Military expert appreciated the advantages of single-engine aircraft, which are not in the VKS

18

It was recently announced that the time had come revive in Russia, single-engine combat aircraft, because it is not for nothing that the United States and its allies still operate cheap F-16 fighters developed in the 70s and order expensive fifth-generation F-35s. The point is that single-engine aircraft cost and operate cheaper, they are lighter, they have one crew member and excellent cargo capacity, although they do not fly as far as their heavier twin-engine counterparts.


The Russian expert Ilya Kramnik also drew attention to the mentioned issues, who shared his opinion on this matter in his Telegram channel. He noted that once Russia had really light fighters - single-engine MiG-21 (empty weight: 5460 kg), but they have long been gone, and the twin-engine MiG-29 considered by many to be "light and cheap" (empty weight: 10 kg) are not such in reality. They, like the American single-engine F-900 (empty weight: 16/8910 kg), which are also called "light" for some reason, should be classified as medium fighters.

But the F-16, unlike the MiG-29, can be called a cheap aircraft for the US Air Force itself - there it is unified in terms of engine with the twin-engine F-15 and is noticeably cheaper in terms of the hourly price, and for everyone else, including in comparison with MiG-29

- he specified.

The expert noted that the easiest way to compare aircraft is by the cost of a flight hour. But you need to compare something new, not the old, since in those countries where the MiG-29s were supplied with "free mountains of spare parts from the USSR Air Force" and low salaries of technical personnel, their operation may indeed be cheaper than F- 16 in the NATO Air Force.

For those who are going to take new cars with all the infrastructure, the price will be different. Therefore, you need to find someone who will compare the price of a flight hour of these machines for themselves and under the same conditions. Here the Argentine Air Force comes to the rescue. In 2022, as part of the selection of a promising aircraft, comparing the F-16 (USA), MiG-35 (RF), JF-17 (China) and Tejas (India), args received the following flight hour numbers: JF-17 - $ 7600, F -16 - $10, Tejas - $000, MiG-12 - $000

He pointed out.

At the same time, the JF-17 and MiG-35 can be considered as "technical a couple", since they use the power unit of the same family - RD-33 (one RD-93 and two RD-33MK, respectively). Therefore, the price of a flight hour for a single-engine fighter of this class for the Russian Aerospace Forces, other things being equal, would be about 2,4 times cheaper than a twin-engine aircraft.

How does the price of a MiG flight hour differ from Sukhoi? Again we go to foreigners. MiG-35 and Su-30 were compared by Myanmar, having received the ratio: MiG-35 - $20, Su-000 - $30

- he added.

The expert explained that the flight hour of the Su-35 in different sources also "creeps" from 30 to 40 thousand dollars. This automatically puts the Su-30/35 in the big leagues for the wealthy, as the last F-15s for the Gulf monarchies are in the same range.

Again, for yourself, of course, it will be cheaper. But I emphasize once again: we are not interested in absolute numbers here, but in proportions. And they are as follows: if we take the conditional single-engine light classmate of the MiG-21 as a unit, then the approximate proportion will be as follows:

Light single-engine (class MiG-21 / JF-17) - 1.
Medium single-engine (class F-16 / J-10) - 1,3.
Medium twin-engine (class MiG-29/35/F/A-18E/F) - 2-2,5.
Heavy twin-engine - (Su-30/35/F-15) - 3-4.
Well… we are not Americans. Our country is big, rich, we can spend money

He summed up.
  • Photos used: Pearl Harbor Aviation Museum/flickr.com
Reporterin Yandex News
Reporterin Yandex Zen
18 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. twice-born Offline twice-born
    twice-born (Unknown) 4 May 2023 10: 58
    +4
    Armies with designers are more visible.
  2. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 4 May 2023 11: 32
    -2
    Good article.
    It rarely happens with numbers.
    And it’s much more difficult to find the price of an hour of our fighters than Amer’s, which are more open for comparison.

