Su-27: News

Isos wrote:
Not really j-11 have pl-15 and pl-21 and Chiba also has S-300/400 and their own AD systems that can shoot down russian fighters.

S-500 and s-400 can be destroyed. They are not invincible. Those on the front will be targeted by artillery and MLRS. Already happened in Ukraine and both Russia and Ukraine lost S-300 this way.

Strong air force are needed to project power. You can hardly attack an enemy with S-400. Most of ukrainian su-27 are destroyed by R-77-1 and r-37M which are better missiles than ukrainian r-27

In such a hypothetical scenario,

Chinese J16 would be attacking Russia, and s400 would destroy them at maximum range

Pl15 and pl21 are useless against 40N6 missiles flying at you from 250km

Russia has no business projecting power into China, and it's not even projecting power into Europe

It's defending itself from a NATO storm operation, which is why there is a need to expand the military

But Russia has no desire to take land from anyone, that much was clear from SMO

It seeks to defend itself and prevent the buildup of hostile forces near the border

If USSR had done this on eve of Operation Barbarossa

Things would be much different today

With missiles and drones, half of tactical aviation is redundant.

A MiG-35 has vastly better sensors and weapons and self defence capacity than any drone, and can do a much better job of finding targets and destroying threats.

What the United States is doing buying F-35s and spending a trillion on the program can only be explained by the massive corruption that exists in the Babylonian harlot that is Washington.

The concept was sound, the implementation is broken because of corrupt politicians and MIC and their military.

Russia is a land power that also has support with the Navy and Aviation, they are complementary branches of the Land Army

Very much agreed, but we are talking about force multipliers rather than a 5,000 aircraft fleet.

For the cost of an Su-35 you could probably operate three or four MiG-35s and not break the bank... I am not suggesting getting rid of any Super Flankers or 5th gen aircraft, but moving forward Russia cannot afford an all Su-35 and Su-57 fleet in terms of air power.

Having a light fighter that can be a numbers aircraft can help increase the capacity of their airforce to deal with threats and problems better than having rather fewer bigger heavier aircraft.

The new 5th gen single engined MIG looks like a LIFT...

The direct confrontation between superpowers is discarded since 1962, for that the wars are in third countries

Ukraine is like South Vietman

What the west has done to Georgia and Ukraine and tried to do in Belarus they will try to do everywhere they can...

the point I am making is not that Russia needs 3,500 fighters to meet western F-35s on equal terms... Russia has an IADS which is a massive force multiplier in itself and it also will have wingman type drones that will also make the force they have more powerful and useful, but having all only huge fighters and strike aircraft is not an efficient balance of aircraft... there are plenty of roles in some conflicts where a Flanker is massive over kill and a Yak-130 with bombs could get the job done.

The new 5th gen light fighter should be affordable and not try to be better than an Su-35... because it shouldn't need to.

Euh that was the choice of the government and MoD in the 2000s. There is no room for sukhoi, yak, mig, il... the procurement are too low to have so many plane design bureau each with their own engine companies and project. It's not soviet times anymore. They didn't even buy more than 1000 new jets including trainers since the 1990s in total.

The west has essentially cut them off from any other sources of aircraft, so having the capacity to make everything they need makes sense.

They retained each design bureau as a division of OAK for a reason and that diversity is a good thing.

Various members look at Sukhois sales pitch for Checkmate and think it is a done deal when they say themselves it isn't.

LSOS cries that MiG are so stupid because they wont make a light single engined fighter... with that sort of ignorance how can we understand what is really happening?

They developed the Izd 33 decades ago...



Familiar air intake but a different tail and it could be Checkmate... model makers even make model kits for the plane:



Except it didn't make it past prototype because the Russian AF rejected it because they were not interested in single engined fighters... so we get the MiG-29 and MiG-35 and now experts on the internet who don't know any better complain about stupid MiG... why are they so dumb that they don't make a single engine light fighter...  

Or maybe you knew and are just taking the piss...

And let's not talk about their civilian orders that are very low and in some cases inexistant for the last 35 years.

Their civilian orders were destroyed by free market economy where existing western makers could undercut any price a Russian company could make money from so they can't even get into the market let alone secure market share... I suspect the US allowed Russia into the WTO so they couldn't do what the west is doing to protect their companies from the world market forces that would bankrupt them otherwise.

Only the su-17 would have a job today and a very good one. With gliding bombs, laser bombs or just carpet bombs it would still be a very good jet. It would have needed some new fancy screens and EO for a bargin cost but would be very useful. It can also carry tactical missiles and help in anti ship missions or SEAD. Too bad they didn't keep 300 of them or keep building it with improvments.

The MiG-27K had better avionics and systems for ground attack, but at the end of the day 600 MiG-29s with SMT upgrades would have been better than any of them... in a single unified aircraft design... proper multirole... ground attack with real air to air capability too.

Well, again, mig-35 is a twin engine and its cost isn't that lower than su-30.

Operational costs are much lower and it uses different technology and equipment that is not comparable.

I saw unit cost for export and indians used to pay some 40 million per UPg. Egypt got 48 Mig-29M for 2 billion which is also 40 million per jet. Venezuela and Vietnam both paid around 35-40 million their su-30MK2 which are way better than mig-29SMT or Mig-29M. Cost for Russia would be small but equivalent so their mig would cost as much as su-30s.

The operational costs over the life of the aircraft are half to a quarter depending on the Flanker version you compare it with.

Mig-35 isn't a solution. And the way they removed mig-29 from service indicates they don't really see any future for the mig-29 family.

The MiG entered service much faster than the Su-27 so they were essentially removing the older planes first.... that is normal.

One is a mig1.44 that has same size as su-57 so no chance to be bought and the second is a trainer/fighter in the class of yak-130 so again no chances.

The Checkmate is bigger than the MiG-35, that is what you get when you carry your weapons and fuel internally in any 5th gen aircraft.

The Rafale looks like a LIFT class aircraft... is it a dead egg too?

The new single engined MiG will have state of the art engines and radar and weapons and equipment and will be nothing like a Yak-130... don't judge a book by its cover...

I do find it entertaining that the MIG-35 is bad because it has two engines which you think makes it too expensive and too much like the Su-35 for them to have both, but you discard the new single engine design they propose because it will be too light in your expert opinion... so which is it... they clearly cover all their bases because the Russian Air Force are a bunch of fickle  like you it seems... first they want only twin engined fighters and then twins are too heavy and therefore too expensive...

After all those years they didn't understood they needed to develop a fucking light single engine fighter with stealth caracteristics. Second possible project could have been a VTOL but it seems Yak is already developing it.

Developed in the 1970s and rejected in favour of the MiG-29... because they didn't want a single engined fighter design...

There is no way MiG would waste time on a VSTOL aircraft unless there was a serious technology breakthrough that actually made them useful aircraft...

Future of combat aircraft in Russia belongs to Sukhoi and Yak. Mig is dead unless mig-41 is a success.

The Yak-130 is not being used as a light fighter and is too expensive to be used only as the sole LIFT leading to the continued use of the L39 and developments like the SR-10... how long before Sukhoi comes out with a LIFT version of Checkmate and destroys the Yak division of OAK too?

As I mentioned before, Sukhoi have said Checkmate is not being bought by the Russian AF, and MiG are being quiet about their offering other than a model above... you think that means MiG is dead... OK... whatever...

Why do you think sukhoi was so fast designing the su-75 ? They saw the opportunity contrary to Mig which present su-57 and yak 130 class project that are not needed since su-57 and yak 130 are being bought...

Is this all in your head?

MiG presented a 5th gen MiG-35 model that has stealth and all the other shit 5th gen fighters have and that was for a carrier based aircraft to operate presumably with Su-57s on their new carriers, while the small single engined 5th gen fighter is nothing like the Yak-130... the Yak-130 is not a fighter, nor is it stealthy... this MiG is everything you wanted... it is small and light and single engined and you are still pissing all over it...

Sounds more like you are bitter about MiG to be honest... it seems they can do nothing right in your eyes. You are not alone... plenty in the west underestimate the MiG... for years in the 1980s it was the boogeyman, but then its secrets were exposed... the thing is that this is all about western fighter aircraft companies and their marketing... the MiG-29 was scary so the west needed to make new planes... the joint strike fighter and the euro fighter and the Rafale and Gripen were critical because the Soviets had MiG-29s... but then the cold war ended and eastern europe had MiG-29s so how could the MiG-29 be the all powerful boogey man when your potential new clients already had them... why would they buy your shit... so the MiG-29 became a joke a terrible aircraft compared with the real boogey man... the Su-27 which none of the new HATO states had... get rid of your old MiGs and don't upgrade them... Germany used F-4 Phantoms instead of their MiG-29s because if they had upgraded their MiG-29s someone might ask why they needed Eurofighters and F-35s for 10 times the price and not much in the way of any significant performance improvement...

