Military Review

MiG-35: very difficult takeoff

207
At a recent press conference, Sergei Korotkov, General Designer of UAC (United Aircraft Building Corporation), said that at the end of August 2016, flight tests of the MiG-35 fighter will begin. Tests will be conducted until the middle of the 2017 year. Upon completion, it is planned to conclude a contract for the serial supply of aircraft to the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.


MiG-35: very difficult takeoff


News from the category of good. However, as in any complex system (and testing a new aircraft is not a simple matter), there are nuances.

And the most unpleasant thing is that the MiG-35, which will be tested, and the MiG-35, which 14 began to be created years ago in the RAC MiG, is not the same thing.

It sounds ridiculous, but true.

The MiG-35, which will be released on state tests, is an improved and modernized MiG-29М / М2. Outwardly, the difference is difficult to find, the planes are similar. And the main problem is that at the moment all the systems of the 4 ++ generation fighter are not ready. And representatives of the RSK "MiG" recognize this. So one "plus sign" is not yet so.

The question arises: what is the problem, because the work on the MiG-35 takes almost 15 years.

Many experts believe that the behind-the-scenes battle between the Sukhoi Design Bureau and the MIG MiG is the main reason for the delay. Lost the last. And this struggle did not begin yesterday. But in the end, the Sukhoi Design Bureau won a convincing victory in the battle for the budget. And MiG and other competitors got second roles and funding on the leftover principle. That could not affect the speed of new developments.

It is difficult to say whether it is good. Competition is a subtle thing. But back in the Great Patriotic War there was a certain division into light fighters of Yakovlev and heavier Lavochkin. And even the tasks they put at the end of the war were different, based on the performance characteristics. Who does not believe, read Golodnikova.

And then this trend continued. Only in the postwar years, the Lavochkin Design Bureau gradually switched to rocket and space technology, and the Sukhoi Design Bureau, previously engaged mainly in bombers and attack aircraft, transferred to the design and development of fighters.

My personal opinion is that the collapse of the T-4 project, which really represented a serious competition to the development of the Tupolev Design Bureau, was to blame. And it was decided to put everyone in their places.

The Tupolev Design Bureau is engaged in bombers and missile carriers. The Sukhoi Design Bureau with fighter-bombers and heavy fighters. OKB Mikoyan and Gurevich light fighters.

Su-24 / 34 and Su-25 do not fit into the general scheme. But the genius of Pavel Osipovich as a designer also can not be entered anywhere. The fact that Sukhoi was a genius, as it were, is not being discussed. As well as the fact that many of his projects were "hacked" precisely because they were ahead of the understanding of those times.

However, back in our time.

In 2002, the question arose of replacing the outdated MiG-29 with the promising MiG-35. That was quite logical. But for some reason, representatives of the Sukhoi Design Bureau began to express the opinion that it was necessary to replace it with some kind of “more solid” machine. The idea is original, but for some reason the Ministry of Defense agreed with it. As a result, the replacement of light MiGs by heavy Su began.

As a result, by now in our fighter aviation a very strange situation arose, somewhat contrary to the classical principles of the construction of military aircraft.

There is a global concept, according to which, the proportion of light fighters in front-line aviation should be about two-thirds of the total number of aircraft. It is logical, at least based on economic factors. Combat use - a separate article.

As of the year on the 2015, the VKS RF had 318 Su fighters of all modifications (27, 30, 33, 35) and 223 MiG-29. And these are just general numbers, without taking into account the condition of the aircraft.

Of course, the entry of heavy fighters into the troops will in no way reduce our combat readiness. But here again the nuances. And they must be distinguished, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of aircraft.

Remember history with deck MiG-29K? Copies broke a lot then. Flight tests for the decker ended in 2006 year. And they didn’t rush to accept this car for use by Admiral Kuznetsov. Although the Su-33, constituting its wing, has long been asked for a replacement. It came to insanity that such a hefty ship was carrying 8 airplanes on its hikes. It was? It was.

And the MiG-29K was adopted only in the 2013 year. By the way, at that time MiG-29KUB, combat training, double was already ready.

The Russian Navy generally weird policy in this regard. They are not in a hurry to change the Su-33, which are both older than the MiGs, and belong to the fourth generation, but also the Su-25UTG, which are generally the day before yesterday.

Look at the neighbor-partner? Why does India buy MiG-29K and MiG-29CUB for its aircraft carriers ("Vikramaditya", "Viraat" and the "Vikrant" under construction)? Hindus do not understand anything in aviation? Or just save money? Of course, do not save. First place in the world for the import of military equipment is saying something. As well as another contract for the 30 MiG-29K fighters.

But this is a halfback, which not many companies in the world produce. With ordinary planes worse. Recently, the MiG-35, which showed interest in India and Egypt, lost the tender. And to whom? French "Rafal". And the Egyptians and Indians chose to buy from not the most honest sellers is not the cheapest product. But the product, which exists "in fact", and does not hang out God knows how many years in the development stage.

Many experts believe that the MiG-35 is able to compete with the best aircraft, not only in its class, but also among heavier vehicles. However, to prove it now, when it exists in the form of an unfinished project, it is extremely difficult.

MiG-35 was supposed to appear in the troops a year ago. The main reason is the lack of readiness of the Zhuk-A radar with an active phased antenna array. By the way, the radar with AFAR - this is one of the signs of the fifth generation of the aircraft. Zhuk-A from the Fazotron-NIIR concern seems to be expected in the near future, but ...

True, the export version is already ready for production - “Zhuk-AE”. But like everything that we have contains the letter "E" in the labeling, this "Beetle" is simpler and weaker. Instead of the target range for air targets in 35 km planned for the MiG-200, on the export version this indicator is reduced to 150 km. The remaining indicators seem to be the same. In particular, both radars are capable of mapping an area and provide a flight (possibly supersonic) with a rounding of this relief.

So the plane, which tests begin in August, will probably already be equipped with the Zhuk-AE radar. All the rest is already on it.

It is generally accepted (quite rightly, by the way) that the Su-35 is the closest in quality to the fifth generation of fighters. Just because from the 4 ++ to the full 5 generation is one step. The RSK MiG believe that the MiG-35 is able to rise to the same level.

Although of course, this can only be proved by passing state tests. According to representatives of RSK MiG, the most advanced onboard electronic equipment is installed on 35. None of the "four" do not have such a powerful EW system. And pay special attention to excellent flight qualities.

When designing the aircraft, it was possible to increase the internal fuel supply with respect to the MiG-50 by 29%, and also to double the payload. Thus, in terms of armament and range, the aircraft was almost equal to the heavy fighters.

The new engine in the driveless mode does not reach the supersonic speed a bit, which is what the Su-35 does. However, unlike its heavier fellow has an electronic control system. Also, the designers managed to record engine reliability. In many ways, thanks to this, the aircraft's resource exceeds the 6 000 hours.

The weapons control system also uses two optical-location stations with television and thermal imaging channels, a laser range finder and a target designator. Su-35 has only one such station operating in the forward hemisphere. The MiG-35 has the ability to view in the lower hemisphere, which increases the effectiveness of the destruction of ground objects by a fighter.

Yes, and the radar of the Su-35 with a passive grille.

In general, if you still go through the performance characteristics, then the MiG-35 seems to be a very decent fighting vehicle. But, I repeat, in order to confirm them, one must pass the tests. And in the future to overcome all the barriers that prevented 35-th fly all these years.

Worse for our VKS just will not.
Author:
207 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. svp67
    svp67 29 July 2016 06: 29
    +18
    Worse for our VKS just will not.
    A new aircraft, even if it’s not even a super-duper, is certainly better than nothing, and to promote this aircraft for export is also a plus, but efforts must be made to create a new light fighter, since an aircraft of this class is very necessary.
    1. mirag2
      mirag2 29 July 2016 08: 16
      -8
      Yesterday I literally read that 6 out of ten MiGs "K" and "KUB" supplied to India turned out to be substandard.
      1. DanSabaka
        DanSabaka 29 July 2016 08: 58
        +15
        can you link to an article ..... is the source of information worthy of attention? ...
        1. Navigator Basov
          Navigator Basov 3 August 2016 22: 43
          +7
          There will be no references, as this is a re-broadcast of the relayings of Ukrainian mass disinformation. Compare the note for adequate publications (neutral content, neutral title):
          https://rns.online/military/VMS-Indii-zayavili-o-problemah-s-kuplennoi-u-RF-voen
          noi-tehnikoi-2016-07-07 / (7 July in 15: 15),
          http://www.aviaport.ru/digest/2016/07/07/390815.html (7 июля в 16:16);
          with a spoiled Ukrainian phone (defective marriage - it sounds!):
          http://argumentua.com/novosti/u-vmf-indii-problemy-rossiiskaya-voennaya-tekhnika
          -nekonditsionnyi-brak (July 7 on 17: 07),
          http://begemot.media/news/u-vmf-indii-problemy-rossijskaya-voennaya-tehnika-neko
          nditsionnyj-brak / (July 8 on 6: 35).
          The same cement killer has thought up numerical indicators.

          Another example of how the Europaean democratic fourth power works.
          https://lenta.ru/news/2015/12/22/su30/ (22 декабря 2015 г. в 8:14), и — бац http://argumentua.com/novosti/vvs-indiya-v-shoke-ot-zakuplennykh-u-rossii-istreb
          itelei-su-30mki (22 December 2015 in 12: 11). Instead of covering the usual working moments (the Indians bought the planes, but they are poorly maintained and do not buy spare parts - there is something about the 6 planes, but about the 6 Su-30MKI) colored headings appear about shock, marriage and substandard.
      2. siberalt
        siberalt 29 July 2016 09: 54
        +6
        Non-standard can be considered from a shortage or a mismatch with the declared properties and up to an open marriage. So, your post for clarification begs for a specific reference about the source of information.
      3. Koshak
        Koshak 29 July 2016 12: 07
        +5
        Quote: mirag2
        Yesterday I literally read that 6 out of ten MiGs "K" and "KUB" supplied to India turned out to be substandard.

        It would be better not to write such comments at all. "I read somewhere, and you are looking for"
      4. goose
        goose 29 July 2016 12: 36
        +4
        Quote: mirag2
        Yesterday I literally read that 6 out of ten MiGs "K" and "KUB" supplied to India turned out to be substandard.

