way it should). Let half the fighters. 40000 times 187000000.
      And now attention, a question. 7480000000000. Seven and a half trillion only on fighter jets. Will our planet fully absorb such costs? Or will we add here a comparable amount for BTT? By the way, it will also be necessary to spend money on bomber aviation, on air defense, on the fleet.
      There are not enough printing presses in the Fed to print so many wrappers.
      1. razmik72
        razmik72 10 July 2016 12: 21
        -1
        Quote: demiurg
        Just 187 million per fighter say, yes? What a trifle. Germany in the Second World War lost 85 thousand aircraft (the way it should). Let half the fighters. 40000 times 187000000.
        And now attention, a question. 7480000000000. Seven and a half trillion only on fighter jets. Will our planet fully absorb such costs? Or will we add here a comparable amount for BTT? By the way, it will also be necessary to spend money on bomber aviation, on air defense, on the fleet.
        There are not enough printing presses in the Fed to print so many wrappers.

        We found what to compare with - Germany produced piston aircraft and a number of experimental jet aircraft at the end of the war, it makes no sense to compare their performance characteristics with 5th generation aircraft.
        1. Parsec
          Parsec 10 July 2016 13: 00
          0
          Quote: razmik72
          Germany produced piston aircraft and a number of experimental jet aircraft at the end of the war


          1400 jet Me-262 - some?
          1. razmik72
            razmik72 10 July 2016 13: 58
            +2
            Quote: Parsec
            Quote: razmik72
            Germany produced piston aircraft and a number of experimental jet aircraft at the end of the war


            1400 jet Me-262 - some?

            And what stood on these "Messers", there was practically a naked glider with an engine, no special bells and whistles were placed on the plane, they are the ones that make the plane more expensive.
            1. Zulu_S
              Zulu_S 11 July 2016 03: 06
              0
              I saw the number 1400, I was surprised, climbed into Wikipedia. There are 1433 Me262 of various modifications. Losses - 100 vehicles (fighter modifications). And what is the fate of the remaining 1300?
              1. Simpsonian
                Simpsonian 11 July 2016 05: 02
                +1
                They stood until the end of the war without kerosene, then the Czechs had a certain amount of air force, with the rest in all countries they took off engines and used them on other airplanes with better aerodynamics - this aircraft usually pulled above 860 km / h at a peak from which it did not leave. .. fellow
                1. Zulu_S
                  Zulu_S 15 July 2016 12: 41
                  0
                  Thank. Undoubtedly, the project was revolutionary. As a Russian, I am glad that he took minimal participation in the hostilities, but from a technical point of view, this was an undoubted breakthrough.
          2. The comment was deleted.
      2. Pimply
        Pimply 10 July 2016 22: 02
        +1
        Quote: demiurg
        Total 187 million for a fighter say yes?

        A total of 187 aircraft, not 140 as indicated in the "article".

        Quote: demiurg
        Germany in World War II lost 85 thousands of aircraft (as it should). Let half fighters. 40000 multiplied by 187000000.

        What a hot delirium you carry ???? Do you at least understand what you are comparing with? And the approximate difference in the capabilities of those aircraft and the current?
    2. Arikkhab
      Arikkhab 10 July 2016 15: 19
      +1
      you probably read the article inattentively - it does not discuss the cost / quantity / effectiveness of 5th generation fighters. 140 or 187 - what's the difference? the point is that this is too little. the same f-16 was built with a circulation of more than 4,540 copies ... and it is not cheap in itself. the point is that for the bombing of individual jihadomobiles it is simply unreasonable to attract expensive 4 ++ / 5 generation aircraft with 1-2 bombs, when it is enough to send a Yak -130
      1. Bersaglieri
        Bersaglieri 10 July 2016 20: 13
        0
        For "shooting non-peaceful Zusuls, without MANPADS" "Super-Tucano" or "Pilatus" is even better suited.
      2. Pimply
        Pimply 10 July 2016 22: 03
        +1
        Quote: ArikKhab
        just send Yak -130

        Is it enough to send a UAV?
  16. Kostya Andreev
    Kostya Andreev 10 July 2016 10: 56
    +3
    Quote: demiurg
    I will answer in the spirit of Gridasov. Positive and negative feedback systems do not have to be electronic. The same can be said about tracking machines.
    And by simple, the power steering in the tractor is very dispensable with electronics

