It is time to revive single-engine combat aviation in Russia


During the reign of Boris Yeltsin, Russia, between 1993 and 1998, got rid of all single-engine combat aircraft, scrapping a huge number of MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-27 and Su-17 of all modifications. The concept of a heavier twin-engine combat aircraft was deemed more appropriate. Then some boards were lucky not just to go into oblivion, but to end up on pedestals, in museums or become benefits in institutes.


The saddest thing was that since then the Russian Federation has abandoned the development and production of single-engine aircraft in general. But the SVO in Ukraine, which has been lasting for more than a year, has shown that it was not worth depriving yourself of this class of aircraft, because its presence in the Aerospace Forces has not lost its relevance. At least part of the fleet, represented by the MiG-27K and Su-17M4 supersonic fighter-bombers, if left in storage, would be useful now for several reasons.

Firstly, the resource of active Su-24 bombers and Su-35 fighter-bombers, which are now actively used for strikes with planning bombs on the positions of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, has certain limits. The use of the MiG-27K and Su-17M4 would significantly extend the operation of more modern combat aircraft, reducing the load on them and increasing the scale of strikes against the enemy.

Secondly, the MiG-27K and Su-17M4 are much faster aircraft compared to the Su-25 subsonic attack aircraft. Practice has shown that armoring the Su-25 rarely turns out to be the decisive factor when the enemy uses rocket weapons rather than anti-aircraft artillery. At the same time, the speed characteristics would greatly help the MiG-27K and Su-17M4 avoid problems.

However, the Russian Federation does not have single-engine combat aircraft. Probably, the time has come to revive single-engine combat aviation in Russia. Even combat training aircraft / attack aircraft Yak-130 have two power units. In the configuration of a light attack aircraft, with a combat load of 3000 kg, they would also be useful now, but not as many of them were produced as we would like. Moreover, even the old twin-engine MiG-29 fighters and the newest MiG-35 are quite capable of firing one FAB-500 with UMPC (unified planning and correction module). But about the orders for the MiG-29, not to mention the MiG-35, is also not heard, which is a pity.
  • Photos used: Rob Schleiffert / flickr.com
29 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Just a cat Offline Just a cat
    Just a cat (Bayun) 2 May 2023 20: 06
    -5
    and also revive U-2 and night witches ...
    1. Boyko Vyacheslav (Boyko Vyacheslav) 4 May 2023 03: 03
      -1
      moment 27k the plane is cooler than f4, and half the world is flying on it
      1. Just a cat Offline Just a cat
        Just a cat (Bayun) 4 May 2023 09: 24
        0
        ukrainian moment29 Russian planes are shot down before they can use their weapons. you can even fly on a biplane of the first world. amateurs fly all over the world.
      2. Just a cat Offline Just a cat
        Just a cat (Bayun) 4 May 2023 09: 41
        0
        If we talk specifically about the MiG-29, then in Ukraine there were Soviet cars in modifications 9-12 and 9-13. Accordingly, the first and second are production cars (year of production - 1983 and 1986). They were not bad until the beginning of the XNUMXs, but then avionics, radars and missiles stepped over a generation, and now such machines are useless

        Evgeny Baikovsky

        Former commander of the air regiment of the USSR Air Force, reserve colonel
  2. hellman anton Offline hellman anton
    hellman anton (hellman anton) 2 May 2023 20: 30
    +5
    Why and why single-engine fighters, for example? Adequate countries have long changed their strategy for using combat aviation to