Continue to hate the MiG you drones to western propaganda.

When Su75 are introduced, what would be the organizational process?

Sukhoi themselves say they are for export and have no interest from the Russian military.

Drones are the new "light" part in the aircraft mix of the VKS. You can buy many Orion or Sirius drones for one MiG-35. Or specialised high-speed drones
acting as interceptors.

It is still to be proven that a drone is more valuable and useful than a manned light aircraft... drones are incredibly easy to shoot down which means you need enormous numbers and also you can't really put anything expensive in them to keep costs down.

Drones certainly have a role but a light fighter is still more valuable than a drone.

S-500 and s-400 can be destroyed. They are not invincible.

They will be surrounded by smaller AD systems that will protect them... Russian S-400 wont be the same as Ukrainian BUK or S-300 on their own and isolated and vulnerable.

Those on the front will be targeted by artillery and MLRS. Already happened in Ukraine and both Russia and Ukraine lost S-300 this way.

For which mini SAMs are being developed to be carried and used in enormous numbers to defend from artillery strikes on convoys... such systems would be valuable on  ships and aircraft and on land.

Strong air force are needed to project power. You can hardly attack an enemy with S-400.

Russia can take down enemy command using hypersonic missiles and nukes if they have to...

Eurofighter, f-16, f-18 are being replaced by 5th gen fighters. Mig-35 came way to late. It should have been ready in 2010.

MiG-35s are short range light fighters and would be ideal flying around Russian airspace shooting down long range standoff weapons launched from max range by HATO fighters afraid to enter Russian IADS networks.

The MiG-35 can carry and launch all the same AAMs the Su-35 can carry and can accelerate and climb to similar launch altitudes to achieve similar launch ranges...

And frankly we still want to see the difference with mig-29M. For me it's the same plane overall.

Yes, of course, like the Mirage 2000 and Rafale are the same plane really and the F-16A and the latest model F-16 are the same essentially aren't they?

Su-75 for:

It hasn't even flown yet.

And Sukhoi have said the RuAF are not buying it.

The US is currently producing upgraded f15 as well...

And there is talk about a modified F-16 going back into production if the F-35s situation remains the same... (expensive and faulty).

same airframe, different radar, avionics, navigation and other internal systems.

Actually upgraded airframe of different design but a very similar external shape.

Russia has no business projecting power into China, and it's not even projecting power into Europe

Russia does not want or need to invade Europe except to eliminate a threat, which is probably better done with hypersonic missiles and/or nukes.

Russia does not want or need more land, though if Russians in Ukraine vote to join the Russian Federation their outright abuse by their countries makes it necessary for Russia to accept those territories into the RF for fear of further and ongoing abuse as shown in the Baltic states and elsewhere in the EU where Russians are getting assets stolen and generally mistreated.

Those mig pictures are just models. Sukhoi made a real su-75 and RuAF is definitly considering it even if sukhoi made it first for export to get money.

Mig-35 isn't as cheap as you expect. It has two engines that are not that much smaller than sukhoi's engines. Aesa radar need constantly replacement of their T/R because they break often and fuel consumption is for sure not low.

With its 11t empty weight it is a medium aircraft, not a light which start more at 6t. Mig-29 are almost double the weight of jf-17.

Those mig pictures are just models. Sukhoi made a real su-75 and RuAF is definitly considering it even if sukhoi made it first for export to get money.

Those models represent serious design proposals that the Soviet AF rejected because they didn't want single engined fighters any more... this was when this aircraft was in competition with the MiG-29 within the MiG design bureau... it is normal practise to create a few different types so they can compete against each other and the best design moves forward.

The single engined design, which you can see is not stealthy and was offered at a time when the Soviets had MiG-21s and MiG-23s and MiG-27s and Su-17s in service, and was rejected because it was a single engined aircraft, To be fair it was at a time when the RD-33 and Al-31 were both new and not super reliable yet, but the grounds for their rejection was that it was single engined.

The single engined Su-27 prototype for LIFT as well as the follow on single engined fighter prototypes were rejected for the very same reason...

Mig-35 isn't as cheap as you expect. It has two engines that are not that much smaller than sukhoi's engines. Aesa radar need constantly replacement of their T/R because they break often and fuel consumption is for sure not low.

The whole purpose of the MiG-35 was smaller lighter cheaper to operate, that is the intent of having the aircraft in service, and as you point out it does not have an AESA radar yet, and when it does they will start out expensive... AESA elements are not critical... an AESA radar will continue to function even with a significant percentage of its elements not working... in fact they describe it as a good feature... a PESA fails as soon as the single TR module fails but an AESA only gradually degrades in performance as elements fail... they call it graceful degradation or some shit like that.

Over time they will get better and the same applies for any other aircraft in its place so not really relevant... or do you think Sukhois AESAs are magic and the laws of physics don't apply to them?

With its 11t empty weight it is a medium aircraft, not a light which start more at 6t. Mig-29 are almost double the weight of jf-17.

Only you think that is important.

Weight only matters in relation to cost... heavier aircraft tend to be more expensive, but that comes down to engines as well... the F-5 is the cheapest to buy and operate US fighter and it has two engines. They developed a modified version called the F-20 with the two engines replaced by a single much more powerful engine and it failed... the new engine was rather more expensive and needed rather more attention and maintenance than the two smaller less powerful engines.

Think of it in terms of a V8 diesel engine for an SUV... maybe $5-10K, and fairly simple maintenance and operation... compared with a formula one car engine that needs an entire team to monitor it and look after it and it costs millions of dollars...

The extra size and weight of the MiG means it can be upgraded and adapted more, there is more growth potential and the performance of the aircraft is better.

You wouldn't use the Yak-130 as a light fighter because it is not fully equipped... it has no radar and no IRST, it lacks fuel and it lacks engine power to carry external fuel and payload at the same time, and it lacks self defence avionics.

It is fine for a LIFT, which is what it is designed for, but too light to be a good light fighter aircraft.

The new MiG model looks like a LIFT but there are differences... look at the image above it has internal weapons and presumably is designed to be stealthy and have the latest in avionics and sensors and systems... and it is small and light and single engined... what more could you want... yet you reject it out of hand without knowing anything at all about it.

For Russia, the situation will be that they will want fighters to do what their Flankers and Su-57s are doing now in the Ukraine, but they will also want shorter range aircraft that can operate in enemy airspace or near the front lines with excellent radar and optical sensors to find targets... they mentioned how good the Su-57 was from a perspective of finding targets and passing information on to other platforms to do something about the targets... this light MiG would do just the same, while being a difficult target for ground launched missiles.

It would be able to detect it is under attack and respond, perhaps destroying the incoming missile or jamming or evading it, but unlike a drone it could launch an attack on the launcher or location the missile came from.

It could also communicate with friendly drones and lead attempts to destroy enemy drones as they appear.

Those models represent serious design proposals that the Soviet AF rejected because they didn't want single engined fighters any more... this was when this aircraft was in competition with the MiG-29 within the MiG design bureau... it is normal practise to create a few different types so they can compete against each other and the best design moves forward.

Models that would need years of rework and r&d before getting a prototype. Meanwhile sukhoi developed the su-57, is developing the su-75, the s-70. Yak already developed the yak-130 and is working on a vtol.

There is no room for any design anymore. Specially that they don't buy hundreds of planes as in soviet times.

Mig is done. It has nothing to propose and its mig-35 is a solution for no need. Not light enough, not a single engine, not cheap enough... they can always buy su-30 as a better solution for the same price which they did to replace old mig-29.

Only you think that is important.

Weight only matters in relation to cost... heavier aircraft tend to be more expensive, but that comes down to engines as well... the F-5 is the cheapest to buy and operate US fighter and it has two engines. They developed a modified version called the F-20 with the two engines replaced by a single much more powerful engine and it failed... the new engine was rather more expensive and needed rather more attention and maintenance than the two smaller less powerful engines.

Dumb comparison.

In the case of su-75 it will use the same engine as su-57. So in terms of engine procurement and maintenance it will be 2 times less expensive and 2 times faster to maintain than the twin engine of the su-57. Other systems will be the same as su-57 and in same quantity so the overall cost and maintenance won't be 2 times less expensive tho but still smaller since it will have to be smaller and simplier.

Jf-17 is lighter than mig-29 and uses only one rd-33, same engine as mig 29 so again 2 times less expensive when it comes to the engine procurment and maintenance.

They aren't developing new specific engines. They are using proven engines and by reducing size of the fighter they need only one.

It's a win-win situation.

And it's not only me who thinks that. RuAF learned from Syrian experience that sukhoi are most of the time too expensive for small missions and a light aircraft like a f-16 or jf-17 is important to have.

