The appearance of the first flying prototype of the Su-75 has been announced

19

KnAAZ (Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aviation Plant named after Yuri Gagarin) plans to expand its capacity for aircraft repair in the coming year. equipment and assemble two prototypes (for static and flight tests) of the Su-75 Checkmate light tactical aircraft.

As stated by the director of the enterprise, Yuri Alekseevich Kondratyev, in the event of an expansion of aircraft production, the number of sites for their assembly will increase.



As soon as a prototype of the Su-75 appears with the prospect of serial production, we will, of course, initiate the construction of additional areas for serial assembly of these fighters.

– noted the plant manager, emphasizing that this aircraft will give KnAAZ a new impetus for development.

Kondratyev also reported that the plant's main product remains the Su-35S fighter, since pilots recognize it as objectively the best and its capabilities are increasing over time. This year, the Su-35S will be modernized.

The enterprise will also increase production volumes of Russia's only multifunctional fifth-generation fighter, the Su-57. In 2025, the troops will receive a new version of this aircraft.

The director is confident that the company will cope with the increase in production volumes “thanks to our people, who are the main ones in aviation.”
19 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    5 February 2025 15: 02
    When designing and fine-tuning the Su-75, immediately adapt it to the unmanned version. So the Su-75 will become a transitional version, from the manned to the unmanned version, which is the future.
  2. +7
    5 February 2025 17: 16
    It would be more logical to move the production of the Su-75 to Nizhny Novgorod to Sokol, which practically only deals with repairs of the MiG-31.
    For the Su-35, it would be worth opening a second assembly plant at Irkut to replace the Su-30s..., leaving only a workshop there for upgrading the Su-30SM.
    Iran alone needs about 35 Su-150 aircraft, and there is also North Korea, and the number of Su-35s in the Aerospace Forces should have been increased to 240 units (10 combat regiments) long ago.
    After modernization, the Su-30SM should be transferred to Naval Aviation, where the situation with aircraft is very bad.
    To replace the Su-30SM, the Aerospace Forces are to purchase 120 Su-57s to equip five combat regiments.
  3. +5
    5 February 2025 18: 10
    Key line from the interview:

    as soon as the prototype appears...

    For now it's only made of papier-mâché.
    1. 0
      5 February 2025 20: 08
      No, not in the press-machine. Assembly of three, one of which will go to strength testing, is already underway. It began last year. They showed the workshop briefly once. It's just that for now it's being done at the company's expense, and the staff is mostly busy with something else.
      And the full-scale sample was assembled three years ago, and it was shown at the exhibition.
      On it, they worked out the structural elements of the aircraft itself, the equipment and other placement of everything to fit into the dimensions, as is usually done, and worked out the assembly technology. In addition, they preliminarily clarify what is not
      necessary for production and specify suppliers and their capabilities for supplying the necessary. Full-size model with imitation equipment filling
      practically ready. But the requirements for aircraft taking into account the SVO are now being clarified in order to immediately make changes at the initial stage of assembly and not spend money later on alterations. That's why they are in no hurry.
      1. -1
        5 February 2025 21: 36
        Note. Today, it is designed using computer programs and there is no longer a need to build mock-ups, everything is set up in a computer version. Next comes the construction of the first samples. It is strange why the Russian Defense Ministry does not participate in orders for the prospective aircraft. What we build so slowly, so "cuts" are needed, and to drag out time, is an opportunity to "cut".
        1. 0
          6 February 2025 19: 17
          You are wrong. It is on the model that the assembly technology is worked out, all the clarifications. They clarify the dimensions and the location of the various systems and so on, the fit, the coupling, and so on.
          A project is a project, a computer is a computer, but until you have completed all the assembly operations of the structure in the layout, you will not get a complete picture. Everything is fine on paper, but you forgot about the ravines. The layout is where the computer model is linked to production and assembly. Have you ever assembled something complex yourself, designed on a computer and then implemented by you? Often the opposite happens, when after trying to assemble what was designed on a computer, changes are made to the project.
          1. 0
            6 February 2025 19: 31
            Replica. Models have long been abandoned in construction countries, a computer model is more accurate than on models. Modeling is possible only due to backwardness or inertia...Refresh your knowledge
            1. 0
              6 February 2025 20: 06
              Oh.... You should first define your concepts and understand what they are writing to you. Because you have one logical connection: computer modeling = precision. And they are writing to you about the PROCESSING of assembling a modeled product. Because very often the geniuses of precision modeling model so that it is then impossible to assemble their very precise parts into a finished product. Which they have hinted at to you in a bold way. And assembling a model is not backward, contrary to your opinion, but a common practice in manufacturing complex products in order to avoid unnecessary expenses.
              1. 0
                6 February 2025 20: 23
                It seems you have no idea about engineering design programs. Expand your knowledge
                1. 0
                  6 February 2025 21: 43
                  That's the thing, I did something similar in construction for some time, designing heating units and other similar equipment, until retirement. And I was connected with aviation in my youth and then throughout my life. So I am quite aware of what I am writing about. You will not be able to implement in practice everything that you have implemented in a computer model. There is a lot there that requires clarification or change or, in general, redesign.
                  You designed it this way, but the tooling doesn't allow you to do it. You designed it, but the machine tool base doesn't allow you to work with such tolerance or accuracy.
                  There is a lot of things. That is why assembly and installation, sequence and possibility of assembly according to your model are practiced on the model. Otherwise, you have installed it, but it is already impossible to insert the next unit. Or you have a rivet in a given place, but you cannot get to it with a tool. All this is specified on the model and the technology of installation or assembly is practiced, at the same time what you designed on the computer is checked and, if anything, changes are made on it. The necessary tool is specified, new equipment is designed if necessary or modified.
                  You just read about computer modeling and watched beautiful videos, it seems to you that a computer model solves everything. But the production of a model begins and off we go. You will hear so many interesting things about your computer model from those who began to implement it that the color of your face and a red beet will be the same.
                  If you have a very simple model, primitive, then there may not be any problems. But you have an airplane, a jet fighter, and this is extremely difficult, especially since you are not working alone, but a team, and your computer model may be far from what it seems to you.
                  Even in the West, in this sector of aviation, everything does not work out right away. And the approach is similar - testing everything on a model, and it is much cheaper than a sample with defects and costing almost everything right away.
                2. -1
                  7 February 2025 14: 25
                  Quote: Vladimir Tuzakov
                  It seems you have no idea about engineering design programs. Expand your knowledge

