Hunter dropped a 500-kg aerial bomb

January 12 2021 51

The newest Russian attack drone S-70 "Okhotnik" has passed the next stage of testing, dropping 500-kilogram unguided bombs from the internal compartment and successfully hitting a ground target. The bomb strike was practiced at the Ashuluk training ground. Reported by the agency RIA News with reference to a source in the DIC.

The target was hit with high accuracy

- the interlocutor told reporters.

At the same time, he noted that these are not the first tests in which the destruction of ground targets with heavy UAVs is being practiced.

Recall that the S-70 Okhotnik was developed at the Sukhoi Design Bureau. The attack drone is made according to the "flying wing" scheme with widespread use of stealthof technologies... The first flight of the promising device took place on August 3, 2019.

According to the data available today, the 20-ton "Hunter" will be able to reach speeds of up to 1000 km / h.

According to the agency's interlocutor, the S-70 will be able to hit static or sedentary targets with known coordinates in unmanned mode. At the same time, thanks to the latest sighting and navigation system, the domestic UAV is able to use unguided bombs with an accuracy close to guided munitions.

In addition, it was previously reported that a promising attack drone will be able to interact with the domestic fifth-generation fighter Su-57, as well as use air-to-air missiles, performing the functions of an interceptor.

Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

VK Zen Telegram

51 comment

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Marzhecki

+5

12 January 2021 11: 33

With bated breath, we are waiting for the comments of the Russian-speaking Israeli "military experts" ...
1. Cyril
  
  -1
  
  12 January 2021 12: 11
  
  What for? Good test results of a modern strike UAV of Russian (finally) production.
  1. Marzhecki
    
    +4
    
    12 January 2021 15: 24
    
    Yes, usually one grudge comes from them. It's nice that they are wrong.
    1. Cyril
      
      -4
      
      12 January 2021 15: 27
      
      Their "grudge" is focused on something else - on the fact that we still have such a technique in one copy or in very small quantities, which neutralizes all technological advancement.
      
      And in this they are still right.
      1. sgrabik
        
        +2
        
        12 January 2021 18: 10
        
        Well, this problem is just the same fixable and solvable, the most difficult thing is to bring all new projects to mass production, the organization of mass production is the most costly and time-consuming process, as soon as we overcome this stage and start mass production of new types of weapons, so the number of these weapons will begin to increase significantly in our army units and units.
        
        Cyril
        
        -3
        
        13 January 2021 10: 42
        
        Well, you see, this is the problem, that it is very expensive to organize mass production. This is the trouble.
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +4
        
        13 January 2021 13: 31
        
        Well, you see, this is the problem, that it is very expensive to organize mass production. This is the trouble.
        
        Why create this in large quantities for future use?
        The colleague (sgrabik) is right, the main thing is to create a technological base. And if necessary, production will start working in the "economic realities" of wartime, and material will be riveted quickly (and inexpensively).
        Russia, due to its military doctrine, is not going to attack anyone. Why strain your economy for nothing?
        
        Cyril
        
        -5
        
        13 January 2021 14: 06
        
        And if necessary, production will start working in the "economic realities" of wartime, and material will be riveted quickly (and inexpensively).
        
        "Quickly and inexpensively", especially in wartime conditions, when the load on the economy increases greatly, you cannot rivet a modern aircraft.
        
        In addition, the technological base must not only be created, but also preserved. If you develop a new aircraft, release a couple of batches, and then abandon the "before needed" production, and this "need" will happen, say, only in 10 years, then the technological base will already be outdated.
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +5
        
        13 January 2021 14: 37
        
        "Quickly and inexpensively", especially in wartime conditions, when the load on the economy increases greatly, you cannot rivet a modern aircraft.
        
        We can, we can. Already riveted.
        Unlimited natural resources of Russia, combined with the proven: "Everything for the front, everything for victory", has not been canceled. Well, about the "peculiarities of Russians" - the ability, and most importantly the readiness, in the most difficult moment, to mobilize all their forces, it is unnecessary to speak.
        
        In addition, the technological base must not only be created, but also preserved. If you develop a new plane, put out a couple of batches and then abandon
        
        Nobody disputes serial production. I'm talking about the uselessness of the mass.
        
        and this "need" will happen, say, only in 10 years, then the technological base will already be outdated.
        
        That is why the mass character is not interesting. The "material" is also becoming obsolete. And the "technological base" should keep pace with the times, develop, and not get hung up on "riveting".
        
        Cyril
        
        -5
        
        13 January 2021 14: 53
        
        We can, we can. Already riveted.
        
        It is when? During the Second World War? As if a piston fighter and the Su-57 are somewhat different things.
        
        Unlimited natural resources of Russia
        
        Unlimited natural resources cannot be simply taken and obtained. They must first be explored, evaluated, and extracted - and only then are they transformed from mere fossils into minerals. And that also takes time.
        
        The "material" is also becoming obsolete.
        
        Right. And therefore it is being modernized. But for this you first need to produce it.
        
        And the "technological base" should keep pace with the times, develop, and not get hung up on "riveting".
        