    I don’t know any Gridasovs. I only know that the tractor does not have any aerodynamic tricks, and it does not fly at supersonic sounds at different heights. when you need to analyze what happens to an airplane every split second.
    Your comment reminded me of the words from the DMB movie "a submachine gun is a duly improved hoe." using your example, we can say that an airplane is a properly improved tractor.
    Take a piece of paper to calculate how much the engine weighs fuel weapons weapon control system navigation weapons. look what happens.
    And what the author suggests is to make it simple. Yak-15 is taken and we begin to produce. tens of thousands.
    1. demiurg
      demiurg 10 July 2016 11: 09
      0
      Amplifiers, multipliers, boosters, anything you can do mechanically. I’m telling you an expert on adjustable drives)) I also remember such a thing as AVK. Analog computing complex. Without any electronics, transients were simulated with awesome accuracy.
      I saw something else in the article. War is including the struggle of economies. Read my previous post. And in addition, nuclear weapons can really destroy electronics in general and communications in particular. And you need to think about it. He proposed his own option. Do you have a better one? Speak. hi
      1. Bersaglieri
        Bersaglieri 10 July 2016 13: 15
        +1
        Analog computing complex. Without any electronics, transients were simulated with awesome accuracy.
        - Yeah, elementary diff.ura were solved with an accuracy of +/- 5% ... Awesome accuracy :)
      2. Baby doll
        Baby doll 11 July 2016 09: 53
        0
        Quote: demiurg
        AVK

        Aha! "Electron", MH14, MH17! In the late 70s, I had a chance to work on a semi-natural modeling complex. It was possible to glue the wire on the graphs of the tracking systems of the Electrons. By the way, they were better than the tracking systems MH17. And the concept of accuracy is extensible, then everyone was quite happy with +/- 5%!
      3. Ilya77
        Ilya77 12 August 2016 09: 35
        0
        Quote: demiurg
        Amplifiers, multipliers, boosters, anything you can do mechanically. I’m telling you an expert on adjustable drives)) I also remember such a thing as AVK. Analog computing complex. Without any electronics, transients were simulated with awesome accuracy.
        I saw something else in the article. War is including the struggle of economies. Read my previous post. And in addition, nuclear weapons can really destroy electronics in general and communications in particular. And you need to think about it. He proposed his own option. Do you have a better one? Speak. hi

        Only it will cost now many times more expensive than electronics.
  17. air wolf
    air wolf 10 July 2016 11: 42
    -1
    And I think that the author is right in something, we must again crush the mass, otherwise we will be crushed! I suggest that it is better to deeply modernize the MiG-17)) Even the bourgeois asses consider it still the best fighter in the world.
    1. Alf
      Alf 10 July 2016 20: 31
      +2
      Quote: air wolf
      Even bourgeois asses consider him to be the best fighter in the world.

      And who exactly thinks so? Surnames and specific statements possible?
      1. sivuch
        sivuch 11 July 2016 09: 59
        +4
        -assa is written there. We translate from the bourgeois and everything becomes clear
  18. Old
    Old 10 July 2016 11: 50
    +6
    And who will fly ?! Well, if only to establish the cloning of the author of the article. Only the genome needs to be worked out so that the clones do not ask for a salary. 4,75-5 tons take-off weight!))) Well, yes. You can refuse an ejection seat; the landing gear can be designed for ten landings ... To hell with the landing gear! One big parachute! brought to the area of ​​the airfield, pulled the handle!
    The landing system on the ground does not even need to be deployed! Here is the answer to amers!
    For innovation, the author should be awarded the Order of Academician Lysenko.
    1. Arikkhab
      Arikkhab 10 July 2016 15: 05
      +2
      at IL-2 max. take-off weight was 6380 kg and perfectly withstood more than 10 landings
  19. Ruby
    Ruby 10 July 2016 12: 03
    +1
    Quote: air wolf
    And I think that the author is right in something, we must again crush the mass, otherwise we will be crushed! I suggest that it is better to deeply modernize the MiG-17)) Even the bourgeois asses consider it still the best fighter in the world.