        Listen to more Hindus; they constantly find fault with trifles to put pressure on suppliers.
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 29 July 2016 13: 13
          0
          Yes, and the radar of the Su-35 with a passive grille.

          well put with the active (at least from the MiG-35) laughing
          the author "does not own the topic at all", so hardly what

          Worse for our VKS just will not.

          with such, while there is still worse ...
          1. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 30 July 2016 13: 40
            +6
            .... There is a worldwide concept, according to which, the share of light fighters in front-line aviation should be approximately two-thirds of the total number of aircraft ....

            What is the "global concept"? You compare the size of our country with the countries of Europe. Another would be Israel as an example.
            If the country of planes is like dirt, then you can afford to have several types of fighters, but if the country is huge in area and the planes are not crowded, then they should be with a long flight range and with a large ammunition load.
            1. tupolev-95
              tupolev-95 31 July 2016 13: 42
              +3
              The point is not the size of the country, but the effective implementation of specific combat missions. A heavy fighter is not universal - in some situations a light fighter is preferable.
              1. Simpsonian
                Simpsonian 31 July 2016 14: 35
                +2
                The matter is in the size of the country - large planes fly on.
              2. silver_roman
                silver_roman 2 August 2016 12: 12
                +5
                a large aircraft will be more universal than small ones; the barrel is really in the economic component. It is simply excessive to drive heavy drying to intercept enemy aircraft, but on drying it is much more convenient to work in Syria and experience confirms this.
                I’m talking about the case when our 34th flew to soak in a toilets of Amer’s bearded dogs, they raised the F-18, ours departed, waited until those poor fellows ran out of fuel and they dumped them, returned and were bombed again. I was just jubilant then!
                1. Simpsonian
                  Simpsonian 2 August 2016 12: 37
                  +1
                  Interceptors are usually heavy as a Su-27 fighter-interceptor, the light MiG-29 is a front-line fighter (not an interceptor). An interceptor must be able to fly a long distance at supersonic to intercept. The supersonic fuel is very consumed, so it should be larger than a fighter.
                  If these "poor fellows" decided to escape from the Su-18/27 on the F-35, then they would have failed, on the F-15, too, because it is smaller than the Su-27 and cannot hold supersonic speed as long as it does ... laughing
                  1. silver_roman
                    silver_roman 2 August 2016 13: 16
                    +1
                    Now with the level of functional growth, these concepts are increasingly blurred: interceptor, front-line fighter, etc.
                    MiG-29s are great for intercepting aircraft, as go on collision courses and there do not need large radius of action. The task is to fly up as quickly as possible, displace / destroy the enemy and return to base with minimal expenses both in terms of resources and, accordingly, in terms of finances.
                    And the su of the 27 family is great for the front when the front is stretched for many hundreds of kilometers. The su-30MKI is already being adapted for BRAMOS.
                    1. Simpsonian
                      Simpsonian 2 August 2016 13: 55
                      0
                      Why poorly imagine what interception is. They are counter only for a small number of aircraft lol and for the rest they’re already lateral. In war, they look at fuel consumption only in the air. The MiG-29 had the task of gaining dominance in the air only in the near-front strip, while basing it on close field airfields. If a large group makes a breakthrough in this narrow section of the front, then due to the small radius of the flight (especially at supersonic sound), all MiG-29s falling to it will simply not be quantitatively enough to intercept all targets.
                      1. silver_roman
                        silver_roman 2 August 2016 16: 00
                        0
                        If we take into account that the radius of the MiG-35 was increased decently, the problem of a limited radius was partially solved.
                        In general, the RD-33 is quite an old engine.
                        Quote: Simpsonian
                        If a large group is making a breakthrough in this narrow section of the front, then due to the small flight radius (especially at supersonic sound), all MiG-29s falling to it will simply not be quantitatively enough to intercept all targets.

                        I vaguely represent a group superior to all locally based at the breakout site of the 29th. Again, a large group target will be visible on radars in advance. Also consider the presence of air defense.
                        Although if we talk about the practice used in the USSR, then I really do not know.
                      2. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 2 August 2016 16: 57
                        0
                        And he returned the possibility of use from soil strips, and maybe there was a static instability?

                        Well, if vaguely then do something well. And on what if not on the radar it should still be visible?
                        If there is air defense then why do fighters at all?
                      3. silver_roman
                        silver_roman 3 August 2016 15: 39
                        0
                        Air defense radars will be much more effective and more powerful in air defense systems than on board an aircraft, unless of course we are talking about the A-50 or Avax.
                        Quote: Simpsonian
                        And he returned the possibility of use from soil strips, and maybe there was a static instability?

                        why would he take off from the ground? if this opportunity was available, then it disappeared for a reason. And given that the combat radius has been increased, it is possible to locate aircraft at more distant aerodromes with concrete.

                        Quote: Simpsonian
                        If there is air defense then why do fighters at all?

                        A fighter is a projection of force, i.e. can be used both in defense and in attack, which is much more difficult to do with air defense. This is one of, but far from the only reason.
                      4. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 3 August 2016 15: 50
                        0
                        four MiG-31 radar covers the same front as the A-50
                        ground air defense can not chase cruise missiles with three-swing speed

                        then, so that they would not all be covered with one operational tactical missile at a concrete aerodrome, then they would be removed for this possibility, if perestroika suddenly goes wrong

                        Well, in an attack, you can use the Vedas to use earth-to-ground missiles, as the great Trotskyist Khrushchev taught us?
      5. silver_roman
        silver_roman 2 August 2016 12: 01
        0
        This rule also worked for the USSR Air Force, so the size has nothing to do with it.
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 2 August 2016 12: 25
          0
          The USSR, like the Russian Federation, was a big country, so this rule has to do with
          1. silver_roman
            silver_roman 2 August 2016 13: 18
            +1
            A person says that this rule was applicable to small countries, but I argue that it was also valid in the USSR, therefore, the size factor of a country does not affect the ratio of light to heavy aircraft or affects, but not so significantly.
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 2 August 2016 13: 57
              0
              Therefore, the "logic" is quite strange ...
        2. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 2 August 2016 12: 29
          +1
          Quote: silver_roman
          This rule also worked for the USSR Air Force, so the size has nothing to do with it.

          And the number of aircraft to protect a large territory and a small should be the same?
          If the territory is enormous, and the aircraft are minuscule, the purchase of which aircraft should be emphasized: who have a short flight range or a large one?
          The point is to buy airplanes, which, in which case, will not even reach the enemy?
          1. silver_roman
            silver_roman 2 August 2016 13: 30
            0
            These are all rhetorical questions.
            I’m not saying that you need to completely abandon heavy aircraft.
            If, for example, the MiG-31 can, as part of 4-5 sides, cover 1000-1500 km with its "barriers". Why are there many?
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 2 August 2016 13: 59
              0
              then somewhere in one place or in two or three different places a large number of cruise missiles can fly
              1. silver_roman
                silver_roman 2 August 2016 16: 07
                +1
                for this there are air defense systems. Or are you going to intercept thousands of axes (of which there are about 10 already in service with the "partners") with several dozen MiG-000BM?
                1. Simpsonian
                  Simpsonian 2 August 2016 16: 54
                  0
                  for this, the MiG-31 was also made from the MiG-25, anti-aircraft guns cannot transfer from one threatened direction to another with three-speed speed and shoot the KR or their carriers, the USSR had several hundred of them, and more than a thousand MiG-25
  2. tomket
    tomket 29 July 2016 14: 53
    +3
    Quote: goose
    Listen to more Hindus; they constantly find fault with trifles to put pressure on suppliers.

    Indians have been flying the MiG-6K for more than 29 years, and it has been officially in service for three years. And what is called "saw the light."
    1. Pushkar77
      Pushkar77 29 July 2016 15: 46
      +1
      So here I am writing about this, they have presented to everyone, except for their "Tejas", which they extol (although I also like it, probably because the basis of "Mirage").
  • Pushkar77
    Pushkar77 29 July 2016 15: 42
    +4
    There are a lot of Ukrainian components in the Indian shipbuilder, and in general it's time to get used to it, they fumbled for a couple of years, "Sukhari", such a policy, and naturally achieved, on more suitable conditions for themselves, to modernize the Su-30MKI and the development of a fifth generation fighter. They and "Rafali" hayal, although the quality is excellent (they just knocked down the price). But the pilots are very pleased with both the "Rusks" and the MiGars, there you have to read between the lines. Their fighter has been flying for four years and no complaints were noticed, and suddenly ...
  • cherkas.oe
    cherkas.oe 31 July 2016 10: 27
    0
    Quote: mirag2
    Yesterday I literally read

    Where did you read it?
  • DanSabaka
    DanSabaka 29 July 2016 09: 00
    +1
    I don’t know what kind of plane it is, but on the third day a car with the silhouette of the MiG-29/35 flew over Zhukovsky ...
  • Skubudu
    Skubudu 29 July 2016 11: 08
    +10
    Increased internal fuel supply
    Traction is increased and, importantly, the engine life.
    Payload increased
    It remains to close the issue with AFAR and weapons.
    And the MiG-35 will well have the right to exist, unless of course it costs a reasonable price.
    1. Garris199
      Garris199 1 August 2016 03: 29
      +2
      And the MiG-35 will turn into a heavy fighter, a kind of SU-35 and at a similar price. This is the whole problem of this project and in the Moscow Region - they understand this. We need a new, really lightweight MFI. Single engine, inconspicuous and inexpensive.
      1. mav1971
        mav1971 23 September 2016 17: 21
        +1
        Quote: Garris199
        And the MiG-35 will turn into a heavy fighter, a kind of SU-35 and at a similar price. This is the whole problem of this project and in the Moscow Region - they understand this. We need a new, really lightweight MFI. Single engine, inconspicuous and inexpensive.


        In a word, we need our Flu ...
  • Verdun
    Verdun 29 July 2016 12: 02
    +5
    Quote: svp67
    but efforts must be made to create a new light fighter, since an aircraft of this class is very necessary.