        The technological base must carry out these 2 processes in parallel - both "rivet" and "develop".
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +4
        
        13 January 2021 16: 17
        
        It is when? During the Second World War? As if a piston fighter and the Su-57 are somewhat different things.
        
        Everything is relative. For that time, the "piston fighter" was a miracle of technology.
        
        Unlimited natural resources cannot be simply taken and obtained. They must first be scouted, evaluated, and mined.
        
        If you (liberals) are talking about the raw material base, then you have already decided: Either a "gas station" or "dense Russia". )
        
        Right. And therefore it is being modernized. But for this you first need to produce it.
        
        Manufacturing and “mass production” are not the same thing. (See above)
        
        The technological base must carry out these 2 processes in parallel - both "rivet" and "develop".
        
        The technological base owes nothing to anyone.
        There are different economic models of production. One: the full development cycle, followed by (usually long-term) production of the model, and the other: Initial development, the start of production with concomitant revision. (your option)
        Both have the right to life.
        
        Today this (your) model is actively used, for example, in the automotive industry. A "crude" model is produced and put into operation, shifting "research" onto the shoulders of "exploiters".
        This model is effective when they want to get the maximum profit from sales in the shortest possible time. The payment for "easy money" is the loss of image.
        If Russia has precisely this goal, then “your model” is just right.
        
        Cyril
        
        -1
        
        13 January 2021 17: 14
        
        Everything is relative. For that time, the "piston fighter" was a miracle of technology.
        
        But the rate of complication of technology is much higher than the rate of development of human intelligence.
        
        Manufacturing of 1 fighter from the Second World War, as far as I know, in critical situations took only a few days. You cannot assemble a Su-57 in this couple of days. Even taking into account the use of the latest computer technology and production facilities. It's just physically impossible.
        
        In addition, it must be borne in mind that from a certain moment the production rate becomes inversely proportional to its quality. And if for a piston aircraft a nut slightly different in size from the technological standard could not be particularly critical, then for a modern fighter this threshold of permissible negligence is much lower, because the load on its structure, the requirements for accuracy are much higher.
        
        If you (liberals) are talking about the raw material base, then you have already decided: Either a "gas station" or "dense Russia". )
        
        I don't know what you mean - I said what I said. It is impossible to extract natural resources from the floundering bay, this process is preceded by exploration, calculation of deposits and a bunch of other preparatory procedures that require time.
        
        This model is effective when they want to get the maximum profit from sales in the shortest possible time. The payment for "easy money" is the loss of image.
        If Russia has precisely this goal, then “your model” is just right.
        
        Well, the USSR launched the Su-27 into operation in 1981, but at the same time it was refining it for another 7 years. The aircraft entered service only in 1990. Was the USSR trying to get "maximum profit in a minimum period"?
        
        Production of serial T-10S was started in 1981 at the 126th plant in the city of Komsomolsk-on-Amur (KnAAPO named after Gagarin). Serial production of AL-31F engines was mastered at two aircraft engine plants - the Moscow Machine-Building Production Enterprise (MMPP) Salyut and the Ufa Engine-Building Production Association (UMPO). Officially, the Su-27 was adopted by a government decree of August 23, 1990, when all the main shortcomings were eliminatedidentified in tests.
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +1
        
        13 January 2021 17: 51
        
        But the rate of complication of technology is much higher than the rate of development of human intelligence.
        
        That is, in other words, the complication of technology happens by itself?)
        
        Manufacturing 1 fighter from the Second World War, as far as I know, in critical situations took only a few days. You won't be able to assemble the Su-57 in this couple of days.
        
        But even this does not justify the start of mass production of these expensive aircraft on the "here and now" principle. Why overload your economy with this? Then you will yell: where is the development of the other sectors?)
        
        Moreover, there is also the technology of the previous generation, which can be upgraded to a level sufficient for today's requirements. There is nothing more valuable than untapped potential.
        
        I don't know what you mean - I said what I said.
        
        I mean that everything has already been (to a sufficient extent) explored, developed and successfully exploited. And continues ...
        
        Well, the USSR launched the Su-27 into operation in 1981, but at the same time it was refining it for another 7 years.
        
        And these aircraft continue to serve Russia perfectly today. There is a time calmly, without fever, and without driving yourself into a corner, to create new samples.
        
        And than. The USSR was one reality, and today's Russia is another. Including in terms of the military potential of both sides.
        If earlier, NATO, had a concrete justification to oppose itself to the communist regime (USSR), and had a huge army on the territory of Europe, and this in turn forced the USSR to “keep its mark,” so to speak, but today everything has changed. There are no more ideological differences. To explain to a European why he should change from a comfortable Mercedes to a Leopard, and go to die on the “eastern front”, today, is quite difficult (from the word impossible).
        NATO is today primarily the United States. Russia did not seem to be planning to attack the United States. And for the fight against "any aggressor" the available weapons are enough today.
        
        I believe that problems should be solved as they come.
        
        Cyril
        
        -2
        
        13 January 2021 18: 16
        
        That is, in other words, the complication of technology happens by itself?)
        