    Alas for us. Single-engine aircraft are cheaper, which means kickbacks, budgets, "optimization", and less financial reporting
  3. vlad127490 Offline vlad127490
    vlad127490 (Vlad Gor) 4 May 2023 11: 56
    -5
    You can appreciate it, but why? There is no money in the treasury, there are no personnel in the country, the industry is at the level of a gas station. Yes, there were planes, but the liberals sawed them up. Now someone has the opportunity to cut government money in the production of single-engine aircraft ???
    1. Monster_Fat Offline Monster_Fat
      Monster_Fat (What's the difference) 4 May 2023 12: 55
      -6
      They will bring more Uzbek-Tajiks with a million, give them shovels and send them to make planes. This is the road map. wassat
  4. Old Skeptic Offline Old Skeptic
    Old Skeptic (Old Skeptic) 4 May 2023 13: 13
    +6
    A single-engine aircraft is good for everyone, but it is more vulnerable to MANPADS (if one engine is lost, there is a chance to go home, and if the only one is lost, there is no chance). The Union practiced single-motors for a long time and switched to two for good reason. But ours still stir up Shah-Mat.
    We'll see.
    1. hellman anton Offline hellman anton
      hellman anton (hellman anton) 4 May 2023 13: 25
      -4
      At the time of the union, technology did not allow making an engine with high thrust, which cost adequate money. Now there are such technologies, there are robotic machines.
      Two engines are simply cheap and cheerful.
      If you think that planes should fly under MANPADS, this is already quite a clinic. Considering the existence of shock drones. In stupid Americans, they made their f35 with 1 engine, they won’t be able to launch NARs from a pitch-up !!!
      1. Old Skeptic Offline Old Skeptic
        Old Skeptic (Old Skeptic) 4 May 2023 13: 51
        +3
        Well, yes. That's something before the MiG-25, in the union, almost all hawks were single-engine. And doubles appeared with the massive use of MANPADS.

        F-35 attempt to save on 22.

        The economy must be economical

        All modern aircraft were designed when they did not even think about drones.
      2. Old Skeptic Offline Old Skeptic
        Old Skeptic (Old Skeptic) 4 May 2023 14: 04
        0
        Are two cheaper? Did you read the article at all?
        The F-35 can't do a lot of things, so what.
  5. Sapsan136 Offline Sapsan136
    Sapsan136 (Alexander) 4 May 2023 22: 36
    +6
    This is the second article about single-engine aircraft ... Saving there to the detriment of combat capabilities ... First of all, survivability from both MANPADS and MZA ... In Afghanistan, for example, the Su-17, MiG-21 and MiG-23 proved to be not important strike aircraft ... High speed prevented them from aiming at small targets on the ground, and the lack of armor and one engine made them vulnerable to air defense systems ... So the loss of the Su-17 happened on average with 17 damage to the aircraft, the loss of the Su-25 at 30 and more damage ... The F-35 is not a good example, firstly because the aircraft has not yet fought anywhere, against a serious enemy, and secondly, in terms of a number of characteristics, including such as maximum speed, it does not correspond to the 5th generation declared by the United States. ..The use of any trash like the Su-17 in IEDs would only lead to unnecessary losses on the part of the Russian Aerospace Forces ... The ancient Su-17s have a weak radar, which makes them an easy target even for the antediluvian Ukrainian MiG-29 ... Su-35 it’s good because it carries a powerful radar and missiles with a large radius, which makes it difficult opponents for the F-35 and similar machines ... Reducing the capabilities of the radar for the purpose of dubious cost savings will make them static targets for fighters of a potential enemy ..
  6. MDM Offline MDM
    MDM (MDM) 5 May 2023 00: 45
    +4
    Let's make a plane that flies not far, maneuvers like an ax, carries less load, doesn't get away from missiles well and ruins crews (military pilots stand in lines), but it will be cheaper! In electronics, we are lagging behind, let's try to lag behind here too. Interestingly, when in combat conditions they begin to pour like peas from the sky, their cost will not be higher, who thought that?
    1. hellman anton Offline hellman anton
      hellman anton (hellman anton) 5 May 2023 01: 08
      -4
      The F35, which has 1 engine, has a thrust-to-weight ratio equal to MIG31 with two engines and is only 20 percent less than the su35 with two engines. Says hello to you.
      It all depends on the engine and the mass of the aircraft. They maneuver like an ax, which is of course ridiculous. The 21st century is in the yard, geniuses write about maneuvering. When adequate countries apply the concept of long-range strikes and long-range combat, and for short distances, strike drones are used.
      Why will planes fall like peas? Physics left the chat, aerodynamics closed the door)
      Maybe this nonsense and nonsense about maneuvering will be enough to write? The era where it was important has long ended. I would also write about the air gun.
      you take very good care of the pilots of the aircraft, forcing them to maneuver and, at an extremely low altitude, drop fabs along the way while performing aerobatics
      1. mister-red Offline mister-red
        mister-red 5 May 2023 19: 18
        +2
        adequate countries apply the concept of long-range strikes and long-range combat,