Of course, not the RuAF, is for Navy

No way the Russian Navy will buy a single engined carrier based fighter...

I had doubts whether a replacement for the Su-25 would be developed, but seeing the use of the Su-34 in Ukraine, and after the declarations of the College of the Ministry of Defense to create 8 bomber regiments in the VKS, that's it. very clear what will be the structure of the VKS Frontal Aviation: only Su-34

If they have not announced a replacement for the Su-25 they are hardly going to reveal the fact by mentioning it as part of a future aircraft structure... have they mentioned S-70s? Is that because they have no future, or because they have not decided their future?

Models that would need years of rework and r&d before getting a prototype. Meanwhile sukhoi developed the su-57, is developing the su-75, the s-70. Yak already developed the yak-130 and is working on a vtol.

If you are talking about the Models from MAKS-2021 you are making a huge assumption... MiG only showed models because they will have the contract for the light 5th gen fighter, and being for the Russian military it wont be for export for a while. In comparison the Su-75 which is just bits of the Su-57 cobbled together needs export customers if it is to survive so the sales BS we saw there... for the same reason that the Mi-28A went to the Paris airshow in the early 1990s when the Ka-50 was still kept secret because they wanted export customers to fund development... Kamov had already won the competition so they were funded by the military.

Yak can work on a VTOL all it pleases... that is a dead end unless they come up with something amazing.

There is no room for any design anymore. Specially that they don't buy hundreds of planes as in soviet times.

The Su-75 is not a done deal, in fact Sukhoi have said they have no contract with the Russian AF and that the Su-75 is for export only at the moment but it hasn't even flown yet... but you think differently... from Sukhoi.

Mig is done. It has nothing to propose and its mig-35 is a solution for no need. Not light enough, not a single engine, not cheap enough... they can always buy su-30 as a better solution for the same price which they did to replace old mig-29.

Which is why the MiG was probably chosen, the whole point of OAK was to keep the design bureaus working and to keep the different teams with different designs and different collaborations. MiG pairs up with Klimov and Niip, Sukhoi pairs with different companies... Saturn and Phazotron...

The new lighter fighters will reduce costs... the MiG single looks rather smaller and lighter than the Su-75... surely if you were honest you would think that is the better aircraft...

In the case of su-75 it will use the same engine as su-57. So in terms of engine procurement and maintenance it will be 2 times less expensive and 2 times faster to maintain than the twin engine of the su-57

Not at all... new 5th gen engines are supposed to be simpler and more advanced and easier to maintain, but for serious maintenance you take the engines out of the aircraft so they can both get maintenance at the same time so no difference in speed.

If the engine of the Su-57 is more expensive to buy and expensive to maintain than the engine in the new MiG then it will remain more expensive to maintain and buy whether it is in a single engine or twin engine aircraft.

Jf-17 is lighter than mig-29 and uses only one rd-33, same engine as mig 29 so again 2 times less expensive when it comes to the engine procurment and maintenance.

And an engine failure due to damage and the entire aircraft is written off.

Funny thing that the only single engined western fighters of note are Gripen and F-35 and they are not cheap.

The French have a long history of single engined jets yet Rafale has twin engines and so will the Tempest... wonder why when single engined aircraft are just so superior...

Makes you really question the sanity of the Americans with their 8 engined B-52s...

They aren't developing new specific engines. They are using proven engines and by reducing size of the fighter they need only one.

It's a win-win situation.

The Chinese copy of the F-35 actually looks rather slimmer and better than the original despite having two engines.

And it's not only me who thinks that. RuAF learned from Syrian experience that sukhoi are most of the time too expensive for small missions and a light aircraft like a f-16 or jf-17 is important to have.

So how did the Russians learn having two light aircraft they don't have would be better?

The new lighter fighters will reduce costs... the MiG single looks rather smaller and lighter than the Su-75... surely if you were honest you would think that is the better aircraft...

It doesn't exist. Su-75 exists and RuAF already said they will considere it and that it is a very good solution.

Not at all... new 5th gen engines are supposed to be simpler and more advanced and easier to maintain, but for serious maintenance you take the engines out of the aircraft so they can both get maintenance at the same time so no difference in speed.

Euh... basic maths...

Su-57 has 2 engines. Su-75 has 1 engine. They use both the same engine. There 2 times less work for the su-75 and it is 2 times cheaper.

Sometimes you need to calm down on fanboisme. It makes you look very stupid.

What you say is true for f-35/f-22 that shares nothing.

And an engine failure due to damage and the entire aircraft is written off.

Funny thing that the only single engined western fighters of note are Gripen and F-35 and they are not cheap.

The French have a long history of single engined jets yet Rafale has twin engines and so will the Tempest... wonder why when single engined aircraft are just so superior...

Makes you really question the sanity of the Americans with their 8 engined B-52s...

That's true. But...

Rafale replaced all french aircraft nuclear bombers included. Being as safe as possible was requirement so they had to put two engines.

Soviet also had terrible experiences with mig-23 and mig21 in terms of crash, which made them buy twin engine aircraft after that with mig-29, su-27, su-24...

But the su-75 isn't suppose to be the main expensive fighter. Making it light and cheap comes with disadvantages, one being to bet on a good reliability of the engine. Al-31 family is quite reliable. Even rd-33 is and jf-17 isn't having that many crashes. Things improved since mig-21 and mig-23 so IMO it's a good thing to come back light single engines.


There will be crashes for sure but since it is supposed to be cheap you don't really care you just buy new ones.


Rafale, f-15, su-30... all have crashed due to engine malfunction. Having two engines doesn't make it 100% safe.

And for safety you can always add some heling stuff like rocjets booster to add some 100km range to try to find an airport around you.

Well, the US Navy intended to equip their giant aircraft carriers only with the single engine F-35B, although it seems they had to back down and also continue with at least one squadron of F-18s per aircraft carrier.

Funny how people chop and change what suits... why would Russia want a single engined VSTOL fighter but not also want the 100K ton super carrier that the US also has chosen to move forward with?

It is almost as if the US wants to always take the most expensive route... biggest possible carriers, but VSTOL fighters... the most fragile and expensive and high attrition rate type of fighter that is the least useful.

Put a two-engine plane on a Russian aircraft carrier? I doubt it, in the first place because if they make an aircraft carrier it will be medium-sized, like the English aircraft carriers and they will not be able to operate with large planes like the Su-33 or the Su-57, the MiGs are totally ruled out

There is no indication they want UK and current French type carriers, and which single engine aircraft have they ever operated from a carrier?

Yak-38 and Ms are triple engined aircraft and were total dogs... all other operational aircraft including helicopters have been twin engined.

There is no indication the Checkmate is for naval operations or if there is a VSTOL version... its shape and layout means no space for internal engines or lifting fans.

The Su-75 looks more like a successor to the Yak-38 or Yak-141 than a cheap supplement to the Su-57

It is what it is... an Su-57 with one engine removed and reshaped and redesigned to reduce as much weight as possible... including removing the horizontal tails and angling the vertical tails to do both jobs.

I repeat, the Ru MoD is going to a unification of materials, weapons and simplification of the doctrine for the warfare of the future

That is fine... the twin engined carrier MiG could easily have a land based equivalent version for commonality and low operating costs.

The Yankee aircraft carriers are a relic of the cold war, it is only understood spending 15 billion on each one for the corruption of the Babylonian whore that is Washington DC

The American carriers require AEGIS ships to protect them and keep them safe, the Russian Carriers will be there to provide air protection for Russian surface ships and subs.

Totally different.

The new Russian carriers will be very similar to the new French carriers... 70-90K tons, nuclear power, EMALS cats.

VSTOL is a dead end that is useless and expensive.

Well that they have not said anything about the Su-25 or its successor is because there is no successor, if that successor were necessary, by let's say 2030, a prototype would already be flying.
I imagine that they will burn most of the Su-25 in the war against NATO and then there will be nothing to replace.

If they are going to replace the Su-25 with multirole light fighters AGAIN... like they have been trying to do for decades, whether it is F-16 or MiG-29, they have suggested that multiple times and multiple times it has failed... for a bit they even suggested a Yak-130 carrying standoff munitions to replace the Su-25 and in the US they even made the A-16... a very nice tailless delta winged F-16... all of which have failed...

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

What they did announce is 8 bomber regiments, which gives a clear clue as to what the transformation of Frontal Aviation will be like, and they are not going to create 8 new regiments, but to transform the 4 mixed regiments (Su-24/Su-24MR, etc...) and the 4 assault regiments (Su-25) in bomber regiments
The increase in numbers will come from the side of increasing the squadrons from 2 to 3, but the frontal aviation will be unified in doctrine and material to a single type of manned aircraft. Drones is another matter

So you contend the future will be Su-34s replacing everything eventually... sounds like an opportunity for MiG-35s to be honest as a lighter cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate aircraft than the Su-34 and able to deliver air to ground ordinance well enough... but even then they will find an Su-25 aircraft will be better.