        Largely. Do you know about the technology exponent and the technology singularity? This is a phenomenon where the growth of technology becomes so rapid that a person simply cannot keep up with it. The reason is that nowadays technology is developing thanks to not only human but also machine intelligence. In fact, part of the technology complicates itself.
        
        But even this does not justify the start of mass production of these expensive aircraft on the "here and now" principle. Why overload your economy with this?
        
        This would not be justified in the event that you do not have an enemy (real or potential), which already has more than 500 such aircraft. Then yes, you don't have to strain.
        
        Then you will yell: where is the development of other sectors?)
        
        Personally, I have never "yelled" like that.
        
        Moreover, there is also the technology of the previous generation, which can be upgraded to a level sufficient for today's requirements. There is nothing more valuable than untapped potential.
        
        So the potential enemy also has it. And, as far as I know, in much larger quantities.
        
        I mean that everything has already been (to a sufficient extent) explored, developed and successfully exploited. And continues ...
        
        Are you sure that this will be enough for a full-fledged war with the same USA and NATO?
        
        And these aircraft continue to serve Russia perfectly today. There is a time calmly, without fever, and without driving yourself into a corner, to create new samples.
        
        Don't change the thesis. I gave you the example of the Su-27 as an aircraft, whose revision and elimination of shortcomings went parallel to mass production and operation. You previously described this approach as suitable only for "get rich quick" and the subsequent loss of image. So I ask - the USSR, creating the Su-27, quickly enriched itself and "lost its image"?
        
        And than. The USSR was one reality, and today's Russia is another.
        
        Right, I don’t argue with that. And in many respects it is different for the worse - including in terms of the ability to quickly create an adequate technical base to repel an attack by the same USA.
        
        NATO is today primarily the United States. Russia did not seem to be planning to attack the United States. And for the fight against "any aggressor" the available weapons are enough today.
        
        This is a controversial point.
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +5
        
        13 January 2021 19: 10
        
        Are you sure that this will be enough for a full-fledged war with the same USA and NATO?
        
        .... And in many respects it is different for the worse - including in terms of the ability to quickly create an adequate technical base to repel an attack by the same USA.
        
        .... And for the fight against "any aggressor" the available weapons are enough for today.
        
        .. This is a controversial point.
        
        I am convinced.
        NATO is the United States. Forget Europe.
        The memory of Europeans that their territory is stuffed with at least 120 nuclear reactors cools their ardor, to enter into any conflicts, no matter with whom, and even against Russia and even more so.
        
        For the US attack on Russia, the territory of Europe is needed. On aircraft carriers against such a large "island" as Russia you will not fight much. Further, see above.
        
        Russia's weapons (nuclear triad) are sufficient to deter any potential enemy.
        
        Cyril
        
        -3
        
        13 January 2021 19: 23
        
        For the US attack on Russia, the territory of Europe is needed.
        
        this territory is in the USA already yes - there are US Air Force bases in Germany, Britain, Bulgaria, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Norway, Turkey.
        
        The memory of Europeans that their territory is stuffed with at least 120 nuclear reactors cools their ardor, to enter into any conflicts, no matter with whom, and even against Russia and even more so.
        
        Again, a very controversial point. And, in my humble opinion, Russia is not just strengthening its western borders and conducting large-scale exercises there. The USSR did exactly the same thing in its time, although in its time Europe was stuffed with these very nuclear reactors, I really don't want to.
        
        Russia's weapons (nuclear triad) are sufficient to deter any potential enemy.
        
        First, a large-scale conflict can be generally non-nuclear or limited nuclear.
        
        Secondly, if we have a nuclear triad sufficient to deter any potential adversary, then why develop other weapons at all, since this very triad is sufficient for deterrence?
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +4
        
        13 January 2021 20: 32
        
        the USA already has this territory - there are USAF bases in Germany, Britain, Bulgaria, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Norway, Turkey.
        
        I think this limited contingent is enough to "keep in check" the Europeans themselves, but negligible enough for a war against Russia.
        In the event of a conflict, in one way or another, unleashed by the Americans, the European "members" will categorically refuse to support the Americans. Until the exit from the block, or its disintegration. By the way, this decay is already “not far off” (as unnecessary).
        
        Europe was stuffed with these very nuclear reactors, I really don't want to.
        
        Yes, just like it was packed with weapons. Today, militarily, a ghost remains from Europe. The nuclear power plants remained, but there would have been nothing to adequately protect them. Although the example with the nuclear power plant was far from the only one, but simply indicative, indicating the great vulnerability of Europeans. There is no restraining power for inflicting at least some kind of retaliatory strike, from the word - at all. Europe is a common American cash cow. No more, no less. So the American army would probably have to fight on its own. It is absolutely unrealistic to accumulate its own strike potential in Europe, sufficient, at least for a local war against Russia. The United States simply does not have it. Two and no one guarantees them "playing by their rules."
        The United States may not even dream of any "local conflicts" against Russia. The conflict will quickly develop into a global one.
        
        Why then develop other weapons at all, because this very triad is enough for deterrence?
        