    For this, it is at least necessary that the MiG Design Bureau and the factories producing such aircraft survive. They cannot wait for a new project to appear. It is necessary to give them the opportunity to earn money and "get their hands on" the production of the MiG-35, which is discussed in the article.
    1. Pushkar77
      Pushkar77 29 July 2016 16: 15
      +6
      It survived and even modernized, at the moment (in the event of force majeure) RSK can issue 30 fighters per month, orders are needed, and this can only be provided by the state, but the project is constantly hampered. I think that everyone who has read and watched the interview of Sergei Korotkov, everyone remembers his words that the car has long been ready for production. For example, the Su-35 began to enter the unit much earlier than it passed all the tests, and it has not yet passed to the end, since there are no RVV BD missiles. The MiG-35 has everything the same, the machine itself has long been able to enter units. But the project is hindered and slowed down, the military-industrial complex is being bought up by big business, the "dog" is buried right here, the leadership needs to show will, that's all. And the fighter is needed in large quantities, no one will replace it, if you install OVT engines on it, then it will be the strongest fighter in close maneuvering combat, among all generations, and this is also one of the reasons that it is slowed down and is not allowed in every possible way in a complete set of engines with OVT, because in this case it jumps over all our "Crackers" of the fourth and fifth generations (in close combat), and this, at least, will try to prevent this, the people of OASH "Sukhoi" they are on the board of directors of RSK MiG, such are the cases and they have a lobby already in the country's leadership. here the leadership already needs to think, and the participation of our aviation in strikes against the militants eloquently says that they have in vain canceled the niches for aircraft and have relied only on heavy vehicles. Sergei Korotkov said very simply about this: - "Why drive 400-600 km. Heavy fighters that should operate 3-900 km or more. This is unreasonable and destroys the country's budget, since heavy fighters have a very expensive combat mission, this is a niche for light (medium fighters.) Although the combat radius of the MiG-35 is also not small, up to a thousand kilometers, this is a great achievement. Hopefully, the machine will still make its way into the sky.
      1. marshes
        marshes 29 July 2016 17: 31
        +1
        Quote: Pushkar77
        Pushkar77

        So in the course of the play, I see you are well versed in aviation. For the Kazakh Air Force, do you recommend 35 for?
      2. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 29 July 2016 19: 56
        -1
        Even the MiG-29 / 35 ATS will not cope with the Su-27 in close combat.
        1. tomket
          tomket 29 July 2016 23: 40
          0
          Quote: Simpsonian
          Even the MiG-29 / 35 ATS will not cope with the Su-27 in close combat.

          Based on what criteria do you draw such a conclusion?
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 30 July 2016 00: 09
            0
            This is not a conclusion, the Su-27 is even a super-maneuverable aircraft even without an ATS, the MiG-29 will not even be such an ATS, a super-maneuverability means a lot, especially in close combat.
            1. Kasym
              Kasym 30 July 2016 05: 31
              +3
              Simpson, you are against the laws of physics. What is easier to stop 20 or 30 tons at the same speed? Whoever has a turning radius greater than that of a jeep or passenger car with the same. speed?
              The fact is that the Su-30SM lose the old MiG-29 in the near. maneuvering the battle, dock of the Air Force of the Republic of Kazakhstan. hi
              1. Simpsonian
                Simpsonian 30 July 2016 09: 05
                +1
                The Su-27 has the same thrust-weight ratio as the MiG-29 due to more powerful engines. An aircraft with the same thrust-weight ratio, which, due to static instability, can even turn its tail forward in place like a tank (which the MiG-29 cannot do) and launch a rocket or fire an enemy from a cannon, can’t lose a fight to it.
                1. Simpsonian
                  Simpsonian 30 July 2016 09: 46
                  +4
                  about the bends of what’s already here, which he, due to his super-maneuverability, also does better,
                  The only advantage of the MiG-29 was the possibility of basing on field airfields in its early modifications (try to find and knock them all out), which, for a better opportunity to "democratize" the country, if the restructuring goes wrong, the rebuilders simply removed it, citing a gain in a slight increase in range - therefore, the later MiG-29s simply became unnecessary, this was their only and significant advantage over the Su-27 tied to a concrete runway
                  They also turned off the ability to execute cobra (and limited the modes) on the EDSU of combatant Su-27, leaving it only on the aircraft of the Russian Air Force Display Group, and everyone crumbles because "it still doesn't happen like that" ...
                  you can, for example, drive the most powerful RD-180s from Energia to the United States and sculpt an unintelligible Angara ourselves instead of adding a tank to them and pouring kerosene into it (this is how Atlas-5 turned out),
                  for this, because now, as under Stalin, no one is shooting as there is no confiscation of the stolen
                  can be sold for nothing the supersonic Yak to Americans - it turned out F-35
                  1. Simpsonian
                    Simpsonian 30 July 2016 09: 59
                    +1
                    Besides the possibility of advanced basing, the MiG-29 was good because it appeared earlier than the Su-27, which was radically redone right before its proposed release to achieve this very maneuverability, this, of course, took extra time.
                  2. Lucy
                    Lucy 1 August 2016 14: 50
                    +2
                    Stop writing crap.
                    If you distinguish the angle of attack from the angle of the barn, then operate with numbers from aerodynamics. They flew on both aircraft, or studied the RLE s-tov, then explain yourself based on the tactics of IA, when guiding it will defend. offensive. WB.
                    Unforgettable about the tactical unit in the IA.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                    2. Simpsonian
                      Simpsonian 1 August 2016 15: 42
                      0
                      Well, do not write it yourself. What are the claims to the merits?
                2. silver_roman
                  silver_roman 2 August 2016 16: 26
                  +1
                  Static longitudinal instability is also characteristic of the MiG-29 glider. Those. integrated circuit.
                  It seems like on the video everything becomes clear and all your arguments are empty:
                  1. Simpsonian
                    Simpsonian 2 August 2016 16: 49
                    0
                    static instability is not an integrated circuit, you just don’t know what it all means. there it is shown how it unfolds with a pancake, does a cobra or chakra do?
                  2. Simpsonian
                    Simpsonian 2 August 2016 16: 49
                    0
                    static instability is not an integrated circuit, you just don’t know what it all means. there it is shown how it unfolds with a pancake, does a cobra or chakra do?
                3. mav1971
                  mav1971 23 September 2016 17: 25
                  0
                  Quote: Simpsonian
                  The Su-27 has the same thrust-weight ratio as the MiG-29 due to more powerful engines. An aircraft with the same thrust-weight ratio, which, due to static instability, can even turn its tail forward in place like a tank (which the MiG-29 cannot do) and launch a rocket or fire an enemy from a cannon, can’t lose a fight to it.


                  A drill pilot is able to take meaningful actions during a turn then?
                  No overload?

                  Do not look at the demonstration flights of single testers.
                  Testers and their machines differ from combat pilots and combat vehicles - very much.
            2. silver_roman
              silver_roman 2 August 2016 16: 17
              +2
              what nonsense! and what do you think is super-maneuverability?
              And thanks to what is it achieved?
              In my understanding, this is the aircraft’s ability to maintain stability in transcendent flight modes, where aircraft that do not have this property will simply fall into a tailspin.
              Such aircraft are precisely the Su-35, Su-30cm, MiG-29 OVT.
              I think it is worth for you to decipher the abbreviation "OVT" and explain how this OVT differs from the stock MiG-29.
              Having less weight, all kinds of moments are already reduced, inertia is reduced. This is physics and no matter how you argue against it.
              A heavy machine will almost always lose with comparable light characteristics.
              1. Simpsonian
                Simpsonian 2 August 2016 16: 47
                0
                let's keep your grades with you and take up self-education on what the static instability of the Su-27 is, and what it means for super-maneuverability, the MiG-29 does not

                There are only two serial aircraft of these; these are all the Su-27 and the last Swedish Gripen (finally made recently)
                physics of law is that a large plane has a long range
                1. silver_roman
                  silver_roman 2 August 2016 17: 44
                  0
                  Quote: Simpsonian
                  let's keep your grades with you

                  nevertheless, you do not keep them with you for some unknown reason.
                  but as they say, truth is born in a dispute. all of a sudden I’ll draw something useful from you.
                  I don’t understand quite well the definitions of instability, super-maneuverability, but you say that you are not confirming your words at all. Only some pathetic speeches and no more. Crown compresses his head or what? It seems that everyone on the site is free to enter into discussions. You make a statement, therefore it must be supported by facts. Isn't that the essence of the discussions? Or what are you here for? I can just add you to the emergency situation and not waste time, but it’s like writing interesting things. I would like to understand their origins. nothing to your lunges.
                  1. Simpsonian
                    Simpsonian 2 August 2016 17: 59
                    0
                    This was not an assessment, but the conclusion that you do not know - a statically unstable aircraft is not necessarily built on an integrated circuit

                    truths are not born in a dispute, although someone may have said it

                    what can be interesting in that who presses or does not press and in what place?
    2. Koshak
      Koshak 29 July 2016 18: 01
      +1
      Quote: Verdun
      To do this, at a minimum, it is necessary that the MiG design bureau and plants producing such aircraft survive.


      And to the maximum - and all subcontractors fellow
  • Mavric
    Mavric 29 July 2016 06: 49
    +4
    I do not quite understand why it is impossible to use radar from T-50 or the same Su-35, standardization will reduce the cost of production, maintenance.
    1. Leto
      Leto 29 July 2016 06: 57
      +12
      Quote: Mavric
      I do not quite understand why it is impossible to use radar from T-50 or the same Su-35, standardization will reduce the cost of production, maintenance.

      But I also don’t understand why it is impossible to put a YaMZ engine from KAMAZ into Lada Grant? Well, why?
      1. dima mzk
        dima mzk 29 July 2016 10: 58
        0
        Yeah or in a superjet rocket engine
      2. Skubudu
        Skubudu 29 July 2016 11: 11
        +3
        KamAZ PJSC has not put YaMZ engines in KamAZ for many years.
        1. Leto
          Leto 29 July 2016 13: 12
          +1
          Quote: Skubudu
          KamAZ PJSC has not put YaMZ engines in KamAZ for many years.

          Sprinkle my head with ashes, take the words back.
        2. not main
          not main 29 July 2016 21: 05
          0
          Quote: Skubudu
          KamAZ PJSC has not put YaMZ engines in KamAZ for many years.