        In a big war, if God forbid it ever happens, the long-range missiles will run out first, then the near ones and they will shoot at each other with cannons
  7. MDM Offline MDM
    MDM (MDM) 5 May 2023 08: 34
    +2
    Are you talking about the failed F35, which, at a cost of three Su35s, falls short of it in most respects? Well, okay, this extremely controversial concept of long-range strikes, invented by "adequate" countries to excuse why their planes fly like axes, but I hope you are aware that maneuverability to a very large extent allows you to evade missiles and quickly leave the air defense coverage area? I don’t know from what height they drop glide bombs or fire long-range missiles, but a ceiling of 20 km, it seems to me, is still better than 15 km, and maneuverability at ultra-low is of great importance. And I would like to hear not your opinion, but still the opinion of military pilots about what they themselves would like to fly and how exactly to drop the fabs)).
    1. ocean969 Offline ocean969
      ocean969 (Leonid) 5 May 2023 11: 08
      +2
      I completely agree with you, refuting amateurs is a thankless task. I heard the opinion of the pilots (at one time I was in Kubinka), the maneuverability of the aircraft and its radar, this is 90 percent of the survival rate of aircraft as a result of the pilot, and then all sorts of smart people begin to "fill in" about cheaper maintenance of expensive cars, truly the Internet will endure everything.
  8. Anton Kuzmin Offline Anton Kuzmin
    Anton Kuzmin (Anton Kuzmin) 5 May 2023 12: 00
    +2
    The author is fundamentally wrong to compare. After all, we do not need to demonstrate the flag (aircraft), but to fulfill the combat mission with guarantee and without losses. Here it is necessary to take into account both the payload and the capabilities of the onboard equipment, and even the increased chances of returning home, saving the pilot and the aircraft if one engine is damaged.

    Nevertheless, single-engine aircraft, if they are already available, it makes sense to remove them from conservation and use them. But here the question is about the timing of the training of pilots. In fact, now most countries are experiencing a fundamental shortage of candidates for pilots, especially in supersonic jet aviation. The burdens and risks are outrageous. Salaries are small and, most importantly, there is no one to choose from! Most of today's young people are unfit for neither health nor professional selection.
  9. Nikolay Dyaglev Offline Nikolay Dyaglev
    Nikolay Dyaglev (Nikolay Dyagelev) 5 May 2023 19: 09
    0
    What are already single-engine fighters? Already you need to think about UAVs with AI, and not about this relic of the past
  10. DO Offline DO
    DO (Dmitriy) 8 May 2023 00: 25
    0
    Experience is the criterion of truth.
    According to the experience of the SVO, modern air defense systems have reached such a degree of perfection that even with not the best air defense system of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, manned Russian aircraft do not fly deep behind enemy lines in order to avoid unacceptable losses of pilots. Only rockets and Geraniums fly to the deep rear.
    Therefore, in order to replace manned bombers for the purpose of working in the deep rear, unmanned jet aircraft with similar flight characteristics (and more durable, for which anti-aircraft maneuvers a person cannot withstand) are needed.
    And then the economy speaks its arguments - unmanned means single-engine.
    Well, tenacious twin-engine gliders are only for pilots.
    1. Accidentally Offline Accidentally
      Accidentally 9 June 2023 17: 57
      0
      And you can make a fighter missile defense system. strategic bomber helicopters, for example TU 160.??????? Didn't the thought come to you??????? Or too lazy to think