        But this is just for the "local" (but the United States is not here in any way ...).
        Russia has a place to keep order at its near and far borders.
        
        Cyril
        
        -4
        
        13 January 2021 21: 31
        
        I think this limited contingent is enough to "keep in check" the Europeans themselves, but negligible enough for a war against Russia.
        
        In total, the units and subdivisions of the US Air Force command in Europe have more than 200 combat aircraft... The number of command personnel is 25 thousand military personnel and more than 35 thousand civilians.
        
        And this is only in Europe. And this is the number for 2013, that is, in a relatively peaceful time. In the event of war, they will increase this number many times and quickly. It is already bigger even now.
        
        And also American bases in Japan, South Korea, in Alaska (these are only those in the immediate vicinity of Russia). And yes - do not forget about aircraft carriers.
        
        At the moment, there are 492 units of TOTAL fighters of all models and modifications in Russia.
        
        In the event of a conflict, in one way or another, unleashed by the Americans, the European "members" will categorically refuse to support the Americans.
        
        Why such confidence?
        
        Today, militarily, a ghost remains from Europe.
        
        It is absolutely unrealistic to accumulate its own strike potential in Europe, sufficient, at least for a local war against Russia.
        
        Britain - 160 Typhoons and 15 Lightnings (175 total)
        
        Germany - 140 Typhoons
        
        France - 100 Mirages 2000 and 100 Raphales (200 total)
        
        Italy - 93 Typhoons, 11 Lightnings (over 100 total)
        
        Netherlands - 60 F-16
        
        Belgium - 43 F-16.
        
        Norway - 47 F-16.
        
        Spain - 61 Typhoons, 70 F-18s (more than 130 total)
        
        In total, these countries alone have a total of almost 900 modern fighters. And this I did not take into account the less significant participants in Europe such as Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, etc.
        
        Compare 900 own European fighters and 492 Russian fighters (some of which are scattered throughout the rest of the country).
        
        Something too big "ghost" turns out. 2 times superior to the ALL fighter potential of Russia.
        
        You can, of course, say - they say, half of these European aircraft are not ready for military operations. This may be so. But out of almost 500 Russian, how many are also ready for hostilities?
        
        There is also the question of Turkey. She is now showing her teeth to Europe and the United States, but are you sure that she won't want to bite off the South from Russia in the midst of a big mess?
        
        But Turkey has more than 250 F-16s in service.
        
        And yes, don't forget about Alaska, Japan, South Korea.
        
        But this is just for the "local" (but the United States is not here in any way ...).
        Russia has a place to keep order at its near and far borders.
        
        For local conflicts near Russia's borders, old Su-27 and Mig-29 of the first modifications are enough. However, for some reason the Su-30 is also being made. and Su-35 and Su-57.
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +3
        
        13 January 2021 21: 49
        
        In the event of a conflict, in one way or another, unleashed by the Americans, the European "members" will categorically refuse to support the Americans.
        
        Why such confidence?
        
        I am convinced. I know the situation.
        
        At the moment, there are 492 units of TOTAL fighters of all models and modifications in Russia.
        
        Lies.
        
        Air defense, too, will you compare?
        
        Here are some other statistics:
        
        1031 aircraft, 3 aircraft carriers, 21 cruisers and frigates, 3 submarines.
        
        NATO needed these forces to bomb Yugoslavia after 3 months of preparation, 72 subsequent days. We can say - they shot a small country like in a shooting gallery.
        
        Result: 15% of the military potential of the Serbs was undermined.
        
        Isn't that impressive, or?)
        
        Now, purely hypothetically, generously multiply that number by 20.
        That is how much it may take to try to inflict damage of this scale on the Russian army.
        
        At the same time, unlike the Yugoslavs, Russia will have more than enough to strike back at the offender.
        
        Cyril
        
        -5
        
        13 January 2021 22: 34
        
        I am convinced. I know the situation.
        
        Sorry, but so-so authority among you.
        
        Lies.
        
        I watched the composition of the fighter fleet of the Russian Air Force in the corresponding article on Wikipedia. There, for each fighter, there is a number of units in service for 2020. You can count yourself.
        
        There is a 2019 article in the Militariarms - yes, there are 850 aircraft there.
        
        Okay, let's take 850 planes. And compare with 900 of Europe's own fighters.
        
        I brought these figures to your words that Europe does not have its own "fist".
        
        Do not forget that out of more than 800 Russian fighters in the European theater of operations, only a part is.
        
        Air defense, too, will you compare?
        
        Not yet. While we are looking at the aircraft fleet.
        
        Here are some other statistics:
        1031 aircraft, 3 aircraft carriers, 21 cruisers and frigates, 3 submarines.
        
        NATO needed these forces to bomb Yugoslavia after 3 months of preparation, 72 subsequent days. We can say - they shot a small country like in a shooting gallery.
        
        Result: 15% of the military potential of the Serbs was undermined.
        
        Isn't that impressive, or?)
        
        that is, it was enough to undermine only 15% of the military potential to win?) Why then don't you extrapolate this experience of Yugoslavia to Russia?)
        