    In 41, one very "smart" type of designer proposed setting up the production of extremely cheap attack aircraft, technologically not much different from Po2. the same emphasizing the mass character and ease of development. Kind of like a disposable plane designed for 1-2 departures. Fortunately, his ideas were not developed. And when using Il2, the losses of assault aircraft were gigantic, and here it is even scary to think ...
    1. demiurg
      demiurg 10 July 2016 12: 19
      0
      If you are talking about "Ivanov" then at 45 :))
      How many runways longer than a kilometer in Russia? 100-200? Not even that. At 1000 km from the western Russian borders, how many runways are more than a kilometer long? How difficult is it to destroy them with the same tomahawks? Where will front-line aviation fly from? where to fly fighters to intercept? Or will appear where necessary in an hour?
      1. Ruby
        Ruby 10 July 2016 12: 26
        +2
        About Tamashevich and his project of an anti-tank air army from Pegasus attack aircraft with two M11 engines
      2. Parsec
        Parsec 10 July 2016 12: 53
        +1
        Quote: demiurg
        How difficult is it to destroy them with the same tomahawks?


        Complicated. The runway is quickly recovering, technologies are developed.
    2. sivuch
      sivuch 10 July 2016 12: 28
      +1
      Are you talking about Pegasus Tomashevsky?
  20. demiurg
    demiurg 10 July 2016 12: 04
    +2
    What did you all get to the bottom of weight? Even if it was 15 tons, if only it were cheap, and could take off after a nuclear explosion, and had the maximum possible performance characteristics.
    Then if they are discussing the idea of, let's say, a mobilization fighter. No one will be able to produce thousands of fighters even 4 generations, very expensive.
    So the gentlemen, move your suggestions, were able to falsify someone else's idea, now you need a constructive.
    1. razmik72
      razmik72 10 July 2016 12: 29
      +1
      Quote: demiurg
      What did you all get to the bottom of weight? Even if it was 15 tons, if only it were cheap, and could take off after a nuclear explosion, and had the maximum possible performance characteristics.
      Then if they are discussing the idea of, let's say, a mobilization fighter. No one will be able to produce thousands of fighters even 4 generations, very expensive.
      So the gentlemen, move your suggestions, were able to falsify someone else's idea, now you need a constructive.

      After a full-fledged nuclear strike, there really will be no one left to fight, the rest of the troops and the population will be engaged in saving themselves, dear, do not already bring the matter to psychosis and write:
      "And what are we going to fight with after a nuclear strike?"
    2. Ruby
      Ruby 10 July 2016 12: 31
      0
      IL2 revive or Yak3 to choose :) there is no electronics. Semiconductor in the sense. Lamps in a radio station on an EMP drum :)
      And if in the case, such a cheap fighter or attack aircraft, nothing more than a target on the battlefield. Or is it supposed to have smart weapons on a cheap carrier? In a modern airplane, most of the cost is avionics and engines. Glider on their background is lost in price. Where are you going to save?
      1. demiurg
        demiurg 10 July 2016 12: 43
        -2
        I am for the Yak-9ut. hi