          More precisely never set! The KamAZ-740 engine was installed on KamAZ trucks.
        3. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 30 July 2016 14: 15
          +3
          About "many years" - it is loudly said. FROM http://www.kamaz.ru/press/releases/gruzovoy_zachyet_dakara_bystree_nadyezhnee_le
          gche /? sphrase_id = 530218
          :
          "... In this regard, only two KAMAZ trucks at Dakar-2014 will continue to be equipped with the proven Yaroslavl engine YaMZ, and three out of five racing cars are equipped with Liebherr engines ...."
          That is, at least in 2014, YaMZ was even put on racing cars. Personally, in the Tuapse region I often met KamAZ tractors (concrete trucks) with YaMZ engines.
      3. Pushkar77
        Pushkar77 29 July 2016 16: 19
        +2
        From the T-50, or from the Su-35, this is certainly too much, but AFAR identical in performance characteristics of the Rafal fighter can and should be. And in general, KB MiG was the trendsetter in the world in this sector, even the mattress covers lagged behind, and now the founder is forbidden to put what is rightfully his brainchild.
    2. mr.redpartizan
      mr.redpartizan 29 July 2016 07: 24
      +5
      The diameter of the nose cone on the MiG-35 is slightly smaller than that of the Su-35, so it is impossible to simply rearrange the radar from one aircraft to another. Only individual electronic components of the station and software can be unified. Due to the smaller radome diameter, the MiG-35 radar will have less APM than the N036 "Belka" on the PAK FA or the N035 "Irbis" on the Su-35S.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 29 July 2016 08: 55
        +4
        A phased array consists of small segments that can be used to assemble an antenna of any diameter. The "brains" will be the same, but the characteristics will differ slightly. Do not forget that the AFAR is several times smaller than the old radars, and the MiG and Su have a fairing designed for an analog antenna.
        1. Koshak
          Koshak 29 July 2016 12: 24
          +4
          Quote: Zaurbek
          A phased array consists of small segments that can be used to assemble an antenna of any diameter. The "brains" will be the same, but the characteristics will differ slightly. Do not forget that the AFAR is several times smaller than the old radars, and the MiG and Su have a fairing designed for an analog antenna.

          How simple it is with you. Well, what is there to think, take a bite around the perimeter of the lattice with pliers, and that's all. And in the design bureau the "dumb" designers cannot guess.
        2. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 29 July 2016 20: 50
          -2
          do not forget that the AFAR is several times smaller in size than the old radars, while the MiG and Su have a fairing designed for an analog antenna


          Not comments but some kind of madhouse, or rather a competition in it, who will give out "more beautiful" ...
    3. tomket
      tomket 29 July 2016 09: 59
      +4
      Quote: Mavric
      I do not quite understand why it is impossible to use radar from T-50 or the same Su-35, standardization will reduce the cost of production, maintenance.

      Here, as they say, people have a mess in their heads. Each fighter must fulfill the tasks for which it was created. After all, no one in their right mind will call to send the Yak-3 to escort the "Fortresses" from near Poltava. So why are the MiG-35s chopped up for heavy fighters? By definition, a light fighter does not need a super-powerful Irbis or Zaslon-type radar, since it should initially operate in its own information field. By the way, most of the losses of the MiG-29 in Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Eretria are due precisely to the fact that this very information field was absent due to the self-removal of the air defense from the fight in the air. In Eretria, the MiG lost to the Su because the battles took place in the very conditions for which the Su-27 was created. Hence the advantage.
      1. goose
        goose 29 July 2016 12: 43
        +5
        Quote: tomket
        A light fighter does not need a super-powerful Irbis or Barrier radar by definition

        Well, of course, not needed. Even as needed !!!
        Modern cruise missiles, drones, and even airplanes have very low ESR.
        How will he work against them if the radar is weak ???

        And what about modern combat at medium to long distances? It is necessary to direct several missiles simultaneously. This is a prerequisite.

        Ground targets are no better; against the backdrop of the earth, it is very difficult to distinguish ground targets. It is also advisable to do mapping to fly at low altitudes.
        There is nothing to do without a good radar. It’s better to leave one engine away from the Su-27, if the AFAR is expensive, but to have a top-level radar !!!

        One conclusion: the quality of a modern aircraft is determined by avionics no less than a glider and an engine, and in some cases even more.
        1. tomket
          tomket 29 July 2016 14: 57
          -1
          Quote: goose
          Well, of course, not needed. Even as needed !!!

          Damn, well, then let's declare all Drying as rubbish, because they do not carry "Barriers", but rather plates from A-50! What? The plate is the most! You can see everything far away! Do you understand what your own information field is? This is when information comes from ground-based radars, or the same a-50. Sushki was originally supposed to operate over an area where there are no radars, therefore it also has such increased requirements for the radar.
          1. Garris199
            Garris199 1 August 2016 03: 24
            0
            Quote: tomket
            because they do not carry "Barriers"

            They carry the "Barsa" and "Irbis", which are much newer than the "screen" and are considered one of the best airborne radars in the world.
  • viktor561
    viktor561 29 July 2016 06: 51
    +6
    In general, all over the world, competition among design bureaus made it possible to create masterpieces of aviation - and an attempt to create a single center "DRY" almost killed our aviation - Ily, Yaki, Migi, Tu - it's good that at least something is being revived - Il and Mig (even in during the war, the USSR had a dozen aviation design bureaus - I will not list - everyone knows)
    1. mr.redpartizan
      mr.redpartizan 29 July 2016 07: 41
      +1
      Russia is not the USSR. At the moment, it is more profitable to have two or three large manufacturers of aircraft with powerful design bureaus, a test and production base. In the United States, for example, only Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop remained the largest aircraft manufacturers. In Europe, only Dassault firms in France and SAAB in Sweden remained independent, all the rest work only in cooperation. Therefore, I consider the unification of Russian aircraft manufacturers in the UAC a positive step, because with each new generation of aircraft, their development becomes only more complicated and more expensive. Compare the complexity of the Mig-21 / Su-15 with the Mig-35 / PAK FA and everything will become obvious. Now imagine the development of sixth-generation aircraft with hypersonic flight speed, spacewalks, etc. How difficult the task of developing them is to judge the timing of the adoption of the F-22 / F-35 aircraft, although Lockheed and Boeing were involved in the project at the same time.
      1. Zulu_S
        Zulu_S 29 July 2016 08: 32
        +7
        Quote: mr.redpartizan
        F-22 / F-35, although Lockheed and Boeing were both involved in the project.

        Now imagine that in the United States Lockheed and Boeing would be united, and one of them would be headed. Would there be 2 aircraft? The answer is obvious. NOT. That's why we have MIGs in the pen. The USSR has already stepped on this rake. Closed Myasishchev. The lack of competition in the military-technical field limits the country's capabilities. It’s good that Kamov and Mil were not united.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 29 July 2016 08: 58
          +1
          in the USA, only two manufacturers remain. only each is the size of 2-3 of our jabs. And with Airbus, the same story is combined European manufacturers, except for DASSO.
  • nazar_0753
    nazar_0753 29 July 2016 06: 53
    +1
    Many experts believe that the behind-the-scenes battle between the Sukhoi Design Bureau and the MIG MiG is the main reason for the delay. Lost the last. And this struggle did not begin yesterday. But in the end, the Sukhoi Design Bureau won a convincing victory in the battle for the budget. And MiG and other competitors got second roles and funding on the leftover principle. That could not affect the speed of new developments.

    Sukhoi Design Bureau won not only the battle of Mikoyan for the supply of fighters, but also of Tupolev in civil aviation. I wonder why fellow
    1. Zulu_S
      Zulu_S 29 July 2016 08: 35
      +3
      And at Yakovlev's. "The trouble is, if the pastry starts to wear the boots ..."
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 29 July 2016 13: 21
        -2
        so don’t mess ... yes
        1. Zulu_S
          Zulu_S 29 July 2016 14: 07
          -1
          So I do not tach.
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 29 July 2016 18: 57
            0
            because sharpen ... what exactly is the trouble, then?
    2. Verdun
      Verdun 29 July 2016 12: 05
      +1
      Quote: nazar_0753
      Sukhoi Design Bureau won not only the battle

      And where, let me ask, the results of this victory? Is it because she was so impressive, hastily took up the MS-21?
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 1 August 2016 08: 00
        0
        Results: re-equipment of production, launch of the Su-30/34/35 series, preparation for the launch of the T-50. Superjet launch and MS-21 preparation. Plus, all the planes have been converted to "digital". Is that not enough for you? Considering that we lost some factories, and some could have lost. If the same leap occurs in Engines and avionics production ...
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 1 August 2016 08: 33
          0
          This is all still Soviet aircraft of varying degrees of readiness (except for the MS-21). With digital EDSU was still Su-27 and Yak-41. Or about digital, is it a documentation scan? The supply of digital graphic design tools to military production has been banned by State Department sanctions since Soviet times. The Russian Federation has its own way, and the USSR had it.
          1. KCA
            KCA 1 August 2016 17: 52
            0
            both the USSR and the Russian Federation did not introduce sanctions that prevented the use of US CAD systems, especially in companies that were closed to prying eyes, and even in international organizations - I can say for sure about the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna, although only socialist countries were founders, scientists from kapstran constantly appeared to participate in conferences and looked at presentations created on pirated software and on installations developed on pirated CAD
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 1 August 2016 18: 04
              0
              This is a civil institution, there are sanctions against them, but not so strict. On the installations, it was probably especially "written".
          2. mav1971
            mav1971 23 September 2016 17: 33
            0
            Quote: Simpsonian
            The supply of digital graphic design tools to military production has been banned by State Department sanctions since Soviet times.


            Are you sure about that?
            Me not!
            For I often see tender documentation for public procurements of the defense industry ...
    3. Tishka
      Tishka 29 July 2016 13: 20
      -1
      I must say thanks to Poghosyan! He pushed his own, and merged all the money with them! MIG, even when, created a 4 ++ generation fighter, but Poghosyan allocated Su money to develop the T-50! That’s the way they eliminate competitors!
  • Leto
    Leto 29 July 2016 06: 54
    +6
    Why does India buy the MiG-29K and MiG-29KUB for its aircraft carriers (Vikramaditya, Viraat and the Vikrant under construction)?

    Probably because Vikramaditya is designed to operate the Mi-29K, and not any other machine. And they buy MiG-29K on Vikrant so that there is no typical variety sorting. What does Viraat (ongerges) have to do with it, it won’t have the MiG-29K on it, they were going to scrape it off ... The new aircraft carrier that the Indians are planning together with the United States will carry other cars, possibly Superhornets, and possibly F-35s.
    And the MiG-29K was adopted only in 2013. The Russian Navy generally conducts a weird policy in this regard. Not in a hurry to change the Su-33

    It is not familiar to the author that the only obstacle is the adoption of an already ORDERED machine, for which a TTZ has been written out and for the development of which funds have been allocated is the passage of GSI. If the MiG-29K was able to pass the GSI only in 2013, then this is not the trouble of our Navy, but the developer’s problems.
    Recently, the MiG-35, to which India and Egypt showed interest, lost tenders. And to whom? French "Rafal".