        I would not extrapolate this data to a hypothetical conflict with Russia at all.
        
        Germany, attacking the USSR at one time, also had at its disposal less forces than the Soviet ones both in terms of the total number of people and in terms of technology. How it turned out and almost turned around - you know yourself.
        
        During the Afghan war, the USSR also had total superiority over the Mujahideen. But it didn't work out too much either.
        
        Now, purely hypothetically, generously multiply that number by 20.
        That is how much it may take to try to inflict damage of this scale on the Russian army.
        
        Multiplied. And the question arose - if this is all so, then why does Russia spend at all on rearmament, the development of new systems, etc. forces than they now have to deal 20% damage?
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +2
        
        14 January 2021 09: 14
        
        Sorry, but so-so authority among you.
        
        Oh!) Yes, who would be talking about authority here!)) We are here, as it were - site users.
        So look at your USER AUTHORITY, and compare it with at least the average for the site.
        More and more often, you remind here of an annoying first-year student who requires professors to be taught in 15 minutes what they have studied all their lives.
        I do not like the information provided, look for yourself.
        
        I am operating with numbers from Wikipedia at the moment ....
        ... I watched the composition of the fighter fleet of the Russian Air Force in the corresponding article on Wikipedia ...
        
        etc.....
        
        Themselves, then, do not you operate with "general staff summaries"?)
        
        You are ridiculous compared to others, right.
        
        Cyril
        
        -1
        
        14 January 2021 10: 33
        
        Oh!) Yes, who would be talking about authority here!)) We are here, as it were - site users.
        So look at your USER AUTHORITY, and compare it with at least the average for the site.
        
        You see, I never even once appealed to my authority. I am giving specific data. But I do not explain my position with the phrase "I am convinced, I know the situation."
        
        Well, it makes no sense to talk about the "user authority" parameter on the site, because it does not reflect the real level of a person's competence, but whether other members of the forum like his opinion or not.
        
        I think there is no need to explain that these are slightly different characteristics. Or is it necessary?
        
        Themselves, then, do not you operate with "general staff summaries"?)
        
        The data on Wikipedia comes with footnotes, including the official data of the defense ministries. You can check.
        
        More and more often, you remind here of an annoying first-year student who requires professors to be taught in 15 minutes what they have studied all their lives.
        
        What for? I only ask for verified data, as far as possible. I do not demand to steal classified information - more or less relevant sources are enough.
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +2
        
        13 January 2021 22: 26
        
        Britain - 160 Typhoons and 15 Lightnings (175 total)
        
        Germany - 140 Typhoons
        
        France - 100 Mirages 2000 and 100 Raphales (200 total)
        
        Italy - 93 Typhoons, 11 Lightnings (over 100 total)
        
        Netherlands - 60 F-16
        
        Belgium - 43 F-16.
        
        Norway - 47 F-16.
        
        Spain - 61 Typhoons, 70 F-18s (more than 130 total)
        
        You are again operating on unverified data.)
        
        I'm too lazy to check for everyone.
        
        Here are the Germans, for example:
        
        out of 140 aircraft, only about 10% can fly. Others are not on the move:
        
        https://www.google.de/amp/s/www.merkur.de/politik/bundeswehr-eurofighter-einsatzbereit-luftwaffe-tobias-pflueger-report-mainz-ard-tv-berlin-zr-13559241.amp.html
        
        I suppose that the rest of the "potential participants" are doing no better than the Germans.
        
        Cyril
        
        -2
        
        13 January 2021 22: 40
        
        You are again operating on unverified data.)
        
        I am operating with numbers from Wikipedia at the moment.
        
        Here are the Germans, for example:
        out of 140 aircraft, only about 10% can fly. Others are not on the move:
        
        https://www.google.de/amp/s/www.merkur.de/politik/bundeswehr-eurofighter-einsatzbereit-luftwaffe-tobias-pflueger-report-mainz-ard-tv-berlin-zr-13559241.amp.html
        
        Is this the official data of the German General Staff? The article says that this is the opinion of a leftist politician. I looked about him - he has nothing to do with the German Defense Ministry.
        
        Do you want me to find a bunch of politicians and experts of all stripes who will argue that the RF Armed Forces are not capable of fighting at all?
        
        I suppose that the rest of the "potential participants" are doing no better than the Germans.
        
        Guess. Once assumptions have already gone sideways in our country.
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +2
        
        14 January 2021 00: 47
        
        Is this the official data of the German General Staff? The article says that this is the opinion of a leftist politician.
        
        Of course! And all the cards and secret codes are down there.))
        Listen. I can give you a bunch of other examples, only from the experience of communicating with you, I know - this will not lead to anything. What is important for you is not the essence, but the process of the dispute itself. And I have no time to engage in such stupidity. )
        
        Cyril
        
        -3
        
        14 January 2021 00: 52
        
        Of course! And all the cards and secret codes are down there.))
        
        That is, you admit that the only source of your data is some left-wing (in all senses) German politician, who has nothing to do with the German military commissar? OK.
        