The S-70 will be one more WEAPON/ACCESSORIE within the inventory of weapons and accessories of the S-57, and that perhaps can also be used by other future aircraft
It is not ruled out that in each mixed aviation division, in addition to a fighter regiment and a bomber regiment, a regiment made up exclusively of drones will be created, but in general, in the Russian Armed Forces, drones are operated by the Land Forces

They call it wingman and have already tested it with Su-35s at the very least...

It doesn't exist. Su-75 exists and RuAF already said they will considere it and that it is a very good solution.

You speculate it is just a model. I know they have been working on this programme for decades now and the information made public was that when the Su-57 was in serial production that the light fighter programme would start to get full funding. That time is now.

Sukhoi has cobbled together a design from their larger aircraft... it hasn't flown so we don't know what problems it might have.

MiG is also working on their own designs... they have publicly stated they have two... one single and one twin engine with a twin engined model for the carrier role... which makes me think the navy does not want a single engined aircraft for carrier operations.

Your opinion is that the night before MAKS-2021 some guy at MiG built a model and they showed that.

My opinion is that they are the department that got the contract and so we wont see the MiG design till its first flight... which is what happened with the Su-57.

Its first flight might be very soon.

Su-57 has 2 engines. Su-75 has 1 engine. They use both the same engine. There 2 times less work for the su-75 and it is 2 times cheaper.

They are both stealth aircraft and perhaps engine maintenance for 5th gen engines is 1% of the flight hour maintenance, which means half a percent savings in time and money... big deal.

What you say is true for f-35/f-22 that shares nothing.

The purpose and popularity of the F-16 over the F-15 was that it had a single engine, but the single engine didn't make it half the maintenance costs nor half the purchase costs.

The F-5 has two engines and was still cheaper to buy and operate than the F-16... by a significant margin...

When you are talking about different engine types then you can't compare... Su-75 might have half the engine maintenance requirement of the Su-57, but that doesn't tell us anything... a proper maintenance team working on an Su-57 would have two teams for the engines... that has the advantage that if one team fucks things up you are only likely to lose one engine instead of two in the flight.

Rafale replaced all french aircraft nuclear bombers included. Being as safe as possible was requirement so they had to put two engines.

So safe as possible... two engines... but it also means different calculations... when you only have one engine it restricts your max weight and other features... it is easier to have a heavier aircraft with two engines.

The number of engines on an aircraft is not an accident and has very specific requirements... there are very few fighters with more than two engines and not that many aircraft with three engines... and they were mostly because a more powerful engine was not available.

But the su-75 isn't suppose to be the main expensive fighter. Making it light and cheap comes with disadvantages, one being to bet on a good reliability of the engine. Al-31 family is quite reliable. Even rd-33 is and jf-17 isn't having that many crashes. Things improved since mig-21 and mig-23 so IMO it's a good thing to come back light single engines.

Why ignore the safety factor... these new aircraft are going to be cheaper but it makes sense for them to be able to recover to base with an engine out or engine damage...

There will be crashes for sure but since it is supposed to be cheap you don't really care you just buy new ones.

No amount of engines will prevent crashes, but even if they only have 1% crash rate because of a single engine over the life of the aircraft that is very significant and at 30 million per aircraft you lose that is a lot of maintenance and engines money in the bank to make a single engined aircraft not cheaper.

Rafale, f-15, su-30... all have crashed due to engine malfunction. Having two engines doesn't make it 100% safe.

Of course not but those three aircraft you mentioned.... how would the balance and performance of those aircraft change if they only had one engine?

The Su-30 relies a lot on its flight performance from its lifting body shape... something not very practical with a single engined design...

So a significant loss in aerodynamic performance with the further hit that thrust vectoring engines in a twin is much more useful and effective than in a single...

And for safety you can always add some heling stuff like rocjets booster to add some 100km range to try to find an airport around you.

To be effective it would weigh more than an extra engine which would be rather less useful than that extra engine would be... it would make you less safe as it would explode if hit in combat and it would be significant dead weight and volume you would carry everywhere... bad idea.

Sukhoi and MiG have experience making single and twin seat aircraft and the Su-75 is a single seat because it is for export... MiG had single engined fighters in the past and they are rejected now... that they offer a new stealthy single engined aircraft suggests they might have changed their mind, but what they wont do is just buy Sukhois because of sales and marketing... there will have to be tests... and one of the important factors will be how loaded with work are each of the design bureaus... which counts against Sukhoi.

Your opinion is that the night before MAKS-2021 some guy at MiG built a model and they showed that.

My opinion is that they are the department that got the contract and so we wont see the MiG design till its first flight... which is what happened with the Su-57.

It also happened with the su-75.

Your opinion is based on beliefs.

Mine is based on the fact that sukhoi already presented a 1:1 prototype, not just a model. If they knew mig was working on such program and being financed by the MoD they wouldn't be spending money on su-75. And they have insight of what Mig doing.

They are both stealth aircraft and perhaps engine maintenance for 5th gen engines is 1% of the flight hour maintenance, which means half a percent savings in time and money... big deal.

Read again my firsts statement. I said 2 times cheaper and takes 2 times less time for the engine, not for the aircraft. It will have 1 radar just like su-57 and 1 EO and 1 landing gear syste... so the overall costvand and mintenance won't be 2 times less.

So safe as possible... two engines... but it also means different calculations... when you only have one engine it restricts your max weight and other features... it is easier to have a heavier aircraft with two engines.

Light singke engine fighter... jf-17 and f-16 are carrying enough for their weight. That's not an argument. Of course it will carry less than a su-35.

Why ignore the safety factor... these new aircraft are going to be cheaper but it makes sense for them to be able to recover to base with an engine out or engine damage...

It's not ignoring. It's saving money with a lighter aircraft during maintenance and operations and betting on a good and reliable engine.

Turkey has only f-16 and it hasn't lost air force. Egypt lost mig-29 and rafales in crashes despite both having two engines.

Planes crash. You need to save money to replace them no matter how many engines they have.

Sukhoi and MiG have experience making single and twin seat aircraft and the Su-75 is a single seat because it is for export... MiG had single engined fighters in the past and they are rejected now... that they offer a new stealthy single engined aircraft suggests they might have changed their mind, but what they wont do is just buy Sukhois because of sales and marketing... there will have to be tests... and one of the important factors will be how loaded with work are each of the design bureaus... which counts against Sukhoi.

Sure. That would be true if you can prove that mig is really working on that light single engine aircraft.

If they are just doing computer and paper work on it, su-75 will be choosed.

You talk about not giving sukhoi monopoly but that's what they are doing since 1991. Only mig-31 is left to another bureau but not produced anymore. Mig-41 may be too expensive and just replaced by s-500 and su-57 that can shoot 400km missiles and soon newer very long range missiles.

Sukhoi was tasked with su-30 over mig-29M, su-35 over mig-35, su-57 over mig-1.44, S-70 over that mig-skat drone and now there is a prototype su-75 against a 30cm mig model.

The air force will take the qu-75 that will be ready and that share everything with su-57. That's not USSR anymore. They need to make svings everywhere because modern technology is too expensive. Su-75 is the best option in that regard if they want to increase the volume of their air force.

Mig bureau is too much. They will have to kill it one day or another, no matter the lack of diversity you are talking about.

Like I said before they have plenty of design bureau but produce only 20 or so sukhoi in a year. Ssj-100 is a failure, tu-204 family is a failure, il-96 is a failure, just like the rest. Civilian production is inexistant and doesn't bring money. Military one exists thanks to soviet projects, new one were inexistant until they started su-57. And even then producing less than 50 aircraft per year isn't enough to keep so many company. And let's not forget they don't even make money with russian orders.

I absolutely do not agree with Isos, we can see also in the US what happened when a company had the monopoly.

There are possibilities for both design bureau (and also for Yak) and anyway MiG is also working on the mig31 replacement.
Kill the design Büro would be silly and counterproductive. The problem it had is that it was neglected and did not receive much funding after the 1990s. It is important to keep it, also in order to maintain the alternative supply chain, as Garry pointed out in another post.



As far as the single engine Vs twin engine aircraft issue I do not want to enter again in this discussion, but the rocket booster for extra range does not make much sense.

I just want to comment that at the moment and for at least another 5 years the su75 does not exists.