        I do not agree, categorically. The Wikipedia article about Mig-21 mentions that at one time the export Mig was cheaper than the BMP-1.
        The question is, indeed, no one will begin a serious war. And for beating Bantustanov it is better to use high-tech, expensive fighters and bombers of 4 +++ or 5 generations.
    3. Old
      Old 10 July 2016 12: 38
      +1
      Why the hell do you need this construct? Read, discussed. The article is good. Better than p.d.n.s. Still write.
  21. Civilian62
    Civilian62 10 July 2016 12: 30
    0
    Well done. Finally, it raised the question of the need to launch production of a plane that is simple in every sense. I am not an expert, but the fact that in case of large-scale military operations a mass plane is required, obviously even to me. I am not a supporter of jet aviation, primarily due to the inability to eliminate the thermal trail, the piston engine is more attractive in this sense, and the low speed is compensated by the maneuverability and a large number of devices. And most importantly, the pilot of a modern aircraft, piece and very expensive goods, and a small subsonic almost anyone can fly a plane.
    1. Ruby
      Ruby 10 July 2016 12: 37
      0
      Yeah. And put you there as a pilot. And why didn’t anyone consider life. Everything is as cheap as possible. Why is there a catapult, but a catapult and a parachute are not needed. Everything is cheap. Take-off and landing and in battle, more precisely for slaughter.
      It seems like all this went through already. Has life taught anything?
    2. Parsec
      Parsec 10 July 2016 12: 51
      +1
      The thermal trace of a piston aircraft with an engine of 1200 kW is tracked no worse than a jet.
      Very few people can fly a subsonic plane.
  22. Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 10 July 2016 13: 17
    +1
    "Cheap. Single engine aircraft" of the present time with acceptable combat characteristics is "Gripen" or "Tejas".
    1. Arikkhab
      Arikkhab 10 July 2016 15: 00
      0
      there is one ... from Brazil - called Tucano. and even better - super toucan
  23. Sergey333
    Sergey333 10 July 2016 13: 25
    0
    It is interesting to read this controversy about a cheap plane, and the pilot means will be a consumable?
  24. 52
    52 10 July 2016 13: 52
    +1
    Tasty shmal at the author of the article. And the article is nonsense.
  25. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 10 July 2016 14: 08
    +5
    In my opinion, the author forgot about the 130th Yak. Almost fits all the wishes of the author. And in light attack mode -3 tons of combat load! Very impressive. Here is such a release, and release. And cheap, and very military, and light ... laughing
    1. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri 10 July 2016 14: 11
      +1
      In terms of the author, the Yak-130 will be very expensive :)
  26. pimen
    pimen 10 July 2016 14: 18
    0
    it’s hard to even imagine a suitable scenario. A repetition of Napoleonic and Nazi, with a retreat - is unlikely. If we expand in small things (Ukraine, the Baltic states), then even the tactical use of nuclear weapons is doubtful. If there is a global exchange of nuclear strikes, then the subsequent tactics and strategy will become partisan, more likely even - everything is against everyone. There will be no aircraft and tanks, and in thoughts
  27. Ostup bender
    Ostup bender 10 July 2016 14: 24
    +4
    all fools spend lemons on technology, but you can fight for a moment-15.and fly on layered, not suppressed air defense at raptors ... and they can’t take off and land without an airfield (because they have worse roads than ours), and all military equipment is never protected from EMP ...
  28. Arikkhab
    Arikkhab 10 July 2016 14: 54
    +2
    there is something in this approach ... just remember the super popular light attack aircraft of the TUKANO type - and, in principle, it is clear that most of the tasks in Syria could be performed with the help of TUKANO, without driving the expensive Su-34s "empty"
    1. Ruby
      Ruby 10 July 2016 15: 07
      +1
      Toucano and his ilk are good at driving jungle drug dealers. In Syria, they would have been chopped up by a division of arrows and stingers. Ours there do not fly below 5000 thousand, like the Americans. There are no fools to substitute. Even the Su25 is used there exclusively as a bomber.
      It’s more appropriate to say that our Air Force needs an inexpensive UBS with sufficient volumes. The same Yak130 or MIG-AT, and not only for training cadets, but also for combat missions, where the use of more serious aircraft is not very justified. And for the constant training of combatant pilots in units of the same.
  29. Munchhausen
    Munchhausen 10 July 2016 16: 06
    0
    Quote: PKK
    The construction of the MiG15x swarm was told by Soviet pilots.


    My grandfather, a Soviet-era pilot, said that the MiG-15 was a transition vehicle, the first full-fledged jet fighter. However, the MiG-19 was on the way.
  30. Munchhausen
    Munchhausen 10 July 2016 16: 10
    0
    Quote: ArikKhab
    there is something in this approach ... just remember the super popular light attack aircraft of the TUKANO type - and, in principle, it is clear that most of the tasks in Syria could be performed with the help of TUKANO, without driving the expensive Su-34s "empty"


    Anti-aircraft fire ZU-23-2, which is abundant in terrorists, is destructive for Tukano.
    The peculiarity of the Su-34 is that it is capable of operating with conventional "iron" bombs with the accuracy of corrected JDAMs.
    1. Arikkhab
      Arikkhab 10 July 2016 18: 51
      +1
      1) Do you think that drug cartels in South America do not have air defense systems? even portable? there’s nothing to buy? if they have submarines for transporting cocaine, then buy a stinger ....
      2) unfortunately the Su-34 is NOT capable of operating with conventional "iron" bombs with the accuracy of corrected JDAMs. the accuracy is sufficient, but the "blank" cannot compare with the guided ammunition (from the word never)
      1. sivuch
        sivuch 11 July 2016 10: 03
        0
        Nobody claimed that. Accuracy is comparable, i.e. instead of one JDAM-a - a few cast iron. But in terms of money and efficiency - about the same
  31. Ruby
    Ruby 10 July 2016 16: 11
    +1
    I think so. that when theoretically it comes to the use of mobilization equipment (there are no only planes), then there will be no one to fight, not with anyone, and not at all. The time will come from the category of Mad Max :( Where, by some miracle, the surviving pilot on the miraculously preserved An2 or something like that will be a thunderstorm for all survivors.
  32. Alisher
    Alisher 10 July 2016 16: 24
    +5
    What the author of the article is right about is that Americans will be afraid even of MIG-15, 17, 21 having f-22 and f-35. There was a case in Yugoslavia when the MIG was simply rolled out of the caponier, it did not even take off and Avax spotted it. An alarm rang at the headquarters of the Americans, and the entire staff, including the secretary, lay in the ditch of the road near the headquarters. But this does not mean that it has greatly influenced / will affect the course of hostilities.
    EMP acts directly during a nuclear explosion and at a limited distance, and ionospheric disturbances up to several days affect communication rather than at all frequencies. The rejection of electronics on this basis is absolutely contrived, then both satellites and interplanetary stations should not fly. Aircraft dropping nuclear bombs during the tests did not fall, although their lining in the tail, from the effects of damaging factors, was torn like paper.