        I can give you a bunch of other examples, only from the experience of communicating with you, I know - this will not lead to anything.
        
        Why then? It is enough to quote the opinion of a competent person directly related to the German defense industry, or the official report of the German General Staff.
        
        What is important for you is not the essence, but the process of the dispute itself. And I have no time to engage in such stupidity. )
        
        The drain is counted.
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +2
        
        14 January 2021 09: 47
        
        That is, you admit that the only source of your data is some left-wing (in every sense) German politician who does not relate to the German military commissar at all?
        
        Yes Yes. This is where all your ignorance comes from. Leftist politician, you say?
        And nothing that Tobias Pflüger from 2014, deputy chairman of the party? And since 2017 - a member of the Bundestag?
        And members of the German Bundestag do not discuss non-existent problems at meetings.
        Do you want to challenge this fact too?
        
        Cyril
        
        -1
        
        14 January 2021 10: 27
        
        And nothing that Tobias Pflüger from 2014, deputy chairman of the party? And since 2017 - a member of the Bundestag?
        
        But nothing :)
        
        And members of the German Bundestag do not discuss non-existent problems at meetings.
        
        And no one denied the very existence of the problem of low combat readiness. The only question is in numbers.
        
        You will not dispute the possibility that a leftist politician may deliberately exaggerate in order to criticize the ruling party?
        
        Once again, we need official data. And by the way, I found them yesterday. And the report of the Ministry of Defense, and the report of the Accounts Chamber of Germany. It really talks about the problems in the Luftwaffe, it is even very critical. But still not about 10 out of a hundred flying fighters.
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +2
        
        14 January 2021 11: 14
        
        And nothing that Tobias Pflüger from 2014, deputy chairman of the party? And since 2017 - a member of the Bundestag?
        
        But nothing :)
        
        Your answer somehow does not fit, with what you said:
        
        I am giving specific data. But I do not explain my position with the phrase "I am convinced, I know the situation."
        
        You have a split personality along the way.
        
        And no one denied the very existence of the problem of low combat readiness. The only question is in numbers.
        
        Well, who of us is merging?)
        
        Here I just gave you the numbers, taking into account the problems you recognize, I gave you. From a fairly objective source. Maybe not an exact number, but as a percentage, but sufficient to highlight the scale of the problem.
        
        And you showed me only a certain total number of supposedly "combat-ready" fighters.
        
        You will not dispute the possibility that a leftist politician may deliberately exaggerate in order to criticize the ruling party?
        
        I will. The Germans are a very pedantic people, and there can be no doubt about the scrupulousness of German officials.
        Populism is exactly your role.
        
        Once again, we need official data. And by the way, I found them yesterday. And the report of the Ministry of Defense, and the report of the Accounts Chamber of Germany. It really talks about the problems in the Luftwaffe, it is even very critical. But still not about 10 out of a hundred flying fighters.
        
        The drain is accepted.)
        Dig further into your little things.
        
        Cyril
        
        -2
        
        14 January 2021 11: 25
        
        Your answer somehow does not fit, with what you said:
        
        Just fits. In the article you quoted, nowhere is it said where this German politician got his data from.
        
        But you again rest on authority (only someone else's) - they say, a politician, a member of the Bundestag.
        
        You have a split personality along the way.
        
        Nope, I'm fine.
        
        Well, who of us is merging?)
        
        You)
        
        Here I just gave you the numbers, taking into account the problems you recognize, I gave you.
        
        They brought in.
        
        From a fairly objective source.
        
        How is his objectivity confirmed?
        
        And you showed me only a certain total number of supposedly "combat-ready" fighters.
        
        However, it is specific.
        
        You do not give a specific number or percentage serviceable aircraft of the Russian Air Force?
        
        Just do not rub in that all 850 Russian fighters are on the move and are ready to go straight into battle right now, to soak p-and-n-d-o-s-s-k-y. evil spirits.
        
        So we compare either the total number of aircraft in service, or the number of only combat-ready.
        
        I will. The Germans are a very pedantic people, and there can be no doubt about the scrupulousness of German officials.
        
        To appeal to the nationwide mentality is such a move. Adolf Hitler confirms.
        
        The drain is accepted.)
        
        Yours - yes :)
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +2
        
        14 January 2021 11: 55
        
        Just fits. In the article you quoted, nowhere is it said where this German politician got his data from.
        
        But you again rest on authority (only someone else's) - they say, a politician, a member of the Bundestag.
        
        The possession of objective, and even secret (and not wikipedia) information of members of the Bundestag is due to the very functions of this legislative body.
        
        Appealing to the mentality of the whole people is such a move.
        
        See above.
        
        Cyril
        
        -2
        
        14 January 2021 14: 45
        
        The possession of objective, and even secret (and not wikipedia) information of members of the Bundestag is due to the very functions of this legislative body.
        
        How do you know that the information that this particular member of the Bundestag has provided is objective? Moreover, how do you know that this particular member of the Bundestag has access to classified military information?
        