    strikes from long and medium distances

    The aircraft serves to take to the air and launch weapons (missiles) from the maximum range, and the more, the better. A single-engine aircraft will reduce the thrust-to-weight ratio of the aircraft.
    If some genius wants attack aircraft in 2023, when attack aircraft is officially dead after the appearance of mass strike drones - this is a clinic.
    No, of course there is an option with a reconnaissance aircraft, it is already more promising here, but a UAV will still be better.
    Only a training aircraft has a high perspective.
    It is worth developing a cheap engine and a cheap shock UAV, the country and the army need it. To rivet them like hot cakes, at least 30 pieces a month.
    1. Paul3390 Offline Paul3390
      Paul3390 (Paul) 3 May 2023 07: 38
      0
      But what about the F-35 ??
      1. hellman anton Offline hellman anton
        hellman anton (hellman anton) 3 May 2023 14: 33
        0
        The f35 engine has a thrust of 13000, on the su35 engines with a thrust of 7500x2
        Well, do not forget that the f35 is still working under stealth, so 1 engine is worth it.
        On afterburner 19500, we have 12500x2 (drying engine, two)
        Weight f35 13 tons, drying 18 tons.
        Well, that is, the f35 does not lose to twin-engine aircraft in any way due to the powerful engine and low mass.
        Is our state now able to give birth to a technologically advanced and powerful engine? The answer is obvious, no.

        At the moment 29, two engines with a thrust of 5000 each stand. By the way
        1. Just a cat Offline Just a cat
          Just a cat (Bayun) 4 May 2023 09: 26
          0
          only fu 35 begins to fall apart during afterburner ...
        2. Paul3390 Offline Paul3390
          Paul3390 (Paul) 4 May 2023 11: 32
          0
          But the engine is still the same? And the slightest damage to it inevitably leads to the loss of the aircraft. I don’t see any reason for us to spend money on the development of one type of megaengine, when you can safely put two .. For this way, it’s noticeably more reliable .. By the way, it’s easier to ensure perfection through the difference in engine thrust.

          As for the type of stealth - well, the capabilities of the F-35 in this area are still extremely doubtful. Besides - why does the F-22 still have two engines? And no one seemed to be bothered by it. That didn't seem to make him less stealthy, did it?

          One engine on the F-35 was perched for one reason - the requirement for vertical takeoff capability. With two - it is much more problematic to provide it, because their work must be synchronized very clearly. So it went to develop such a fool.
        3. ear Offline ear
          ear (Sergey G) 5 May 2023 12: 11
          0
          I think you've made the most practical argument.

          In terms of thrust, the single-engine even wins because of the gain in payload; in terms of price, it wins.

          No wonder they recently announced the creation of a modern single-engine vehicle. And this is without a state order.

          In this case, there is no state order because there is no one-man. If there is a plane, it will reach the military that they need such a plane.

          I read an article for a long time how the MiG-29 is a mistake. The article said the Min-29 was supposed to fill the niche of a light single-engine aircraft, but it never could. Two motors are always heavier and more expensive than one. The MiG-29 has been practically withdrawn from Russian service, it is almost never bought abroad. His manufacturer was barely afloat and was eventually taken over by a manufacturer of heavy twin-engine dryers.

          And the same absorber manufacturer gave Russia a prototype of a single-engine lung.
  3. k7k8 Offline k7k8
    k7k8 (vic) 2 May 2023 20: 38
    +5
    Secondly, the MiG-27K and Su-17M4 are much faster aircraft compared to the Su-25 subsonic attack aircraft.

    Gentlemen, don't you think that it is silly to compare equipment of ABSOLUTELY different types of several, so to speak, silly.
  4. Pacer Offline Pacer
    Pacer (Pacer) 2 May 2023 23: 39
    +1
    Russia, in the period from 1993 to 1998, got rid of all single-engine combat aircraft, sending a huge amount of MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-27 and Su-17 of all modifications to the scrap.

    Probably the author of this opus is a humanist.
    The advantage of 2-engine aircraft is that they have a probability of completing a task and returning to base - 2 times higher than a single-engine one. If one of the engines fails, the 2-engine aircraft is able to continue the flight and return, while the single-engine one falls.
    With all this, when creating a 2-engine engine, the task is set so that its performance characteristics are NOT LOWER than a single-engine one, under all other conditions.
    Those. in simple terms, this means - its mass, combat radius, carrying capacity, and so on. - must be NOT LOWER than for a single-engine aircraft of the same class. At the same time, the mass of two engines on an aircraft is no more than ONE engine on a single engine.