    And what is described as a promising cheap plane is a post-apocalyptic combat hang-glider, with two piston engines (removed from cars) and a sealed (radiation) cabin, in the spirit of mad max. Only for this there will be enough resources, both for production and for fuel - even if some of the oil wells remain, then there will be problems with obtaining aviation fuel for thousands of aircraft. And his task is to guard convoys, protect against drones, patrol and chase the "wildlings".

    In the non-global nuclear war of the two countries, the winners (those who received something) will be the third and fourth countries, aimed at the resources of the first two, and not necessarily by military means. Food / water / medicine / weapons in exchange for gold / resources / territories. There will be no winners in the global, only survivors.
  33. Briz
    Briz 10 July 2016 17: 44
    +3
    It must be manned, inert to all appearance and sources of exposure (electronic warfare, consequences of a nuclear explosion), a massive, relatively cheap, no-frills electronic car with the usual, like the same MiG-15, cable-booster control system. The functions of the pilot, as usual, are reduced to piloting, choosing targets and making decisions on the use of weapons. All the rest - the homing of his guided weapons.
    A compact system for following the terrain, similar to those used on long-range aircraft and sea-based cruise missiles of the X-55, X-101, "Caliber" class, can be installed on board
    Somehow, it is not clear why then to abandon electronics in control and generally electronics. Or homing heads and terrain following systems should be purely mechanical?
  34. Pushkar
    Pushkar 10 July 2016 18: 41
    +2
    It can be seen that the author never had any relation to the country's air defense system. Effective air defense is complex approach of several types of troops: fighter aviation (IA), missile forces (RV) and radio-technical troops (RTV). IA and RV each have their own disadvantages, holes in the protected interception field, mutually overlapping. But for this, weapons must have high performance characteristics, and good and cheap can not be. And then the "wise" proposal to return to the MiG-15. Carrying out, so carousing, let's go back to the I-15bis or just throw our hats. The author did not think how a simple and cheap aircraft is combined with the S-400 or the promising S-500? Some kind of Khrushchevism, he also wanted to replace everything with missiles and cut all the aircraft and surface fleet. Once in the Far East, I witnessed regular SR-71 flights over our territory, our Su-15s did not get it. Until the MiG-25 arrived (well, very expensive).
  35. Munchhausen
    Munchhausen 10 July 2016 19: 29
    +1
    Quote: ArikKhab
    1) Do you think that drug cartels in South America do not have air defense systems? even portable? there’s nothing to buy? if they have submarines for transporting cocaine, then buy a stinger ....
    2) unfortunately the Su-34 is NOT capable of operating with conventional "iron" bombs with the accuracy of corrected JDAMs. the accuracy is sufficient, but the "blank" cannot compare with the guided ammunition (from the word never)


    Shalom.
    1) Fortunately, MANPADS turnover is a matter of state security for all countries, without exception. Civilian airliners are too vulnerable on take-off ...
    2) JDAM also does not fall into the "peg", given the one-time system. The Su-34 bombing system allows you to do the same, only without JDAM. In absolute numbers, you are right, but the difference in deviation is not critical for 454 \ 500kg ammunition.
  36. Cat
    Cat 10 July 2016 19: 44
    0
    Assault aircraft and drones (blah) should be cheap to strike in the tactical zone. Everything else a priori cannot be cheap. In addition, it should have the ability to use unpaved arodromes or gdp.
  37. Paul zewike
    Paul zewike 10 July 2016 19: 57
    0
    The idea is interesting. There is something to think about.
  38. Munchhausen
    Munchhausen 10 July 2016 20: 17
    +2
    Quote: Kotischa
    Assault aircraft should be cheap


    Do you agree to be a pilot of cheap attack aircraft in a database?
    To be cynical - a good crew is more expensive than any aircraft.
  39. Partisan Kramaha
    Partisan Kramaha 10 July 2016 20: 30
    +3
    Quote: Aspeed
    And in the MiG-15, boosters somehow worked without electronics. And nothing.