        I do not deny the very possibility that he is right. I deny, at the moment, that his words are the ultimate truth or that they are more reliable than the reports of the Ministry of Defense and the German Audit Office.
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +2
        
        14 January 2021 15: 50
        
        How do you know that the information that this particular member of the Bundestag has provided is objective?
        
        Each member of the Bundestag has the legal opportunity to receive precisely objective information. Otherwise, on the basis of what information should the Bundestag pass laws? Information from Wikipedia?)
        
        Moreover, how do you know that this particular member of the Bundestag has access to classified military information?
        
        See above.
        
        I do not deny the very possibility that he is right.
        
        Finally I heard something reasonable from you!
        
        I deny, for the moment, that his words are the ultimate truth or that they are more reliable,
        
        Everything can be denied.
        It is your right to have such a right (as the Germans say).
        
        or that they are more reliable than the reports of the Ministry of Defense and the German Audit Office.
        
        They do not report to you.
        Before the deputies of the Bundestag - yes.
        According to reports - and debate.
        
        Cyril
        
        -1
        
        14 January 2021 18: 16
        
        Each member of the Bundestag has the legal opportunity to receive precisely objective information.
        
        Maybe, of course. But he can broadcast whatever he wants in accordance with his political preferences and the degree of conscientiousness :)
        
        Everything can be denied.
        
        And I do not deny everything.
        
        They do not report to you.
        Before the deputies of the Bundestag - yes.
        According to reports - and debate.
        
        Well, let's see the reports themselves (primary source). And not the opinion of a member of the Bundestag.
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +2
        
        14 January 2021 15: 41
        
        How is his objectivity confirmed?
        
        Your subservience to everything "western".
        
        However, it is specific.
        
        But it does not correspond to the actual state of affairs.
        
        You do not give a specific number or percentage of serviceable aircraft of the Russian Air Force, do you?
        
        I do not quote. It is unknown to anyone.
        As well as the exact amount of "preserved" stock is also unknown.
        
        Just do not rub in that all 850 Russian fighters are on the move and are ready to go straight to battle right now.
        
        I proceed from the fact that this is so.
        
        Cyril
        
        -1
        
        14 January 2021 18: 25
        
        Your subservience to everything "western".
        
        First, this is not confirmation.
        
        Secondly, I have no subservience to the West.
        
        But it does not correspond to the actual state of affairs.
        
        It corresponds to the real state of affairs.
        
        I do not quote. It is unknown to anyone.
        
        If it is unknown, how can you judge the success or failure of a hypothetical war against Russia?
        
        I proceed from the fact that this is so.
        
        That is, you evaluate both sides initially by different criteria and based on different levels of awareness. L - logic.
        
        Cyril
        
        -3
        
        13 January 2021 21: 38
        
        The United States may not even dream of any "local conflicts" against Russia. The conflict will quickly develop into a global one.
        
        Naturally. And therefore, to the United States and Europe, we will also throw the Australian Air Force (90 Hornets), Canada (77 Hornets), Japan (200 F-15, 75 F-2, 11 F-35, in total - almost 300 modern aircraft).
        
        If you mean that there will be no non-nuclear or limited-nuclear conflict, and everything will immediately develop into a global vigorous one with the launch of all these ICBMs, this is also a very controversial point.
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +3
        
        13 January 2021 22: 00
        
        this is also a very controversial point.
        
        Yes, the dispute is about nothing.
        If NATO had everything so chocolate, everyone would have done it already.
        
        They do not, because either they assess their real capabilities soberly, or the war against Russia is not a priori in their plans.
        
        Any of these options suits me, since it does not force Russia to urgently establish mass production of SU57.
        
        Where to start. Have a good evening.)
        
        Cyril
        
        -4
        
        13 January 2021 22: 44
        
        They do not, because either they assess their real capabilities soberly, or the war against Russia is not a priori in their plans.
        
        Any of these options suits me, since it does not force Russia to urgently establish mass production of SU57.
        
        Any of these options does not even force it to develop hypersonic weapons, the Su-57, "Armata", carry out a massive modernization of the army, etc., etc.
        
        It is enough to conduct exercises so that the personnel do not relax and learn and that's it.
        
        But for some reason a lot of money is spent on hypersound, and on the Su-57, etc., etc. Why would you?
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +2
        
        14 January 2021 11: 23
        
        But for some reason a lot of money is spent on hypersound, and on the Su-57, etc., etc. Why would you?
        
        Your cheap populism is off the charts, Kyril.
        
        Return to the origins of the controversy.
        
        I did not deny the need for development.
        
        I denied mass production "here and now" of the SU57 fighter, emphasizing the sufficiency of the technological base to create this aircraft in case-of-cases.
        
        You just have nothing to argue, and you take the topic in a different direction.
        
        You are ordinary. cheap troll manipulator. This is already obvious to many here.
        
        Someone from colleagues correctly said here - you litter the content and prevent others from viewing it. If I were admins, I would just cover you.
        
        Cyril
        
        -2
        
        14 January 2021 11: 30
        
        I did not deny the need for development.
        