    The MiG-35 lost in the Indian competition because the developer "somewhat" exaggerated the characteristics of the vehicle with regards to the combat load, when the Indians discovered this, they received an answer like "and you give us money, we will bring the car to the required parameters", which the Indians prudently not fell for.
    With regards to Egypt, there was no competition at all, the Saudis gave money specifically to Rafali.
    1. tomket
      tomket 29 July 2016 09: 30
      +2
      Quote: Leto
      then we received an answer like "and you give us the money, we will bring the car to the required parameters", which the Indians prudently did not take.

      The most interesting thing is that the Hindus did just that, regarding the Su-30. They gave money and Sukhoi brought Su-30 to condition, in fact having made a multi-role fighter out of an interceptor.
      1. Leto
        Leto 29 July 2016 10: 32
        -1
        Quote: tomket
        The most interesting thing is that the Hindus did just that, regarding the Su-30.

        Not certainly in that way. They gave money for the Su-30 to remake for the equipment that the Indians wanted to see including their production.
      2. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 29 July 2016 12: 26
        0
        Not at all - the Su-15 was the interceptor ...
        1. tomket
          tomket 29 July 2016 14: 44
          +1
          Quote: Simpsonian
          Not at all - the Su-15 was the interceptor ..

          Su-15, of course, was an interceptor, but only Su-30 was made of Su-27 UB for air defense needs. Then they pushed the idea that the Su-30 could replace the MiG-31 in air defense. And the first batch of Su-Xnumx delivered to India were interceptors.
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 29 July 2016 18: 55
            -1
            They did not do the Su-30 from Su-27UB, the interceptors did not possess such maneuverability.
            1. tomket
              tomket 29 July 2016 19: 03
              +2
              Quote: Simpsonian
              They did not do the Su-30 from Su-27UB, the interceptors did not possess such maneuverability.

              Excuse me, do you think he spontaneously spawned from scratch?
              1. Simpsonian
                Simpsonian 29 July 2016 19: 19
                -1
                They did it again, so his digital index is different.
                1. tomket
                  tomket 29 July 2016 23: 41
                  +1
                  Quote: Simpsonian
                  They did it again, so his digital index is different.

                  What are you saying !!!!
                  1. Simpsonian
                    Simpsonian 30 July 2016 00: 05
                    -1
                    In your opinion, if the aircraft is double and twin-engine then it must be from Su-27UB?
                    1. tomket
                      tomket 30 July 2016 00: 42
                      +1
                      Quote: Simpsonian
                      In your opinion, if the aircraft is double and twin-engine then it must be from Su-27UB?

                      Not even funny. No, he's from a flying saucer.
                      All the difference between the Su-27ub and the first Su-30 was to install a refueling bar and a slightly modified avionics
                      1. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 30 July 2016 00: 45
                        -2
                        No, the Su-30 and the Su-27UB are only similar in appearance ... smile
                      2. Zaurbek
                        Zaurbek 31 July 2016 08: 06
                        +1
                        Su-30 makes an aircraft factory, which specialized in the production of Su-27UB. There, all the equipment for two local modifications. It differs by engines and PGO (I don’t know about the composition of avionics, it is half French), and so the glider was not changed much. The most powerful alteration of the airframe, the Su-27, is the Su-35.
                      3. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 31 July 2016 08: 39
                        0
                        And before, what did the Su-27 do? They differ in glider and filling.
                      4. Zaurbek
                        Zaurbek 31 July 2016 17: 17
                        0
                        And the Su-35 is made by the aircraft factory, which made the Su-27 single. For example, the Russian Federation cannot produce a Su-25 (single-seat, because the aircraft plant remained in Tbilisi. In Russia, only the Su-25UB and all the latest assault novelties based on it were made.
                      5. Zaurbek
                        Zaurbek 31 July 2016 17: 17
                        0
                        And the Su-35 is made by the aircraft factory, which made the Su-27 single. For example, the Russian Federation cannot produce a Su-25 (single-seat, because the aircraft plant remained in Tbilisi. In Russia, only the Su-25UB and all the latest assault novelties based on it were made.
                      6. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 31 July 2016 20: 00
                        0
                        That is, to make a spark from the base model more difficult than the new type? Oh well...
  • Tsoy
    Tsoy 29 July 2016 09: 35
    +2
    jointly with the United States will design other cars, possibly Superhorns, and possibly F-35.


    Proceeding from the fact that the United States is ready to share the Emals and in every possible way pull India into a coalition against China, the likelihood of this is very high ...
    1. iwind
      iwind 29 July 2016 09: 42
      +1
      Quote: Choi
      jointly with the United States will design other cars, possibly Superhorns, and possibly F-35.

      Proceeding from the fact that the United States is ready to share the Emals and in every possible way pull India into a coalition against China, the likelihood of this is very high ...

      Even higher than you think a week ago, India requested, and Obama personally allowed the Indian Air Force to be introduced to the F-35. Representatives of the United States Air Force and lockheed martin will either be there soon.
      Ps on the other hand, it’s the Indians, they can pull for another 10-20 years, they can do it wassat
      1. Leto
        Leto 29 July 2016 10: 39
        +1
        Quote: iwind
        Representatives of the United States Air Force and lockheed martin will either be there soon.

        An extensive delegation from LM and Boeing was due to arrive on July 27, LM will be promoting PR F-35 since Indians refused to produce F-16, and Boeing hopes to agree on the transfer of Superhornet production to India with the creation of a center for their production and repair in India. The latter is extremely interesting. If everything grows together, the Boeing production line will move to India in a joint venture (not HAL, whose crooked hands will not let you shoot) and India will become the only manufacturer of the F / A-18E / F Super Hornet and its derivatives.
        1. iwind
          iwind 29 July 2016 20: 04
          0
          Quote: Leto
          An extensive delegation from LM and Boeing was due to arrive on July 27, LM will be promoting PR F-35 since from production of F-16

          How to refuse and agree, the Indians. :) seriously. The sale of the F-35, I do not particularly believe. There will definitely not be a transfer of production. Maxim screwdriver assembly at the LM factory in India, from the local staff only cleaners. 2 projects they will not pull here Pak-fa or F-35. They are already frequent visitors to the red flage in the usa. And not one of the parties will understand the attempt to sit on two chairs. And by the way, in the United States on Avia forums, the idea of ​​selling the F-35 caused a negative reaction. So most likely F / a-18. Or, on very stringent F-35 type conditions, for the first 10 years it is located on American bases and / or under the control of their personnel.
      2. Arikkhab
        Arikkhab 29 July 2016 11: 30
        +3
        for the price of one F-35, you can buy 3 MiG-35s ... Question: is the F-35 3 times better than the MiG-35? So the Indians are probably not sure ... plus the cost of retraining flight personnel, traditionally expensive service for the "Americans". So the choice is not easy ...
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 31 July 2016 07: 57
          0
          Better 2 Raphael, instead of one F-35
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 29 July 2016 10: 12
    +1
    They gave money for Rafali to compensate the French for the Mistral deal
  • goose
    goose 29 July 2016 12: 48
    0
    Quote: Leto
    It is not familiar to the author that the only obstacle is the adoption of an already ORDERED machine, for which a TTZ has been written out and for the development of which funds have been allocated is the passage of GSI. If the MiG-29K was able to pass the GSI only in 2013, then this is not the trouble of our Navy, but the developer’s problems.

    No, this is the problem of the radar provider who is not given money. And the production of AFAR in the Russian Federation is now piecewise, it determines the maximum rate of production of aircraft.
    The lack of financing for the basic electronic industry, which so far cannot mass-produce high-quality components, affects the design of AFAR and even more on the pace of their production and cost.
    It is the distortions in financing that are the only reason for the delay.
  • nazar_0753
    nazar_0753 29 July 2016 06: 55
    +1
    Quote: Mavric
    I do not quite understand why it is impossible to use radar from T-50 or the same Su-35, standardization will reduce the cost of production, maintenance.

    I think, simply because the radar from Sukhoi stupidly will not fit into the MiG-35. Sizes are different
  • demiurg
    demiurg 29 July 2016 06: 58
    -3
    Adopt a plane whose first flight was more than 30 years ago? I understand the modernization of those in service, it makes sense. But to buy a plane that is not much different from the SU-35.
    1. Malkor
      Malkor 29 July 2016 08: 43
      +1
      instant 35 oh how different from su 35))
      1. demiurg
        demiurg 29 July 2016 16: 49
        0
        Yeah, but not very expensive. And the take-off weight, too. Well, what's the point?
        If you make a couple, like the Americans, f-15 / f16 f-22 / f35, then let's make a single-engine aircraft, with 1/2 the mass and price of an older brother. Otherwise, the idea loses its meaning. MiG-35 actually repeats the Su-35. Well and to flog?
    2. Arikkhab
      Arikkhab 29 July 2016 11: 40
      +3
      firstly, the first Mig-29 (which made its first flight more than 30 years ago) is still quite different from the Mig-35 (only the glider is similar). This is how to compare the first F-18 with modern super hornet - a completely different machine.
      secondly, the development and design of aircraft is becoming more expensive every year, so the use of a successful platform for further modernization (in my opinion) is quite reasonable. plus in most conflicts there is no need to use expensive 5th generation aircraft
  • surrozh
    surrozh 29 July 2016 07: 01
    +2
    It is not entirely clear about the tender with Rafals. The Indians bought about 2 dozen, but then refused. Now the Russians want to buy again.
    1. Leto
      Leto 29 July 2016 07: 16
      -1
      Quote: surozh
      Now the Russians want to buy again.

      What to buy?
    2. mr.redpartizan
      mr.redpartizan 29 July 2016 07: 46
      +5
      Hindus just want to get French technology with localization of production in their home. At the same time, they are solving the problem of reducing prices by bargaining simultaneously with several parties. From the point of view of their interests, they are doing the right thing.
  • fact checker
    fact checker 29 July 2016 07: 15
    -3
    Quote: surozh
    Hindus bought

    For starters, it would not hurt you to understand how Indians differ from Indians, and only then try to analyze something.
  • ava09
    ava09 29 July 2016 07: 18
    +1
    Worse for our VKS just will not.