If the russian air force or a foreign customer wants a fighter plane before 2028 the only choices are Su-30, Su-35 and Mig 35 (or mig29M, if they want a cheaper alternative with older avionics) the su 57 has also not been exported yet

Until US is still selling F16 or F18 it does not make any sense to criticize the Mig29/35

As far as the civilian aircrafts you mentioned, noone of them is a failure (except commercially). They were not commercially successful because of internal sabotage and because of corruption, but they were good aircrafts when they were introduced (and they still have more modernisation potential than the 737).
The il-96 can also become the starting point for a modern twin engine widebody (of course with new wings and a new name) which will be competitive against the new version of the 777 or the airbus A330 neo.
The ssj100 has nothing to envy to the embraer E jet serie and was damaged mainly by the french engine parts reliability and spare parts availability. That will be soon over, together with the dependence from many foreign made parts.
Now there are several russian airlines that are using them effectively, notwithstanding the issues still present with the foreign made parts (at least until the russianised version will enter into service).

I absolutely do not agree with Isos, we can see also in the US what happened when a company had the monopoly.

There are possibilities for both design bureau (and also for Yak) and anyway MiG is also working on the mig31 replacement.
Kill the design Büro would be silly and counterproductive. The problem it had is that it was neglected and did not receive much funding after the 1990s. It is important to keep it, also in order to maintain the alternative supply chain, as Garry pointed out in another post.

There is no point in talking about this since MiG as an independent company is already gone. They were put under joint administration with Sukhoi. And they also put Tupolev and Yakolev under joint administration. The design teams still exist, but not their corporate structure. As for having only a single company, if that is a problem or not, it depends on how well it is managed. Dassault for example given the limited resources they have available seem to deliver on their projects just fine. So the idea you need all this duplication is misguided I think.

As far as the civilian aircrafts you mentioned, noone of them is a failure (except commercially). They were not commercially successful because of internal sabotage and because of corruption, but they were good aircrafts when they were introduced (and they still have more modernisation potential than the 737).
The il-96 can also become the starting point for a modern twin engine widebody (of course with new wings and a new name) which will be competitive against the new version of the 777 or the airbus A330 neo.
The ssj100 has nothing to envy to the embraer E jet serie and was damaged mainly by the french engine parts reliability and spare parts availability. That will be soon over, together with the dependence from many foreign made parts.
Now there are several russian airlines that are using them effectively, notwithstanding the issues still present with the foreign made parts (at least until the russianised version will enter into service).

The Tu-204 was obsolete on arrival. I do not mean the airframe or the engines since those were ok. But the control systems were obsolete. The Boeing 757 did away with the flight engineer and it came out in 1983. The Tu-204 came out in 1996 and it still had no automation. This was corrected in the Tu-204SM design which came out in the late 2000s, but that was canned in favor of the MC-21. But I agree that it would have been much better for Russia to stick with the Tu-204 instead of buying from the West. At least they would have kept the money inside Russia.

I agree with your comments with regards to the SSJ which is still one of the best aircraft on its class.

It also happened with the su-75.

Not at all, information about the Su-75 was openly and widely released because they are looking for international customers and international interest to fund the programme and if they can follow through on the promises I suspect it will be a very good aircraft that is very affordable, but they spent time and money and pagentry and prime time advertising position in MAKS to sell this product... there was nothing at all like this in public for the Su-57 which was a secret aircraft they weren't really interested in telling the world too much about till they were flight testing them and couldn't hide them.

Your opinion is based on beliefs.

My opinion is based on watching what the do for the last half century...

Mine is based on the fact that sukhoi already presented a 1:1 prototype, not just a model.

Your opinion willfully ignores that Sukhoi themselves have said this is for export and for foreign countries and that while the Russian AF might take a look they are not the main customer for this aircraft and have not said they would buy any for any purpose.

If they knew mig was working on such program and being financed by the MoD they wouldn't be spending money on su-75. And they have insight of what Mig doing.

The Su-75 is the Su-57 with one engine removed and reshaped to retain stealthy features and keep weight low... its aim for commonality with the Su-57 could be intended for export to countries who want the Su-57 but can't quite afford it in useful numbers so they can buy a quarter of the Su-57s they need and three quarters of the Su-75s they need with commonality of avionics and engines and systems.

We don't know what the Russian AF wants... they might want a Yak-130 that is stealthy with internal weapons and modern up to date radar and avionics... a super light super cheap plane that might be 15 million per airframe and 3K per hour operational costs with an 800km operational flight radius and a 4 ton payload capacity and capable of mach 2 with super cruising at mach 1.6 or something.

Read again my firsts statement. I said 2 times cheaper and takes 2 times less time for the engine, not for the aircraft.

Read the my post you quoted... with modern engines I would expect maintenance is minimised and automated and self diagnostic systems will warn the ground crew if something is not right or needs to be replaced with regularly replaced parts easy to access and easy to replace... two times cheaper can still be expensive or in the scale of things not significant enough to matter as much as the lack of redundancy and safety an extra engine provides.

It will have 1 radar just like su-57 and 1 EO and 1 landing gear syste... so the overall costvand and mintenance won't be 2 times less.

You are assuming engine maintenance is a significant cost in time and money for the overall maintenance of the aircraft... and the Su-57 has five radar and the distributed optical system looking for incoming threats has dozens of EO ports all over the aircraft.

Light singke engine fighter... jf-17 and f-16 are carrying enough for their weight. That's not an argument. Of course it will carry less than a su-35.

A twin engined aircraft has more growth potential...

It's not ignoring. It's saving money with a lighter aircraft during maintenance and operations and betting on a good and reliable engine.

The Russian MIC does not gouge the Russian military with expensive spare parts and support so a bit of extra time being worked on is not really as big a problem as losing an aircraft because the engine failed for what ever reason and it was the only engine on board.

Turkey has only f-16 and it hasn't lost air force. Egypt lost mig-29 and rafales in crashes despite both having two engines.

Planes crash. You need to save money to replace them no matter how many engines they have.

The cost of a single F-16 or a single Rafale would pay for the maintenance of 20 MiG-29s for 10 years.

Sure. That would be true if you can prove that mig is really working on that light single engine aircraft.

Well you tell me... how easy is it to find photos of those models... go to the UAC website... https://www.uacrussia.ru/en/ and have a look in the English language section... there is a page for the Checkmate... no page for the MiG design... almost as if one aircraft needs customers and the other does not...

The different methods could be explained by different levels of money, but one aircraft was really getting sold and the other seemed to just be there to show they are not doing nothing... why didn't they try the hard sell... except if they already have the funding from the Russian AF that they were promised when the Su-57 entered serial production... the model shows what they plan to make but gives no indication how far along in development it is... for all we know it might already have flown... or maybe not... this is a Russian AF project so it will be kept secret.

You talk about not giving sukhoi monopoly but that's what they are doing since 1991

They couldn't afford lots of different planes so they picked one... that is the definition of a monopoly... but they also created the UAC/OAK to preserve the design skills of all their design bureaus... why bother with that if one department gets all the work?

Mig-41 may be too expensive and just replaced by s-500 and su-57 that can shoot 400km missiles and soon newer very long range missiles.

Su-57 is sigificantly slower than the MiG-31 and when launching missiles 400km like the R-37M why would it need to be stealthy?

The MiG-31 can launch any air to air missile an Su-57 could launch but can launch it further because it flys higher and faster.

The MiG-41 will be even better.

Sukhoi was tasked with su-30 over mig-29M,

Actually the original plan was for the Su-30 to lead MiG-29s with their radar off as a mini AWACS type aircraft... for all we know the next step might be to fill out those Su-30 units with MiG-35s once the Su-30s get their new radar and they all get super long range AAMs.

su-35 over mig-35,

Not at all... they only ordered the MiG-35s when they realised how expensive operational costs for large aircraft like the Flanker family cost.

The Su-35 was developed first.

su-57 over mig-1.44,

No. The S-37 over the MiG-1.44, which resulted in the Su-57.

S-70 over that mig-skat drone

The S-70 didn't exist when MiG showed their design... which shows how clever and innovative they are.

They need to make svings everywhere because modern technology is too expensive.

Money invested in technology generally gives a good return, you just have to be creative.

Su-75 is the best option in that regard if they want to increase the volume of their air force.

Hasn't even flown yet and we have seen the MiG model in competition, but what is the Yak model and what is the Myasishchev model... but you want Sukhois plane... how weak we are in the west to a good sales pitch... we fall for everything hook line and sinker... were you disappointed you didn't find an Su-75 in your Christmas stocking?

Mig bureau is too much. They will have to kill it one day or another, no matter the lack of diversity you are talking about.

Yeah, money wasted on highly skilled designers and engineers... kick them out and put them on unemployment because Sukhoi wants to do everything...

Like I said before they have plenty of design bureau but produce only 20 or so sukhoi in a year. Ssj-100 is a failure, tu-204 family is a failure, il-96 is a failure, just like the rest.

Have you been asleep for a while, these planes you call failures are going into production to replace western aircraft that wont come back any time soon because we know the US holds a grudge and no matter how much the EU wants to make a buck the US wont let them when it comes to Russia.