    Only in the MiG-15 there was no engine with a variable thrust vector as the author wants in a new fighter. I am tormented by vague doubts as they say. To manage such an engine without a computer, only boosters? Babani, as they say in one cartoon.
  40. iouris
    iouris 10 July 2016 21: 05
    +1
    The "state-two percent", which pays a mediocre footballer ten times more than SOGAZ can pay to the family of a pilot who died in a state war, will not be able to win the war in a US-led coalition, and the top officials will not want to use nuclear weapons.
    The idea about the production of the MiG-15 with a system of enveloping the terrain ... has not been worked out.
    1. Cat man null
      Cat man null 10 July 2016 21: 12
      0
      Quote: iouris
      ...


    2. NordUral
      NordUral 10 July 2016 21: 15
      +2
      We do not have a state, but there is an organized crime group pretending to be a state. Regrettably, admit it.
      1. Beefeater
        Beefeater 11 July 2016 00: 19
        -1
        Quote: NordUral
        We do not have a state, but there is an organized crime group pretending to be a state. Regrettably, admit it.

        It is necessary to compare with the life of the neighbors. There are not even structures pretending to be state
        1. NordUral
          NordUral 11 July 2016 09: 20
          0
          For some time now, the neighbors have little interest in me, except that the Slav brothers, and even they are fornication (although, if you look at our top from their swamp, you can understand them). And I want us to have a state of equal opportunities, with working social elevators, nation-wide ownership of the subsoil, powerful industry and science.
          But not a state of menagers and thieves-officials with a crown of thieves from oligarchs. A powerful public sector with a planned economy in the main sectors of the national economy (now it is possible to implement it on the basis of supercomputers and artificial intelligence systems) and private business in the consumer sector and, possibly, in a subcontract with the main one. And strict individual responsibility for the deed, both with a plus sign and for failure. And the strict principle of Gleb Zheglov.
    3. Vadim237
      Vadim237 10 July 2016 21: 31
      +3
      There won't be any Migov 15 in the new wrapper - a sixth-generation aircraft, this is a complex avionics complex, with elements of artificial intelligence, a photon radar, lightweight but super-strong materials, plasma-ignition engines with access to hypersonic speed in afterburner mode and a coating material capable of " adapt "to a wide range of air defense radar waves.
  41. NordUral
    NordUral 10 July 2016 21: 14
    0
    Do not mind. The argument is good.
  42. ZAV69
    ZAV69 10 July 2016 21: 28
    +2
    And whom do you put in this mass plane? I didn’t learn how to pilot a jet plane pilot from a primer. And health requirements are higher than for piloting il2.
  43. zenion
    zenion 10 July 2016 21: 59
    +2
    Stalin told Zhukov that we would build the plane in one day. But the pilot must wait at least 18 years. People need to be protected. A thousand airplanes. Where to get a thousand pilots when they are shot down?
  44. Beefeater
    Beefeater 11 July 2016 00: 15
    0
    Quote: Aspeed
    Quote: kirill
    Well, there is no need to bring the idea to the point of absurdity. However, the Tiger was more perfect and more efficient than the T-34.

    1) The tiger was not perfect than the T-34
    2) The tiger was not more effective than the T-34

    The tiger was stupidly bigger, thicker, more expensive and had big problems with mass production and operation.