    It remains to figure out what is "worse". And this is neither more nor less, to understand the trends of the global aircraft industry and the effective development of our aviation industry against this background, the choice of the optimal line of aircraft from the point of view of military and economic feasibility, not today, but for the coming decades at least.
    Quote: svp67
    a new plane, even if it’s not a super-duper, is certainly better than nothing at all

    The comrade initially formulated a false choice for himself: Between "not super-duper" and "nothing at all", but how the question is formulated, this will be the answer. The main thing is that those on whom the development of our aircraft industry depends should be able to look ahead and set themselves comprehensively analyzed and objective tasks.
  • Viktor fm
    Viktor fm 29 July 2016 07: 34
    +2
    For its tasks, it will be an excellent aircraft and most importantly economical, run around for decades. The whole question is about the timing of commissioning.
  • ism_ek
    ism_ek 29 July 2016 08: 44
    +2
    An amateur wrote an article.
    The Tupolev Design Bureau is engaged in bombers and missile carriers. The Sukhoi Design Bureau with fighter-bombers and heavy fighters. OKB Mikoyan and Gurevich light fighters.

    Su-24/34 and Su-25 do not fit into the general scheme a bit.
    Remember Su-7 and Su-24 / 34 and Su-25 will fit perfectly into the overall series.
    Let's look at a neighbor-partner? Why does India buy the MiG-29K and MiG-29KUB for its aircraft carriers (Vikramaditya, Viraat and the Vikrant under construction)?
    Vikramaditya is a relatively small ship. A sufficient number of Su-33 did not fit on it.

    In the 90s, Sukhoi had great export potential, as its only competitor, the F-15, was hardly exported. Used MiG-29s were sold to everyone. KB eked out a miserable existence. The real contract with Algeria failed, the competition for the development of the fifth generation aircraft was lost. The economy must be considered. If the MiG-35 will be significantly cheaper to operate, then it is worth buying. Pull Russia two approximately the same aircraft is meaningless.
    1. tomket
      tomket 29 July 2016 09: 50
      0
      Quote: ism_ek
      Remember Su-7 and Su-24 / 34 and Su-25 will fit perfectly into the overall series.

      Allegedly, the specialization of Sukhoi in heavy fighters exists only in someone's inflamed consciousness. Dry always dealt with various topics, from the interceptor to the strategist and spotter.
      Quote: ism_ek
      Vikramaditya is a relatively small ship. A sufficient number of Su-33 did not fit on it.

      It did not fit, and even the Hindus did not need it for nothing.
      Quote: ism_ek
      In the 90s, Sukhoi had great export potential,

      The MiG-29m had great export potential. It was he who best suited the requirements of the Indians in the mid-90s. The allegedly necessary huge range of the Su-30 did not appear anywhere and under any guise among the Indians as one of the fundamental indicators, moreover, the MiG-29M just fit into the concept of using their Air Force. And the final point in the export of the MiG-29M, apparently, was played by the transfer of the "Indonesian" Su-30 to the Indians.
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 29 July 2016 09: 05
    +1
    That's right, only the MiG-35 is equal to the price of the Su-35. And the cost between light and heavy fighter should differ by half. And while there is no unification for engines and other equipment. MiG-29 in terms of numbers was the most massive among us. It is necessary to finish the Sukhoi T-50 and, on its basis and adjusted for later creation and new technologies, create a new light fighter. Unification should relate to the engine, cab, radar, etc. And the MiG-35 needs to be launched faster in the series, the aircraft fleet is aging, and there is nothing to replace the MiGs with. MiG-35 is also an opportunity to modernize, to varying degrees, the old MiG-29M
    1. Cat man null
      Cat man null 29 July 2016 09: 11
      0
      Quote: Zaurbek
      the cost between light and heavy fighter should differ by half

      belay fool
    2. tomket
      tomket 29 July 2016 09: 38
      0
      Quote: Zaurbek
      That's right, only the MiG-35 is equal to the price of the Su-35. And the cost between light and heavy fighter should differ by half. And while there is no unification for engines and other equipment. MiG-29 in terms of numbers was the most massive among us. It is necessary to finish the Sukhoi T-50 and, on its basis and adjusted for later creation and new technologies, create a new light fighter. Unification should relate to the engine, cab, radar, etc. And the MiG-35 needs to be launched faster in the series, the aircraft fleet is aging, and there is nothing to replace the MiGs with. MiG-35 is also an opportunity to modernize, to varying degrees, the old MiG-29M

      When the USSR conducted research on the topic of a two-component fighter fleet, they calculated the following. a mixed fleet of su-27 and a cheap lightweight single-engine fighter will be about twice as inferior as a fleet of su-27. Because Mig-29 and became twin-engine, and at a price not cheap. The USSR understood that it was stupid to save on DEFENSE. In developing the MiG, they were guided by the achievement of high combat indicators, and not by economic approaches.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 29 July 2016 10: 00
        +2
        Not quite so, the MiG-29 times the 1,5 was cheaper than the Su-27. And he became twin-engine because:
        1. The number of equipment, weapons and range on the fighter grew
        2. Thrust-to-weight ratio was to rise to 1: 1
        3. We did not have one reliable, economical and powerful engine.

        PS / read about F-18 (and its engine, traction, resource)
        1. tomket
          tomket 29 July 2016 10: 14
          +3
          Quote: Zaurbek
          Not quite so, the MiG-29 times the 1,5 was cheaper than the Su-27. And he became twin-engine because:

          Cheaper than the Su-27 yes, but significantly more expensive than the MiG-21.
          Quote: Zaurbek
          The thrust-weight ratio was to rise to 1: 1

          At f-16 thrust-to-weight ratio is provided by one engine.
          Quote: Zaurbek
          We did not have one reliable, economical and powerful engine.

          One engine with a Su-27 does not deliver? In general, the main criterion for the twin-engine layout was the need to ensure high survival in combat, which one engine could not provide.
          1. sivuch
            sivuch 30 July 2016 01: 04
            +1
            In fact, R. Belyakov’s argument was to stop losing cars in peacetime! But in the military, it’s a lot more complicated. Single-engine ones have their own advantages.
            By the way, I made a mistake - R-31F was considered as competitors of the AL-59
        2. sivuch
          sivuch 30 July 2016 00: 25
          +1
          Your deeds are wonderful, Lord. When they created the Mig-21 and Mig-23, there were engines, and then they disappeared. Besides AL-31, there was also R-55. D-30F was also considered
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 30 July 2016 00: 32
            0
            The large and heavy MiG-21s that appeared before even the Su-7, 9, 11 are also single-engine - and how could this be? wink
      2. Arikkhab
        Arikkhab 29 July 2016 11: 51
        0
        maybe there was no engine suitable for a single-engine aircraft?
        1. tomket
          tomket 29 July 2016 14: 51
          +2
          Quote: ArikKhab
          maybe there was no engine suitable for a single-engine aircraft?

          If you put one Su-27 engine on the plane? This is how everyone forgets that in China the j-10 flies perfectly on one AL-31fn, and it is just in the light category. And the Sino-Pakistani "Thunder" does just fine with one RD 33. So the story that there was no reliable engine in the USSR does not stand up to criticism.
  • iwind
    iwind 29 July 2016 09: 28
    +2
    Mig-35 ... back in 2012, wrote that it was necessary to decide with him as quickly as possible so that he would be the first to adopt the F-35 by comparison, and then it was possible. and then many tenders could have ended in a different way, and he wouldn’t have interfered with the videoconferencing system, anyway, such a light-heavy bunch is very convenient.
    Why is it all ... overslept. :( August 1-3 F-35A is declared combat ready- Tonight, the United States Air Force officially confirmed.
    http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/air-force/2016/07/27/first-op


    erational-f-35a-squadron-ioc-hill-air-force / 87640282 /

    Hmm, I would laugh for a long time if I were told in 2012 that the F-35 would be the first.
    This was the first time I saw Mig-35 a long time ago, it’s bad that during this time not much has changed.
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 29 July 2016 20: 35
      -3
      Quote: iwind
      all-such a bunch of light-heavy is very convenient.
      Why is it all ... overslept

      What is the convenience? Only specifically?

      The first was a Yak who flew there a quarter century ago, the alteration of which is this same F-35
      1. iwind
        iwind 29 July 2016 21: 15
        0
        Quote: Simpsonian
        Quote: iwind
        all-such a bunch of light-heavy is very convenient.
        Why is it all ... overslept

        What is the convenience? Only specifically?
        The first was a Yak who flew there a quarter century ago, the alteration of which is this same F-35

        Fins question line. Distribution of duty
        About yak it’s certainly nice ... but I’m even bored.
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 29 July 2016 21: 26
          0
          All the same, what kind of responsibilities are distributed and how? On the financial side, all the dollars are just printed by the Fed.

          You can get bored from such a round date range. laughing
          In the photo, by the way, F-35C, they will soon be written off, even forward F-35B. Two keels with one engine and a speed of just 1,6 Mach is his rudiment from the Soviet Yak.
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 29 July 2016 21: 34
            0
            ... despite the fact that F-35C and F-35A are not SK / GDP like F-35B, and they don’t need lol
          2. iwind
            iwind 29 July 2016 21: 40
            +1
            Quote: Simpsonian
            All the same, what kind of responsibilities are distributed and how? On the financial side, all the dollars are just printed by the Fed.

            Wow, how it’s started.
            F-35 land f_22. Air
            Quote: Simpsonian
            In the photo, by the way, F-35Ts, they will soon be written off, even forward F-35B. Two keels with one engine and a speed of just 1,6 Mach is his rudiment from the Soviet Yak.

            Yes, it is definitely running. Yak has more than one engine. In the photo f-35A on the air show in England there is no f-35c and this is not to mention that the wings are different.
            Well, they came up with something new to write off: louging:. That orders are growing, and already for the preliminary 2019 order for 100 pieces ++

            Quote: Simpsonian
            . ... despite the fact that F-35C and F-35A are not SK / GDP like F-35B, and they don’t need this

            Who doesn’t need?
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 29 July 2016 21: 54
              0
              Really launched! If "earth" then how light is it then fighter?
              The fact that it is the F-35C in the photo is easily identified ... the F-35B fan also helps a little in creating additional thrust in horizontal flight. "Orders are growing" and then the banquet will be canceled, the only remaining F-35A will be severely curtailed.
              And where do they grow by the way? On the contrary, it has long been declining.