                  I have, unlike you, it seems. You only know words))) I have already been in a situation more than once when a perfectly made model, accurate to fractions of a mm, simply does not assemble))) because ... oops at some point there is no access to the fasteners due to overlapping or oops you need to change the assembly order to join in some place and after pre-assembly of some parts they again oops - do not fit into place))) Therefore, an absolutely theoretical person who, judging by everything, cannot even hammer a nail with his hands - do not argue. More than one person has already written to you that you are wrong. And no matter what design technologies there are, models and pre-assemblies were and will be. Therefore, it is not interesting to communicate with kindergarten.
                  1. +1
                    7 February 2025 16: 12
                    There is no desire to argue, only in the last decades computer design has become the main and advanced with all the consequences. In aviation ALL the products used are certified and defined, and do not require any adjustments. Everything is designed, from the complete set to the assembly and installation works.
      2. +1
        6 February 2025 19: 35
        What was shown 3 years ago is made of papier-mâché. Or plastic, if you prefer.
        What's the point of making a fuss and producing 4 different fighters for one country? The smart guys - the owners of the very successfully developing Southwest Aircraft Company - once explained that working with one type of aircraft sharply reduces operating costs. It is clear that the Air Force is not Civil Aviation. But even in the USSR in the 80s they produced only two fighters - the Su-27 and the MiG-29.
        1. -1
          6 February 2025 22: 15
          If you base it on costs, it's one thing. But you can produce something simpler and cheaper not for yourself, but for someone somewhere and earn money.
          In the USSR there were not many types, but a decent number of modifications. And often the plane only resembled the previous one in appearance, but the filling and often parts of the structures and other things were redesigned or structurally changed. In addition, the USSR also produced obsolete types for sale or kits for assembly in a number of countries.
          At the moment, no one will say exactly what kind of aircraft we will need tomorrow and one type or several different ones. Sometimes it is better to have several specialized ones than one universal one. So let the military determine. Moreover, the practice at the SVO is already decent and one can assume the direction of development of the following machines.
  4. 0
    5 February 2025 18: 13
    Quote: assault 2019
    It would be more logical to move the production of the Su-75 to Nizhny Novgorod to Sokol, which practically only deals with repairs of the MiG-31.
    For the Su-35, it would be worth opening a second assembly plant at Irkut to replace the Su-30s..., leaving only a workshop there for upgrading the Su-30SM.
    Iran alone needs about 35 Su-150 aircraft, and there is also North Korea, and the number of Su-35s in the Aerospace Forces should have been increased to 240 units (10 combat regiments) long ago.
    After modernization, the Su-30SM should be transferred to Naval Aviation, where the situation with aircraft is very bad.
    To replace the Su-30SM, the Aerospace Forces are to purchase 120 Su-57s to equip five combat regiments.

    Why do you think that only used vehicles should be transferred to the Navy?
  5. +1
    6 February 2025 22: 56
    We need to put MiGs on the assembly line and restore the Kachin school.
  6. 0
    7 February 2025 10: 17
    Quote: GR777
    .... yes, restore the Kachin school.

    academies to Moscow/Moscow region return))
  7. 0
    7 February 2025 19: 43
    Quote: svoroponov
    If you base it on costs, it's one thing. But you can produce something simpler and cheaper not for yourself, but for someone somewhere and earn money.
    In the USSR there were not many types, but a decent number of modifications. And often the plane only resembled the previous one in appearance, but the filling and often parts of the structures and other things were redesigned or structurally changed. In addition, the USSR also produced obsolete types for sale or kits for assembly in a number of countries.
    At the moment, no one will say exactly what kind of aircraft we will need tomorrow and one type or several different ones. Sometimes it is better to have several specialized ones than one universal one. So let the military determine. Moreover, the practice at the SVO is already decent and one can assume the direction of development of the following machines.

    The USSR ceased to exist 34 years ago. No need to remember what will no longer exist. Fat period
  8. +2
    7 February 2025 19: 54
    If it's presented like this, there's no way anything will happen in the near future.
    They announce a lot, but do little.

    A favorite example: the once-hyped Chechen buggies. Which supposedly exist as samples. But apart from samples, there are no other examples of them on the Internet...