Civilian production is inexistant and doesn't bring money.

Civilian production was impossible because western products were subsidised by world wide sales, Russian aircraft couldn't get any market share so no sales no income no income no funding for development and production.... but fortunately the west has shot itself in the foot and created a chance for Russian civilian aircraft production to get back on its feet and make planes and the absence of western types means they have an enormous market to deliver aircraft to...

This is like what Putin banning EU food product imports to Russia did to the Russian food industry... except the west is doing it to themselves.

Military one exists thanks to soviet projects, new one were inexistant until they started su-57.

The west exists because of colonialism, Russia has moved well beyond most Soviet projects in most areas... to the point where the west is not even interested in an open direct fight... they were hoping Russia would already be on her knees and how wrong could they be?

Those winter storms in the US increasing their gas consumption and reducing their gas production capacity... wonder how that will effect Europe later in the winter...

And even then producing less than 50 aircraft per year isn't enough to keep so many company. And let's not forget they don't even make money with russian orders.

They are producing the planes they need, what is wrong with that?

There are possibilities for both design bureau (and also for Yak) and anyway MiG is also working on the mig31 replacement.
Kill the design Büro would be silly and counterproductive. The problem it had is that it was neglected and did not receive much funding after the 1990s. It is important to keep it, also in order to maintain the alternative supply chain, as Garry pointed out in another post.

MiGs core problem Ironically was that the majority of their customers were scum... eastern european countries who deserted them like rats deserting a sinking ship.

In comparison Flankers had not been exported during the Cold War so suddenly getting to be able to buy the Russian equivalent of an F-15 was very appealing to those customers who could afford it, so of course they sold well... and with sales came money and power... which they used to screw MiG as well... offering Algeria Su-30s for the same price they paid for MiG-29SMTs.

Yes the USA always takes the most expensive and stupid route, because does that give more windfall benefits to the military-industrial complex

The MIC do it because they make lots of money, the US military allow it because they know when they retire they need to be in bed with the MIC if they want an easy high paying job after their military career talking to the people in the pentagon they probably commanded when they were there... these are the people they are selling weapons to... they know who to talk to and how to talk to them to get sales... they probably trained them.

In fact, the admirals have already warned that they need more aircraft carriers, but smaller ones, of another type, cheaper to manufacture and operate, and whose construction takes less time.

Their carriers are just ridiculous, but then their army is the same... they have been talking about a new tank in the 40 ton weight range that is easier to transport, can use a smaller more fuel efficient engine that is cheaper to buy and more manouverable on the battlefield... they essentially want a T-90AM but will never admit that... and probably never get it.

The mega-aircraft carrier is dead, will it go back to the 1970s concept of the Sea Control Ship? The F-35B is one more plane for this purpose and to go on medium aircraft carriers than for the large Nimitz-type aircraft carriers that are worthless and are too large and vulnerable with the new hypersonic missiles. In addition, as countries develop, the possibility of using them is less.

The thing is that size matters... the biggest is not the best but size certainly has advantages... pocket aircraft carriers are more vulnerable than the bigger ones and are not actually that much cheaper in terms of operational costs... it is no accident that the Ulyanovsk and the new planned French carrier are in the 75-85K ton range with cats and nuclear propulsion, and having all Su-57s on board does not make sense either... the range and performance of a big aircraft is useful, but having a smaller aircraft on there that can essentially do the same thing over shorter distances means you can have more planes which is more valuable than not having them.

There is no indication Russia wants a Nimitz type carrier, all the designs that were published are olny paper and probably are war propaganda, we are at war since 11-sept-2001

I totally agree... a Nimitz carrier is a strike carrier with strike aircraft... so you need double the number of aircraft with strike aircraft and inflight refuelling aircraft and fighters to protect them and AWACS to manage the air operations above the carrier and over enemy airspace...

The purpose of Russian carriers is air defence using air power and all the advantages of speed and coverage and being able to see out to enormous distances with airborne radar... they have cruise missiles for land attack and will have cruisers and destroyers to take out enemy aircraft too, but the combination of a surface based IADS together with AWACS and fighters that really makes the defence strong enough to deal with future threats.

well, the yak-38 had one engine + 2 vertical ones, buy in the end was like a Harrier

It was worse than the Harrier. the chances of a single engine failing is x. Having three engines is supposed to make you safer because if one engine fails you still have two more so x/3 is your safety level which is three times better, but instead it is actually three times worse because if any of the three engines fails you are screwed...

Those little engines it uses are amazing, but the concept is stupid.

There is no indication the Checkmate is for naval operations, but there is no indication the Checkmate is not for naval operations

The main indication from Sukhoi is that the Checkmate is for export and while the Russian AF might look at it there are no agreements in place and none expected any time soon... it still hasn't flown yet.

Just no, standardization of materials means reducing the number of models in inventory

There are always limits to standardisation... you can't operate a cargo fleet with just An-124s, but when you are making all new transport planes in different size ranges you can share parts and cargo compartments and avionics and weather radar sets so each aircraft isn't totally different and components can be used across the fleet.

You are already going to have Su-57 Su-35 and Su-34, in addition to the MiG-31 that probably does not have a successor either once the other models are purchased in big numbers

Eventually as HATO ramps up its air defence capacity an Su-34 modification of the Su-57 is probably likely... in the sense that the Su-34 is an Su-24 modification of an Su-27.

I only see the SU-75 for the Navy, in limited scenarios like the Crimea, Kaliningrad or on an aircraft carrier, but not in Transbalkalia or Ukraine, the VVS has discarded a MiG-29 type fighter for a long time in favor of the Flanker, at least since the Eritrean war

Smaller fighters can be harder to keep track of in combat and of course not upgrading your aircraft can hurt your performance in real combat every time.

But then, why are there already two bomber regiments with 3 squadrons of Su-34s?
Is this temporary or permanent?

Well no Su-75s are currently in service so is that temporary or permanent....

How can they put new aircraft that they plan to put into service into service before they develop them?

They are shuffling around what they have now to best suit their current and near future needs while likely working on the replacements.

Those of you saying they can't afford new things then why not scrap Su-57s and T-14s... they are not in the same position as the west where new stuff is just too expensive to buy in useful numbers so they put old shit back into production.

There was never any stated goal to go for an all 5th gen stealthy fighter fleet... that was the US plan and it clearly is failing.

The Russian plan was to build a significant number of new stealthy fighters and test them in the real world and decide whether they want more or if that is enough... the Su-35s and Su-30s upgraded to Su-35 parts and equipment and systems is the cheaper conventional submarines that can do most jobs well enough.

They might decide the Su-57 is amazing and they don't need 4th gen fighters at all, or they might decide they need a combination or the new stealth fighters might be more trouble than they are worth and an Su-35 with 14 weapon pylons is just more practical in real combat... we wont know for a while.

It can simply be deduced from the MoD announcements, which is what it is about, deduced from the official MoD announcements and not from the propaganda announcements in the press.

Well they cannot announce 400 new MiG-35s and 200 new Su-25 replacements because the aircraft don't exist yet...

8 new bomber regiments!!!! Just think what this means and its implications for the VKS and for the military aircraft industry.
It is necessary to manufacture 20 new squadrons of Su-34, that gives for 20 years producing 12 planes every year, or better, 12 years producing 20 planes annually
That means that the VKS is satisfied with the performance obtained in Syria and Ukraine.

No real surprise... they had a lot of Su-24s too... and it is LSOS that thinks they are crap... not me.

There is no point in talking about this since MiG as an independent company is already gone.

But that is the point... it isn't gone the idea of UAC was the keep the designers and engineers and get rid of the managers which were duplicated across every design bureau...

The purpose of the UAC is to preserve the diversity and depth... and they design all sorts of different things now too...

The Tu-204 was obsolete on arrival. I do not mean the airframe or the engines since those were ok. But the control systems were obsolete. The Boeing 757 did away with the flight engineer and it came out in 1983. The Tu-204 came out in 1996 and it still had no automation.

The Russian airlines preferred larger crews... it meant you could add an extra person which was handy because they could be the one fluent in English for communicating with the ground control, and when going through checklists on the ground with an extra person helping you could get through them faster, meaning less time on the ground and getting a much earlier takeoff slot than with a smaller crew.

The MoD announcement stated that a new fighter regiment would be raised and that each combined arms army would have a division made up of which three headquarters would be created.

MiG-35s...

Good point though... I will go through a lot of posts on this thread and look to shift them to a more appropriate location... perhaps a MiG thread... where the discussions would be more relevant.

Now you have multirole fighters. Some niche role can be present like high speed interceptor but even that can be done with a su-57 and long range scramjet missiles.

Instead of having 200 fighters and 200 bombers you will get 400 multirole jets that can be fighters and bombers.