              Two keels F-35A / C is not needed, the F-16 somehow with one engine and even greater speed, the keel is only one.
              1. iwind
                iwind 29 July 2016 22: 18
                0
                Quote: Simpsonian
                The fact that in the photo it is the F-35C is easily determined.

                Again. THIS photo was taken in England on avisho. In England there is not a single F-35C
                https://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedmartin/28008413810/
                The F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II flew together at the 2016 Royal International Air Tattoo in the UK.
                Quote: Simpsonian
                And where do they grow by the way? On the contrary, it has long been declining.


                England increased / confirmed the order by 138.
                //www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Defence/article1636215.ece
                Denmark ordered 27
                /www.fmn.dk/nyheder/Pages/aftale-om-kampfly-paa-plads.aspx
                USA for 2017 +11 pieces.
                for 2018 and 2019
                +25
                http://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/703910
                F-35 aircraft. The effort also increases the quantity of aircraft that the LRIP 11 AAC supports for the Air Force by 15 F-35A variant aircraft, and for the Marine Corps by 10 F-35B
                + 13 more
                This modification provides for the delivery of 13 F-35 Lightning II aircraft for the Marine Corps (six F-35B); Air Force (three F-35A); and navy (four F-35C), ”The US Department of Defense announced Monday.
                Quote: Simpsonian
                If "land" then what kind of light fighter is it then?

                By the fact that multifunctional with priority on the ground.

                Quote: Simpsonian
                Two keels F-35A / C is not needed, the F-16 somehow with one engine and even greater speed, the keel is only one.

                Well, yes, a forum expert who does not know the difference between the yak and F-35 lifting systems. Of course you can see how many keels should be. And there is nothing that the F-35 has almost two times the operational angle of attack.
                1. Simpsonian
                  Simpsonian 29 July 2016 22: 54
                  0
                  In this same England there is not a single F-22, but he flew in from somewhere and appeared in this photo, as in the text ... fool
                  Do not hang noodles on your ears also with orders - Italy has reduced many times, Canada has refused at all
                  In all countries, you can see how much they wanted the F-35 at the beginning of the JSF program and how many they have in their plans now.

                  A flew in F-22 Stealth Strike Isn't a Fighter multi-functional, ground-priority? lol

                  from this I read ... the difference is insignificant, you did not write about them - about the fact that two keels on a single-engine aircraft with a low maximum speed is useless, but because of something (the legacy of the Soviet Yak-141), and you of course I immediately changed the topic ... it is necessary to think about it and this is more difficult than even tossing bags, with the documentation donated to the Lockhids and Rolls-Royces in the USA and England by the "perestroika" lol

                  Su-24 or Tu-160 are very heavy and vice versa work on the ground.
                  about a heavy-light bond, you just heard somewhere about a warm-soft and round-square one, and here you repeat, because you misunderstand ... nothing
                  For kakahi under a languid yawn on Soviet equipment with which the F-35 was copied, you have something, like those that put minuses ...
                  1. iwind
                    iwind 29 July 2016 23: 20
                    0
                    Quote: Simpsonian
                    A flown F-22 Stealth Strike Fighter isn't multifunctional, with priority on the ground?

                    where is this nonsense from? it is developed by the Advanced Tactical Fighter program
                    Quote: Simpsonian
                    In this same England there is not a single F-22, but he flew in from somewhere and appeared in this photo, as in the text ...

                    yes arrival. as are 3 F-35A and 3 F-35B ", three F-35As flew to the UK for the Royal International Air Tattoo."
                    The other joint strike fighters slated to make an appearance during RIAT - three F-35Bs,
                    And here is a high-resolution photo WHERE folding wings? Https: //www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedmartin/28008413810/sizes/o/
                    Maybe enough bear to carry?
                    http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/show-daily/farnborough/2016/06/30/air-f


                    orce-f-35-england-first-transatlantic-flight-riat-farnborough / 86580962 /
                    Quote: Simpsonian
                    Do not hang noodles on your ears also with orders - Italy has reduced many times, Canada has refused at all
                    In all countries, you can see how much they wanted the F-35 at the beginning of the JSF program and how many they have in their plans now.

                    Italy has already built a factory. and about the reduction has been silent for a long time, and that it is very plausible to spend several billion dollars and then not build on it.

                    Here England also said, but how it came time to order all 138 pieces.
                    Canada has not refused, and politics has been mopped up. Just recently paid a fee for F-35
                    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f35-stealth-fighter-jet-1.3696269
                    he most recent instalment was made June 24, when the Liberal government quietly paid $ 32.9 million to the US program office overseeing development of the warplane, despite having promised during last year's election campaign not to buy the F-35.
                    Yes, only the United States Air Force has already made additional orders more than many countries generally wanted.
                    And, exactly, Norway has made an additional order for itself.
                    1. Simpsonian
                      Simpsonian 30 July 2016 00: 00
                      +1
                      Brad you, the F-22 was competing with the F-23, which is almost not a Fighter at all, both "Strike". The F-117 is not a Fighter either.
                      Like the F-35C, it's easy to distinguish it from the F-35A in profile, so what does the wing have to do with it? In other matters, you in the first photo in the branch did not even notice the F-22 "not available in England" laughing
                      Built, "invested", that's why it distributes such "student" videos, otherwise it's just a casus belli lol
                      All are refused or orders are reduced, even in the US Air Force the F-35 will be half of what was planned. The only country that has not yet reduced the order is Australia, it is most likely not allowed, because it is a "mining white colony".

                      And about the warm, soft and Soviet Yak why are you silent?

                      1. iwind
                        iwind 30 July 2016 00: 31
                        0
                        Quote: Simpsonian
                        Brad you, the F-22 was competing with the F-23, which is almost not a Fighter at all, both "Strike". The F-117 is not a Fighter either.

                        Where is the word Strike? Istroiya F-22
                        http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-history.htm
                        Quote: Simpsonian
                        Everyone refuses or orders are reduced, even in the US Air Force the F-35 will be half of what was planned. She built, "invested", and therefore distributes such "student" videos, otherwise it’s just a casus belli
                        All refuse or orders are reduced, even in the US Air Force F-35 will be half of the planned. The only country that has not yet reduced the order is Australia, most likely it will not be allowed, because

                        I have already provided of. contracts for additional purchases on the website of the U.S. Ministry of Defense.
                        Where are your proofs?
                        And what about England? Denmark which has concluded a contract only in this code. Norway?
                        Quote: Simpsonian
                        And about the warm, soft and Soviet Yak why are you silent?

                        And what to discuss with which a person at point blank cannot distinguish planes

                        Quote: Simpsonian
                        Like the F-35C, it's easy to distinguish it from the F-35A in profile, so what does the wing have to do with it? In other matters, you in the first photo in the branch did not even notice the F-22 "not available in England"

                        Angle. perfectly wing is visible from below. Lead a star? so the F-35C has the inscription NAVE, and the CF-f number is not LF.
                        F-35C did not fly to England
                      2. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 30 July 2016 00: 43
                        0
                        The word "Strike" you lost gle, google ... in favor of the F-22 decided because it could be more agile than the F-23 as a fighter.
                        And what did these countries have in their intentions for F35 before? Contracts are also concluded and terminated, as are intentions.
                        What else besides you cannot compare one wing of an airplane with another? lol
                      3. iwind
                        iwind 30 July 2016 01: 04
                        +2
                        Quote: Simpsonian
                        The word "Strike" you lost gle, google ... in favor of the F-22 decided because it could be more agile than the F-23 as a fighter.

                        Yes, one must not know aviation so much. F-22 has everything ground armed with two bombs and all of them appeared only Increment 2 GBU-32 and Increment 3.1 GBU-39 and all .... but initially this was not.
                        The Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) was a demonstration and validation program undertaken by the United States Air Force to develop a next-generation air superiority fighter to counter emerging worldwide threats,
                        Quote: Simpsonian
                        And what did these countries have in their intentions for F35 before? Contracts are also concluded and terminated, as are intentions.

                        Who? many are already receiving.
                      4. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 30 July 2016 01: 15
                        0
                        Is it possible that they will fit in the F-35 more?
                        This is in English from where and for what year?

                        Why so late? lol
                      5. iwind
                        iwind 30 July 2016 01: 29
                        -1
                        Quote: Simpsonian
                        Is it possible that they will fit in the F-35 more?
                        This is in English from where and for what year?
                        Why so late? lol

                        since the birth of the ATF program.
                        Quote: Simpsonian
                        That is, if you, a connoisseur, have the near horizontal plumage on one side of the F-35 looking back and on the far side forward, then with wings it should be the other way around?

                        wassatStop raving
                        F-35 serial number 5025 is F-35A . hmm .... well, learn just a little bit you can use Google
                      6. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 30 July 2016 01: 53
                        0
                        Then there was no public Internet, with Globalsecurity in it. All this was written and drawn later.
                        It makes no difference what kind of number it is painted on and what about their correspondence where the Americans themselves write. Try to turn on your head as the wings of an airplane should stick out to the sides (since the tail is sticking out differently), you might like it ...
                      7. iwind
                        iwind 30 July 2016 14: 05
                        0
                        Quote: Simpsonian
                        It makes no difference what kind of number it is painted on and what about their correspondence where the Americans themselves write. Try to turn on your head as the wings of an airplane should stick out to the sides (since the tail is sticking out differently), you might like it ...

                        If a person is so versed in aviation and so raving, then explaining is useless.
                        But all such differences are the F-35A (gun) and F-35c (no guns and folding wings) for the future. you can click for a hobby

                      8. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 30 July 2016 16: 37
                        0
                        Pesat first learn to be correct, then you will "teach someone to understand in aviation".
                        And answer as I understood about the very first photographwas in the branch below, suddenly you did not notice lol
                        Quote: Simpsonian
                        That is, if you, a connoisseur, have the near horizontal plumage on one side of the F-35 looking back and on the far side forward, then with the wings should be the other way around? laughing A deuce to you in geometry ...
                      9. iwind
                        iwind 30 July 2016 18: 12
                        -1
                        Quote: Simpsonian
                        And answer this as I understood about the very first photographer, it was in the branch below, suddenly you did not notice

                        What is this all about? Tie with such substances. And then the F-22 strike .... even now it’s easier?
                        Well, the last lesson about the difference between the F-35A and F-35C. Vidio from this flight.
                        The question is which plane flies F-35 (?) C 4.mn.
                      10. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 30 July 2016 19: 00
                        0
                        This is about what was in the quote here, and in the comment there below /
                        come on, answer already about that photo stop strewing new
                      11. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 30 July 2016 19: 07
                        0
                        In general, I'm more interested in what you "expert" specifically meant by this
                        About yak it’s certainly nice ... but I’m even bored.