    In the 90s, all single-engine aircraft were withdrawn and put into STORAGE.
    Destroyed them really at elkin. True, not all, some are still in storage. An example is the Su-17m4, MiG-27M of the latest series.
    1. DO Offline DO
      DO (Dmitriy) 3 May 2023 00: 52
      +1
      some are still in storage. Example - Su-17m4, MiG-27M of the latest series

      Following the example of the Chinese, Indians, like the Americans too, why not upgrade these single-engine aircraft into attack drones? And in SVO.
    2. Pete mitchell Offline Pete mitchell
      Pete mitchell (Pete Mitchell) 3 May 2023 17: 43
      0
      Quote: Pacer
      True, not all, some are still in storage. An example is the Su-17m4, MiG-27M of the latest series.

      I don't want to upset you, but have you seen those storage bases? This is not the desert near AFB Davis-Montanth. For fun dial Chebenki airfield for example, the others were no better. For the first time they missed during the first Chechnya, and even then it was too late.
  5. Insolent in a jacket 3 May 2023 08: 21
    +2
    ... Maybe it's better - urgently "pay serious attention" - to the development of a heavy attack unmanned attack aircraft? ..

    (Like the legendary IL-2, only in a modern version and an unmanned version? ..
    ... Let the speed be subsonic - but the maneuverability is excellent and the armor is reinforced, capable of holding the impact of the shells of some German "cheetahs", and the engines (engine) should be properly protected from MANPADS missiles! ..
    ... In any case, it will be a smaller target (Than an ordinary modern jet attack aircraft), and it will be cheaper at a cost ... And if there are smart design guys and they will design and put into production, not just with high firepower and maneuverability - but also quite technological - model ..., and put it on stream ... - Enemy military columns (And not only columns!) - you will not envy ... Of course, you should also prepare cool operators of such drones ... )
  6. prior Offline prior
    prior (Vlad) 3 May 2023 10: 27
    +3
    time to revive ... single-engine combat aircraft

    So "Checkmate" is on its way.
    The only question is how soon it will "fit".
    Probably as soon as "Armata", "Boomerang", "Coalition SV" and other crafts of effective managers.
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. Status Offline Status
    Status 3 May 2023 13: 38
    0
    I support the author, the main plus of single-engine machines is the weight and cost of operation. Twin-engine cars are much more complicated, more expensive and heavier. You can’t build many of them. Everything goes to the fact that weapons should be massive and cheap. If I'm not mistaken, there was an aiming system on the MIG 27, which was not implemented anywhere else.
    1. ear Offline ear
      ear (Sergey G) 5 May 2023 12: 23
      0
      People have become obsessed with the idea of ​​survivability.

      Missiles successfully hit twin-engine vehicles with one hit. The survival rate of one and two motors from missiles is the same. Either the missile hits and the plane is hit, or it misses. There is no third.

      The idea of ​​a two-motor is good for surviving against flak. But this is too low and dangerous these days because of MANPADS.

      The idea of ​​an airplane surviving failure: that's not how things usually happen. Otherwise, you need to make a more reliable aircraft.

      No wonder the whole world has chosen single-engine vehicles from the United States. There is a very effective ratio of price to other options. Checkmate is the recognition of efficiency and necessity.
  9. Pacer Offline Pacer
    Pacer (Pacer) 3 May 2023 18: 00
    +1
    Quote from hellman anton
    f35 does not lose to twin-engine aircraft due to the powerful engine and low weight.

    he has at least a probability of completing the mission and returning to base - two times lower than a twin-engine one! Failure of a single engine leads to a fall.
    Any damage to his engine is fatal for him, unlike a 2-engine one.

    Single-engine aircraft, the essence is only suitable for light conflicts and against the Papuans without air defense ...