    But Tiger and T34 and Sherman punched through from 2km. T34 and Sherman "firefly", which made about 3000 could fight the Tiger at a distance of 500-700 m.
  45. Zulu_S
    Zulu_S 11 July 2016 03: 25
    0
    Give I-16! Cheap and cheerful! No electronic filling, take-off from unpaved airfields, etc. We’ll tear the probable adversary like an ace warmer!
  46. Filxnumx
    Filxnumx 11 July 2016 21: 23
    +4
    Colleagues, for some reason no one notices the author's most important mistake: the selectivity of the effect of EMR on the REO. The author, without any hesitation, asserts that the consequences of a nuclear explosion will be felt only by the equipment of a potential enemy, and our electronics are miraculously protected from these consequences. Or will our anti-aircraft gunners "by eye" direct the S-300 or S-400 complexes? And what then is the whole system of the author's inferences worth if it is based on a completely absurd thesis? And the second remark, to which many commentators have already paid attention: author, teach the theory! Instead of scattering delusional weight distributions of a "mass cheap super-duper aircraft", they would ask what the "equation of existence of an aircraft" is. With such parameters, it can fly, well, except that a manned anti-aircraft missile such as the German disposable vertical takeoff aircraft Ba-349. With a takeoff weight of about 5 tons, you can safely forget about supersonic and super-maneuverability, as well as a more or less acceptable range. Or maybe the author had in mind some warp-powered pepelats from the archives of the fascist "Anenerbe"? Those, according to rumors, flew almost without electronics and did things in the air that not a single Raptor could even dream of!
    1. Yarik
      Yarik 26 September 2016 16: 19
      0
      Or maybe the author had in mind some warp-powered pepelats from the archives of the fascist "Anenerbe"? Those, according to rumors, flew almost without electronics and did things in the air that not a single Raptor could even dream of!

      Yeah, and they visited the moon and piled towers on one pepelats from the "Eugen", or what? wassat laughing
  47. Dekabrev
    Dekabrev 11 July 2016 23: 51
    +2
    In my opinion, the author has knowledge at the level of a physics textbook of grade 8.
    About the protection of electronics from EMP and never heard of. A supersonic aircraft with decent weapons, radar, armor, range and all 5 tons.
    And all thoughts in general.
    Most importantly, there is even no doubt that those who are planning plans for future combat use are probably based on previous experience in combat use, that they model and analyze something there.
    Just - I want cheap, but angry.
    And at the expense of the tigers. Even such a concept as "fear of tigers" was not only in the Allied armies, but also in ours.
    It must be understood that if an enemy fighter sees you, but you are not there, it is very scary. And, most importantly, to defeat an adversary who, a cut above, needs a very large numerical superiority and large losses.
    1. PENZA
      PENZA 27 September 2016 15: 06
      0
      (to defeat an adversary who, a cut above, needs a very large numerical superiority and big losses) I do not agree with you. There is such a technique for pilots - an imitation of attack. You enter the opponent’s tail and lead him until the fuel runs out. And there, how lucky someone before.
    2. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 5 October 2016 13: 44
      +1
      Quote: Dekabrev
      In my opinion, the author has knowledge at the level of a physics textbook of grade 8.
      About the protection of electronics from EMP and never heard of.


      Definitely - technical articles are now written by "PTU Shniki" - a complete misunderstanding of the topic of aviation development - how such articles get into publications - resource degradation ...
  48. Dekabrev
    Dekabrev 12 July 2016 00: 00
    0
    By the way, before the Second World War, all opponents possessed weapons of mass destruction (chemical) and their delivery vehicles, but no one used them. Thank God and now hardly anyone will decide on the use of nuclear weapons. So you need to prepare for a normal (non-nuclear) war. By the way, who said that there is no electronics on Grippen, and his weight is not so small. Maximum take-off weight - 14 tons.
  49. Ruby
    Ruby 12 July 2016 08: 51
    0
    Quote: Dekabrev
    By the way, before the Second World War, all opponents possessed weapons of mass destruction (chemical) and their delivery vehicles, but no one used them. Thank God and now hardly anyone will decide on the use of nuclear weapons. So you need to prepare for a normal (non-nuclear) war. By the way, who said that there is no electronics on Grippen, and his weight is not so small. Maximum take-off weight - 14 tons.


    They didn’t use it because they were afraid of the answers, but because in the 40s chemical weapons represented a danger mainly for civilians only. And that is relative. Basically, in all countries there were already means of protection for the army and for industry and for the population. Look at the chronicle of war, all with gas masks. There is no effective protection from nuclear weapons and will not be in the foreseeable future.
  50. kig
    kig 12 July 2016 10: 55
    0
    In principle, I support. High-tech (and therefore expensive) military equipment is good in local conflict with a relatively weak enemy. If the rival is equal, then very soon the ability of industry to quickly and cheaply replace losses will come to the fore. Previous quality and technology will be simply unavailable. The T-34 was not the best tank in the world, the TU-2 was in some ways better than the PE-2, Sudaev’s submachine gun was made rude and unaesthetic, but at that moment simplicity and quantity were the most important.