                        Please ravzrablen ... bully
                      12. iwind
                        iwind 31 July 2016 01: 01
                        0
                        Quote: Simpsonian
                        This is about what was in the quote here, and in the comment there below /
                        come on, answer already about that photo stop strewing new

                        I don’t know what they brought to you there. The usual photo from an air show there was made of thousands; after all, the largest air show in England
                        Quote: Simpsonian
                        In general, I'm more interested in what you "expert" specifically meant by this
                        About yak it’s certainly nice ... but I’m even bored.
                        Please razverzheno ..

                        What can be discussed with a person who claims to be an F-22 drummer?
                        Or at point blank can not understand the difference between the aircraft (even when they poke them.)? m etc.
                        I feel sorry for my time.
                      13. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 31 July 2016 06: 13
                        0
                        Repeat again what is the F-35? In the very first photo in the branch ... Did you understand that this wing did not stick out so far back, but something else?

                        About the Yak, not about the F-22. Or are you so sorry for your time that you are full of hutspes can not distinguish the Yak from the F-22? request
  • iwind
    iwind 30 July 2016 00: 33
    -1
    from a different angle F-22 and f-35A

    F-35C
  • Simpsonian
    Simpsonian 30 July 2016 00: 36
    -1
    Well, which one is on the top photo at the beginning of the branch?
  • iwind
    iwind 30 July 2016 00: 47
    0
    Quote: Simpsonian
    Well, which one is on the top photo at the beginning of the branch?

  • Simpsonian
    Simpsonian 30 July 2016 00: 57
    0
    Maybe it will help you to compare what "sticks out" in someone with the example of the F-22 next to it, or the F35 should have a far wing much longer than the close one.

    What about the Soviet Yak then fell silent, do you celebrate the order?
  • iwind
    iwind 30 July 2016 01: 08
    -1
    Quote: Simpsonian
    What about the Soviet Yak then fell silent, do you celebrate the order?

    no, getting away from a complete lack of knowledge of aviation. from F-22 make a drummer. point blank not see the difference F-35C and F-35A- this fool
    I see everything perfectly and there is not one F-35C with the LF number - the numbers for the air force.
    And this is not to mention the fact that F-35C flights were not announced at an air show in England.
  • Simpsonian
    Simpsonian 30 July 2016 01: 21
    -2
    That is, if you, a connoisseur, have the near horizontal plumage on one side of the F-35 looking back and on the far side forward, then with the wings should be the other way around? laughing A deuce to you in geometry ...

    So you cheated good

    No, it’s just that you received the order and are satisfied, twist the hole. bully
  • DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 29 July 2016 09: 48
    +2
    Is it possible that the MiG-35 and Su-35 are comparable in price? We do not know the price parameters proposed by manufacturers for the purchase of MO.
    If the price difference does not exceed 10-15%, then it makes sense to buy more functional heavy class fighters for the army.
    In general, I see no reason to discuss the "quality" of aircraft without having a price before my eyes.
    Well, not for nothing that the Indians chose pragmatically Francs?
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 29 July 2016 20: 40
      -1
      pragmatically, they do not sit on one foreign supplier, so that they are less dependent on the possible imposition of sanctions against them by a country or group of countries
  • EvgNik
    EvgNik 29 July 2016 10: 41
    -3
    MiG, of course, the company is excellent, but ... I bought a few years ago MiG electric shaver - great design, workmanship according to international standards, but ... the battery is metal hydride. I worked for 2 years and u. There is no place to replace the battery, I tried to pick it up - it burned out. Now I have Philips with lithium-ion, I’m not overjoyed. So it is with airplanes.
  • Resistance
    Resistance 29 July 2016 12: 07
    -1
    What is the "Russian Navy" about? An innovative creative about the Russian Navy?
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 29 July 2016 13: 45
    +1
    "The main reason is the unavailability of the Zhuk-A radar with an active phased antenna array. By the way, the AFAR radar is one of the signs of the aircraft belonging to the fifth generation" ////

    I was surprised. I was sure that AFAR in Russia did.
    Then what about the T-50? Also without AFAR?
  • sokolov9686
    sokolov9686 29 July 2016 21: 23
    -1
    http://sokolov9686.livejournal.com/2213884.html
  • Operator
    Operator 30 July 2016 01: 29
    -2
    In 1972, Mikoyan’s design bureau lost with a bang the Sukhoi Design Bureau for a promising front-line fighter. But Mikoyan lobbied for the creation of a light fighter in the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee - it’s cheaper for the same functionality (which is frank delirium).

    The resulting MiG-29 was the focus of all the cheap technical solutions of the Soviet aviation industry, so it was predictably beaten by all opponents in all military conflicts, starting with F-5 and ending with Su-27 (in Ethiopia).

    The MiG-29 glider does not meet the requirements of over-maneuverability, so the current attempts to install new engines on it, radar and avionics (calling it the MiG-35) lead only to the dispersal of funds.

    In the Russian Aerospace Forces, there is already an excellent line of multifunctional and relatively cheap fourth-generation fighters - the heavy Su-35С and the light Yak-130. They need to be improved, the series expanded and exported. In the future, the expensive fifth-generation T-50 will be added to the lineup.

    Mikoyan Design Bureau must be closed, at the base aircraft plant, launch production of the Yak-130.
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 30 July 2016 15: 26
      0
      do not break off the song in a word. I am very interested in reading how the tigers smashed the MiG-29s in Ethiopia.
      1. Operator
        Operator 30 July 2016 17: 12
        +1
        Read carefully - Su-27 during the Ethiopo-Eritrean war of 1998-1999
        http://3mer.livejournal.com/84768.html
        1. sivuch
          sivuch 30 July 2016 21: 16
          0
          About Ethiopia, I myself am in the know. But where else were the Mig-29s predictably beaten, starting with the F-5? As far as I know, during the II-I war, the Iranian Tigers did not shoot a single moment-29 (they generally shot few people)
          , and during the Tempest in a glass and Yugoslavia-1999 they, tigers, were no more
      2. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 30 July 2016 19: 23
        0
        Apparently from it you will not wait, you will insist or completely pinch this troll by the tail - it will be blacklisted, more than half of them are here.
    2. Lucy
      Lucy 1 August 2016 15: 12
      +1
      Good Kvochur.A.N does not read this scribble. Gathering eyes in a beam at an angle of 30g. with g 9 units
    3. primers
      primers 5 October 2016 17: 09
      0
      Quote: Operator
      In 1972, Mikoyan’s design bureau lost with a bang the Sukhoi Design Bureau for a promising front-line fighter. But Mikoyan lobbied for the creation of a light fighter in the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee - it’s cheaper for the same functionality (which is frank delirium).

      It must be assumed that the conclusion about the delirium is your own, separate opinion.
  • Simpsonian
    Simpsonian 30 July 2016 01: 49
    +1
    Quote: Operator
    In 1972, Mikoyan’s design bureau lost with a bang the Sukhoi Design Bureau for a promising front-line fighter. But Mikoyan lobbied for the creation of a light fighter in the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee - it’s cheaper for the same functionality (which is frank delirium).

    The resulting MiG-29 was the focus of all the cheap technical solutions of the Soviet aviation industry, so it was predictably beaten by all opponents in all military conflicts, starting with F-5 and ending with Su-27 (in Ethiopia).

    The MiG-29 glider does not meet the requirements of over-maneuverability, so the current attempts to install new engines on it, radar and avionics (calling it the MiG-35) lead only to the dispersal of funds.

    In the Russian Aerospace Forces, there is already an excellent line of multifunctional and relatively cheap fourth-generation fighters - the heavy Su-35С and the light Yak-130. They need to be improved, the series expanded and exported. In the future, the expensive fifth-generation T-50 will be added to the lineup.

    Mikoyan Design Bureau must be closed, at the base aircraft plant, launch production of the Yak-130.

    Of course, it is necessary to write that the F-5 is better than the MiG-29, it must be completely stopped, as well as to bring subsonic fusion vehicles into the main fighters.
    1. sokolov9686
      sokolov9686 30 July 2016 09: 52
      0
      The expert operator is obviously from the team of the former commander in chief Mikhailov, the current director of the UAC directorate. Therefore, he cannot praise the Su-35, it does not have the right ... he has already been paid for this ... :)
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 30 July 2016 19: 34
        0
        well, he does it so awkwardly that it looks like crap on both sides, on behalf of some third, most likely "foreign"
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 1 August 2016 19: 19
    0
    For the Mig-35, it would be nice to make the keels waddle, like the F-35 or F-22. By the way, on the Silent Needle they made to improve stealth in the radar range.
  • absaz
    absaz 25 September 2016 13: 29
    0
    When a lawsuit begins between the design bureau, the business suffers, and why not make healthy competition, and not to absorb, devour anyone.
  • primers
    primers 5 October 2016 17: 03
    0
    "My personal opinion is that this was due to the collapse of the T-4 project, which really represented the most serious competition for the development of the Tupolev Design Bureau"
    I re-read on the topic of T-4 a lot. The plane is magnificent and unique. But having studied its design, everyone will easily notice that he has no compartment for bombs. All weapons will inevitably be placed on external suspensions. And this is minus speed. And it is easy to guess that the Tu-160 volley is much more powerful than the T-4. So the duck launched by someone about the insidious Tupolev flies so far.
  • primers
    primers 5 October 2016 17: 16
    0
    Quote: Operator


    The resulting MiG-29 was the focus of all the cheap technical solutions of the Soviet aviation industry, so it was predictably beaten by all opponents in all military conflicts, starting with F-5 and ending with Su-27 (in Ethiopia).

    In order to speak with confidence about the focus of everything cheap, you need to be a specialist in the aviation industry, including the military. According to your syllable, it does not follow in any way that you understand what you are talking about. And now about Ethiopia. Whatever the car, in the hands of a poorly trained pilot it is scrap. And talking about the car is bad because of its inept use is fundamentally wrong.