        You made it pointless by extrapolating the experience of the Yugoslav bombings to a hypothetical conflict with Russia :)
        
        You just have nothing to argue, and you take the topic in a different direction.
        
        I took it only in the direction that you set with your unsuccessful extrapolation :)
        
        This is already obvious to many here.
        
        Here it is still obvious to many that the Americans did not land on the moon :)
        
        one of the colleagues
        
        Your Lakhtin colleagues?)
        
        If I were admins, I would just cover you.
        
        Naturally. You're in trouble with arguments.
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +3
        
        14 January 2021 11: 48
        
        Here it is still obvious to many that the Americans did not land on the moon :)
        
        Give 100% proof of the American moon landing.
        
        Prove that you are not yap! )
        
        Cyril
        
        -3
        
        14 January 2021 14: 51
        
        380 kg of lunar soil explored and is still being explored by scientists around the world, including China and the USSR / Russia.
        
        Soviet intelligence and control data.
        
        Photo and video materials of all 6 expeditions.
        
        Photos of the remains of rovers, lander, human tracks taken by American, European, Chinese, Japanese and other lunar orbiters.
        
        Are you seriously going to develop this topic here?
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +2
        
        14 January 2021 15: 34
        
        380 kg of lunar soil explored and is still being explored by scientists around the world, including China and the USSR / Russia.
        
        Not the fact that it is lunar.
        And even if, it is not a fact that it was brought by the Americans.
        
        Prove the opposite!
        
        Soviet intelligence and control data.
        
        Where did you get them from?
        And if there is a source, prove that it is true!
        
        Photo and video materials of all 6 expeditions.
        
        Prove authenticity! Although there is evidence that these "materials" were filmed on earth by American "Hollywood" (even the Americans themselves do not deny this).
        
        Photos of the remains of rovers, lander, human tracks taken by American, European, Chinese, Japanese and other lunar orbiters.
        
        Prove you are not fake.
        
        Are you seriously going to develop this topic here?
        
        Почему нет?
        Be responsible for your words.
        
        Cyril
        
        -1
        
        14 January 2021 17: 55
        
        Prove the opposite!
        
        Easy. The authenticity of the American lunar soil has been proven by scientists from dozens of countries. including USSR / Russia, China.
        
        At that moment they could not bring 380 kg of machine guns. Therefore, only people.
        
        Of the 2 (at that time) countries with manned astronautics, one (the USSR) definitely did not fly to the moon. Hence. remain the United States.
        
        Where did you get them from?
        
        The testimonies of Soviet designers who participated in the Soviet lunar program are available in open sources.
        
        And if there is a source, prove that it is true!
        
        prove that you are not true :)
        
        Prove authenticity!
        
        Prove not authentic :)
        
        Although there is evidence that these "materials" were filmed on earth by American "Hollywood" (even the Americans themselves do not deny this).
        
        The Americans do not deny that PART of the press photos was modeled on Earth. And they did not deny it from the very beginning.
        
        Prove you are not fake.
        
        Prove you are fake.
        
        Be responsible for your words.
        
        I always answer.
        
        isofat
        
        +2
        
        13 January 2021 18: 02
        
        Quote: Cyril
        ... that the rate at which technology is becoming more sophisticated is much higher than that of human intelligence.
        
        Cyril, you will finish me someday. It is no one's fault that your intellect is not keeping up. All other problems have no problem. Especially for those who "complicate" this technique.
        
        Cyril
        
        -2
        
        13 January 2021 18: 18
        
        So you don’t get to the bottom, but just compare the complexity and speed of manufacturing 1 piston aircraft from the Great Patriotic War and 1 Su-57 aircraft.
        
        Well, if of course there is something to compare. Which I personally doubt.
        
        The comment was deleted.
        
        The comment was deleted.
        
        Alexander K_2
        
        -3
        
        13 January 2021 21: 09
        
        And that, while they make! (One) SU-57 will end 6 (six) Second World Wars, and the Second World War, perhaps a dozen!
2. aries2200
  
  0
  
  17 February 2021 14: 32
  
  and Angica scientists ...
steelmaker

0

12 January 2021 16: 10

Everything is correct. If you are behind in the time of creation, then you need to get ahead in the ability to use.

The budget for design work is estimated at 1,6 billion rubles
Flight performance
Length: 14 m [7]
Wingspan: 19 m [7]
Combat load: 2,8 tons [7], according to other sources - up to 8 tons [22]
Takeoff weight: 25 t [7]
Maximum speed: 1400 km / h (at low altitude) [7], according to other sources - about 1000 km / h [9] [19] [23]
Practical ceiling: 18 000 m [24]
Flight range: 6000 km [24]
It is planned that the cost of heavy attack drones S-70 "Okhotnik" will be about 1 billion rubles for one device, after the launch of mass production the price will be reduced by 40-50% compared to prototypes.

The cost of the SU-35 is 2 billion rubles. rub. Now compare. I think if "Hunter" will correspond to the performance characteristics, then "the game is worth the candle",
BoBot Robot - Free Thinking Machine

+1

13 January 2021 12: 37

these are the beapils and must be cut!