I will not loose my time answering to the mig-35/su-75 debat here. Reality is simple, they lack sufficiebt numvers and without a cheap single engine fighter they will be overwhelmed by their neighbours including china that is fielding hundreds of new jets. And mig-35 isn't a solution since it is neither using new tech, neither simple, nor cheap.

Pretty much all the advanced airforces around the world have 1 type of fighter or plenty types of multirole fighters. Their pilots train for combat and bombing. Nowadays they have computers that help a lot for both missions.

So yes you can be a fighter and a bomber at the same time.

That's also what is happening in Russia. All the sukhois are multirole and their pilots are trained to fly as bomvers on su-24, as fighters on su-35 abd as helicopter pilots.

In order to replace losses they train their pilots for different roles.

In addition, the idea of 200 fighters + 200 bombers = 400 multipurpose fighters is wrong because you make the multipurpose fighter to have fewer airplanes in total, which is what has happened in the Air Forces of European countries.

That's the dumb western idea. Reality shows you need still lot of aircarft and a multirole aircraft can do the work of a bomber or of a fighter but not the role of both at the same time.

Replacement need to be done 1 for 1. But since su-35 is an order of magnitude more expensive than a su-27 or a su-24, and su-57 being even more expensive than su-35, you need a cheap multirole aircraft to increase the numbers. Su-75 which shares same tech as su-57 is a good start.

If that mig is vetter then go with it but I have doubts about this project that doesn't even look as started.

As for the "numbers" it is absurd, the great nuclear powers do not fight wars with each other but proxy wars, Russia has fighters to fight against Ukraine, Poland, Turkey or Japan, not against the USA or against China, which is also there and always it will side with Russia unless a color revolution wins in Russia, in which case Russia will disappear and will also be unable to fight China

They don't fight directly but an air war can happen over a third country without escalating into a nuk war.

Soviet and chinese planes were directly fighting US ones over Korea.

Russia is also involved more and more in external operation at the same time. Syria, Africa, Venezuela... they need enough plane to support such operations but also protect their territory.

Is not a question of tons, iron is cheap
The carrier Rusia need is similar to the British , not veru large but so width as the Nimitz, and above all wide throughout the length of the ship with wide and long hangars under the entire deck that allow it to have more aircraft on board unlike the Kuznestov which has a narrow and short hangar

Tons is an indication of size and capacity... if they could get a carrier with the capacity of an 80K ton carrier that is only 40-45K tons then that would be fine, but it is not just about how many aircraft you can carry... you have to carry aviation fuel for those aircraft to operate, you need ordinance for that air group to carry and deliver, you need food and water and accommodation for the crew and the air wing... shorter wider ships are like shorter wider aircraft... not so fast.

It doesn't need to fly but it does need to be able to move places in a week or three at best.

Most of the time the Russian carriers wont be carrying a full compliment of aircraft so the extra fuel and ordinance and hangar space can be used to extend endurance.... but in war mode most of the operational aircraft sit on the deck... they get fuelled on the deck and armed on the deck and disarmed on the deck where it is much safer if something happens.

In any case, for what Russia needs, with the new hypersonic missiles and drones, it does not need large aircraft carriers but a Sea Control,

It has hypersonic missiles and it has drones, what it needs is air power that can operate anywhere on the planet to support and protect its access to the worlds Sea lanes of communication and trade.

Otherwise the west will just systematically blockade every country that wants to trade with Russia... not like they have never done that before... the war in the Pacific during WWII was the result of a British and US naval blockade of Japan... they couldn't import resources so they had to go out and get them... but Japan is portrayed as the bad guy in that situation because we read the western version of events. (not that the Japs weren't total bastards).

a Ship more similar to the Soviet Moskva class (helicopter cruiser), which allows it to have airborne radars on long-range drones to illuminate the missiles that the ship launches beyond the horizon, instead of sending planes, in addition to anti-submarine aircraft / drones

A helicopter cruiser that is not a landing ship like the new Ivan Rogov class ships is a waste of money... any cruiser with 2-3 helicopters could have AEW helicopters operating from them... the real problem is what planes would you be sending exactly?

Against an unarmed MPA even a Yak-38 would be a good aircraft with AA-8 missiles and it should be agile enough to approach an enemy MPA and shoot it down even if that MPA has sidewinders, but such targets could be shot down with S-350 or S-400 much faster and more efficiently... what interceptor flys at mach 5-6 over 150km?

A proper aircraft carrier means being able to deploy anywhere in the world effectively with Su-57 and AWACS support... not 100% invincible, but vastly more powerful... and would eliminate most countries from being able to do much about it.

Russia can have a dozen of this type of ship, but not aircraft carriers, of which it will only build two following the British model, with a reduced crew of about 600 men, having 5,000 guys packed into a ship is ridiculous, it's a perfect target

Look at history... they had helicopter carriers and then they tried little VSTOL carriers and then they went for Kuz sized ships and the natural progression was to Ulyanovsk size ships... and not much has changed... they have shown models of mini carriers but they have also shown models of super carriers... there are designs that work and designs that don't work... Russia currently has twin and four engined bombers, but no three engined bombers or 5 engined bombers... it is not an accident.

The MiG-29M/M2 has been exported, but Russia only bougth the naval version MiG-29K

The only reason the MiG-29K was bought was because the Indians ordered some so production was set up to make them so tacking on extra orders on the end saved them a lot of money and time... if that had not happened they likely would have just further upgraded the Su-33s and probably would have had to accelerate the carrier version of the Su-57.

You can export Su-75 and then only buy one naval version or both bersions but both for the Navy

Carrier planes are normally expensive, so extra operating costs are not normally an issue... of greater issue is size and space... one of the advantages of the Su-33 is it folds into a very small space for such a large aircraft.

The Russian Navy is going to move from the bottom rung of the ladder soon because Russia is going to have quite a large merchant marine fleet to protect and monitor, and how best to establish ties with a country than to send an aircraft carrier to run exercises with the local navy and make them feel big and powerful in their region because they have big powerful friends now.

I Only can see the Su-75 in VKS in unmanned version for Assault role for replace Su-25 if this happens

CAS roles don't require stealth or speed.

Close range combat is totally out of the question unless we're talking about Kaliningrad or Crimea, not the wide Eurasian steppes.

Yeah, probably exactly what the Americans thought before Vietnam... in Europe against Rafales and Typhoons and potentially F-35s and Tempests, you can't assume your missiles are going to continue to be effective.

Sure they have gotten some spectacular kills at very long range but so did the US in Vietnam against MiG-17s and MiG-15s that were likely totally unaware they were under attack...

The big aircraft can be at or near the border reaching out and touching enemy fighters and AWACS and JSTARS platforms and any SAM that turns its radars on, while smaller fighters can operate over Russian territory shooting down incoming drones and standoff weapons that leaked through the fighters and SAM front line.

Obviously HATO is going to try to overwhelm the Russian fighters with their numbers advantage... the SAMs will help with that but smaller fighters will make a difference too.

Without breaking the bank of making thousands of heavy fighters and operating them.

What does PAK-FA mean??? Future airborne complex of Frontal Aviation

Frontal aviation consisted of aircraft forces near the front line, so it included Fighter aviation, bomber aviation, fighter bomber aviation, ground attack aviation, transport aviation, an special aviation... so front line aviation fighter aviation was air cover for ground forces and escorts for other assets over the battlefield, with a secondary role of recon and tactical nuke strike and also ground attack with simple unguided rockets and bombs and cannon... bomber aviation was strike with Su-24 types and included recon and tactical nuclear strikes but used guided weapons for ground attack and hit important targets like power stations and bridges etc etc.
Fighterbomber aviation was MiG-27 and Su-17 types and the ground attack aviation was CAS with Su-25s, while recon aviation was Su-24MR and Su-17M aircraft, and transport was An-26 and Mi-8.. special aircraft was command post helicopters and EW and ELINT helicopters and aircraft like Il-20 types.

Is the Su-57 going to do all that is it?

Impressive... so what the hell would they even bother with Su-75 at all?

What is the supposed PAK-DP?? the replacement for the Soviet MiG-31 and Su-27 as interceptors

It will replace the MIG-31, but MiG-31s and Su-35s and Su-57s will continue to be used until they are worn out... they don't have the luxury to scrap modern upgraded aircraft unless they are near the end of their operational lives... which most are not.

What are the Su-30SM, the Su-35 and the MiG-31BM?
the bridges in the decades of 2010-2020-2030 to cover the gap of the Soviet MiG-29 Su-27 and MiG-31 until the full implementation of the PAK-FA and PAK-DP

There was never any plan to go all stealth, just as with their submarines they continue to develop and build conventionally powered subs along side the nuclear powered vessels.

The fact of the matter is that conventional 4th gen fighters are good enough for a lot of roles and much of the time stealth does not matter... even more so during peace time.