    These Su, if they were single-engine, would not have returned from the mission. Therefore, they duplicate power plants, increasing the fault tolerance and reliability of the system. It's the alphabet...


    1. hellman anton Offline hellman anton
      hellman anton (hellman anton) 3 May 2023 18: 43
      -1
      Physics left the chat, and since when did the F35 relocate to attack aircraft?
      About the engine - do you even understand what an airplane is? Like a plane without an engine will immediately crash to the ground? Yes, physics and aerodynamics have left the chat.
    2. ear Offline ear
      ear (Sergey G) 5 May 2023 12: 27
      0
      How many Ukrainian MiG-29s returned home after being hit by a missile?

      Ага.

      Seems like zero.

      There is no need to tell stories.

      You should not cite the su-25 as an example. The attack aircraft is a completely different category. Everything is more justified. American A-10s are also two-engine. This type is for close combat and destroying tanks from above where they are most vulnerable. There, both aircraft have a more armored hull and two engines.
  10. Pacer Offline Pacer
    Pacer (Pacer) 3 May 2023 18: 11
    +1
    Quote: Pete Mitchell
    For the sake of interest, dial Chebenki airfield

    ...So what? I was there and I know that 20 Su are still standing there.
    1. Pete mitchell Offline Pete mitchell
      Pete mitchell (Pete Mitchell) 3 May 2023 18: 28
      0
      And what, are they alive? During the first Chechnya, a return to life was considered impossible.
  11. Pacer Offline Pacer
    Pacer (Pacer) 3 May 2023 18: 39
    +2
    Quote: Pete Mitchell
    And what, are they alive?


    Well, earlier, maintenance was periodically carried out with them, up to the promotion of engines.
    The point here is not only in them, but also in the presence of pilot reserves with the appropriate qualifications for this type. No pilots - no need for aircraft either ...
    Il-28s were stationed there earlier, there were no pilots left - the planes were also cut ...
  12. Pacer Offline Pacer
    Pacer (Pacer) 3 May 2023 18: 50
    +2
    Quote from hellman anton
    About the engine - do you even understand what an airplane is?

    ... like - a quarter of a century for the development of aircraft engines in the leading Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense, will it suit? laughing

    In an airplane, only the engine flies, and everything else interferes with it.

    Andrey Nikolaevich Tupolev. If anything, I knew him... bully
    1. hellman anton Offline hellman anton
      hellman anton (hellman anton) 3 May 2023 18: 53
      -2
      What does it change? At least 100. Maybe you were a water carrier with the engineers, how do I know. I immediately carried water on twin engines
  13. Pacer Offline Pacer
    Pacer (Pacer) 3 May 2023 20: 23
    +1
    Quote from hellman anton
    Maybe you were a water carrier with the engineers

    Lead theme designer.

    And you probably didn’t go higher than the goldsmith ...
  14. VAHOKA Offline VAHOKA
    VAHOKA (VAHOKA) 4 May 2023 15: 50
    0
    It is necessary to make a fighter analogue of the f-16. This is multifunctionality, ease of maintenance and low cost, the cabin, It's time to admit the f-16 surpasses the instant 29 in all respects and in 30 years it was necessary to create something worthwhile and not an oligarch's yacht worth $ 50 million or multimillion salaries of directors of weapons enterprises
  15. ear Offline ear
    ear (Sergey G) 5 May 2023 12: 36
    -1
    Quote from VAHOKA
    It is necessary to make a fighter analogue of the f-16. This is multifunctionality, ease of maintenance and low cost, the cabin, It's time to admit the f-16 surpasses the instant 29 in all respects and in 30 years it was necessary to create something worthwhile and not an oligarch's yacht worth $ 50 million or multimillion salaries of directors of weapons enterprises

    I really agree.

    It seems that the USSR then went for two engines because they could not make one with the same high thrust.

    Time has passed. It's time to face the real reasons. If we can make an engine, then it will be better.