I can even buy you the argument that an unmanned Su-75 in assault version could be the PAK-Sha (Future Airborne Complex
of the assault aviation), that is to say the substitute of the Su-25 and for that reason the termination in 5

Su-75 appears to be what the US has wanted all this time and is essentially a stealthy F-16... and F-16s have been promoted as a great replacement for A-10s... or souped up LIFTs like the T-28/F-5 were promoted as cheap light ground attack aircraft... in the Soviet Union it was versions of the MiG-21 and MiG-27 that were promoted as the ultimate ground attack aircraft to replace the Su-25... but they failed because they were too fast to see the ground targets... the MiG-15 was the best because it was slow, but it wouldn't be ideal because it was not well protected from ground fire... the obvious solution is low flight speed, which is not to say it can't go faster when it needs to, but also heavy protection of important bits (engine and pilot) to survive hits and damage... there is no indication the Su-75 or the new MiG single or twin engine designs can survive multiple hits from ground fire and therefore be suitable replacements for the Su-25.

If you think being unmanned is the solution then surely an unmanned Su-25 makes more sense.

Now you have multirole fighters. Some niche role can be present like high speed interceptor but even that can be done with a su-57 and long range scramjet missiles.

The job the MiG-31 performs cannot be replicated by the Su-27 or even the Su-57... they are simply not fast enough to get the same reach with their missiles... flying at mach 2.5 the Su-35 would probably fly 500km out and 500km back... even less with a load of 8 air to air missiles the size of the R-37M.

The Su-57 likely couldn't carry that much that fast that far either... but that is fine because they have MiG-31s that can do that so they don't need to.

Su-57s would be better taking over the roles of ELINT and EW from the Su-24MR where their stealth would be valuable...

Plus lets get some actually into service before we start handing out jobs to them to replace other types.

Instead of having 200 fighters and 200 bombers you will get 400 multirole jets that can be fighters and bombers.

That is always the sales pitch but then it turns out that the new planes are twice the cost of the old ones so you can only have 200 planes but they can be fighters or bombers so they replace 400 planes... except one aircraft can't be in two places at once so all of a sudden you have 100 fighters being fighters and 100 fighters being bombers, so you actually have half the number you had before...

I will not loose my time answering to the mig-35/su-75 debat here. Reality is simple, they lack sufficiebt numvers and without a cheap single engine fighter they will be overwhelmed by their neighbours including china that is fielding hundreds of new jets.

They invaded the Ukraine without needing overwhelming numbers of very much at all... local numbers advantage is enough, where you concentrate your forces for attack or defence.

And to have enough fuel and ammo to keep the tempo up.

And mig-35 isn't a solution since it is neither using new tech, neither simple, nor cheap.

All the technology is brand new and is being developed for their 5th gen fighter designs... producing MiG-35s will boost numbers of aircraft of smaller types that can operate near the front line with modern avionics and systems to find targets and kill them, in a package that is cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate than the Su-35 is.

The whole concept of the light 5th gen fighter of which so many seem to be so completely sold on is just an extension of the same concept... amusing you think it works in 5th gen and not in 4th...

No, you can't be a fighter and a bomber at the same time.
training, tactics and combat coordination is different. In the USSR in a fighter-bomber regiment there was a fighter squadron, a bombing squadron and a squadron of young pilots, even though they all used the same platform

That was the real mistake MIG actually made... their focus was to make the MiG-29 multirole... the SMT upgrade reduced operational costs by adding diagnostic tools and inspections for replacing parts, where before you just used a schedule... x number of hours and these things get replaced even if they are good for another thousand hours. It was simple but not particularly cheap because otherwise good parts are binned... or sold on the black market.

The Russian AF didn't want multirole aircraft because they didn't train for that.

More sophisticated training where previously an aircraft on an interception mission might detect an enemy SAM light up where it could defend itself by firing an ARM... a long range intercept would involve it climbing high and launching an AAM at high speed to maximise missile energy and range, but obviously climbing and accelerating like that will draw the attention of enemy air defence so a couple of ARMs would be sensible and the launch profile that is good for range for the AAMs would also be good for the ARMs... the point is that for an Su-57 it would not just be launching at enemy aircraft and enemy radar it will also be using its sensors to scan for any emissions... communications etc and locate their positions and transmit that information to other platforms in the field and HQ... so air to air, SEAD, and Recon and ELINT all in the same mission.

MiG were just before their time... the original MiG-29K that lost to the Su-33 lost because it was a multirole fighter bomber that could perform a range of tasks and functions... its radar and R-77 missiles probably would have meant it would beat an Su-33 in a dogfight and long range combat, but all this meant it cost about the same as the Su-33 which was just an Su-27 with folding wings and a tailhook... air to air missiles and unguided bombs and rockets.

Same price but the Su-33 could fly further so it got picked, because all the advantages of the MiG didn't matter to the Navy.

Pretty much all the advanced airforces around the world have 1 type of fighter or plenty types of multirole fighters. Their pilots train for combat and bombing. Nowadays they have computers that help a lot for both missions.

So yes you can be a fighter and a bomber at the same time.

He is basically saying the aircraft can be multirole but the units the planes are in don't train multirole, they are fighters or bombers... not normally both.

All the sukhois are multirole and their pilots are trained to fly as bomvers on su-24, as fighters on su-35 abd as helicopter pilots.

All Sukhois are multirole and you mention the Su-24... the only one that isn't...

Even the Su-25 has an anti helicopter capacity...

That's the dumb western idea. Reality shows you need still lot of aircarft and a multirole aircraft can do the work of a bomber or of a fighter but not the role of both at the same time.

Reality shows aircraft are in trouble and will be rapidly whittled down against a decent air defence network... drones and standoff missiles can help, but modern IADS will be a hard nut to crack. And you will lose a lot of very very expensive aircraft like Rafales and F-35s and Typhoons trying to crack it.

Replacement need to be done 1 for 1. But since su-35 is an order of magnitude more expensive than a su-27 or a su-24, and su-57 being even more expensive than su-35, you need a cheap multirole aircraft to increase the numbers. Su-75 which shares same tech as su-57 is a good start.

Which is the reason for the MiG-35, and its 5th gen replacement... but the point is not that these light aircraft are expendible... other wise drones would be cheaper and completely expendible... the point of light aircraft is that they add missiles and radars and EO sights to your weapon and sensor array so you have more shooters firing at the enemy and degrading his fleet faster which magifies your numbers advantage or negates his.

When they said it takes five Shermans to deal with a Tiger, they didn't mean five Shermans are lost for every Tiger lost, what they meant is that five Shermans will distract the Tiger crew allowing one or two Shermans to get in close and get a kill shot... you might lose one or two Shermans but they only made about 2 thousand Tigers and they are fighting on the east and the western fronts... and how many Shermans and T-34s did they have to face?

If that mig is vetter then go with it but I have doubts about this project that doesn't even look as started.

That is the point though the MiG project is a domestic fighter so it will be kept secret while everyone talks about the Checkmate... go to the UAC website and look it up... they have a page for the Checkmate... but even the page on the Russian language version of the website Checkmate is written in English.... who do you think the programme is directed at?

For all we know it might just be a massive middle finger to all those Eastern European countries now forced to buy F-35s when they could have bought this Russian plane for the price they will be paying for the F-35s engine.

The Checkmate looks like a clever idea... a very smart idea but I think its performance figures make it more of a MiG-35 than a Yak-130 that is a real fighter and stealthy.

The new MiG model single engined fighter has full internal weapons storage so it is stealthy... which it has over the Yak-130, it is very small, which the checkmate isn't, but if they want performance then they have the carrier model with two engines which will be essentially a stealthy MiG-35, so they have both bases covered this time.

Remember the lost to the Yak-130 for the LIFT because the Yak-130 was seen as being potentially a light fighter with better armament... the MiG had a french engine but then the Yak had a Ukrainian one so the same solution could have been applied.

The MiG-AT would have been much cheaper to operate and could have been a rather better LIFT with hindsight, but it wasn't to be, and now they talk about an SR-10 or even a MiG-AT as an early jet trainer to replace the L39 and fill the gap between propeller driven Yak-52 or Yak-152 and the Yak-130 which is too expensive to be a general jet trainer and would become an advanced jet trainer instead.

Money being saved by pilots flying SR-10s or MiG-ATs for the early jet training and saving the Yak-130s for the more advanced stuff.

GarryB wrote:It has hypersonic missiles and it has drones, what it needs is air power that can operate anywhere on the planet to support and protect its access to the worlds Sea lanes of communication and trade.

Hypersonic missiles are needed because the oft stated lie that supersonic cruise missiles can maneuver has been exposed. No missile powered by an air breathing engine can maneuver at Mach 3, Mach 4.