A promising light fighter. Modern Russian fighters: characteristics (photo)
By the end of the 20th century, the technical complexity of combat aircraft reached the highest level, and this also affected ground infrastructure. It was almost impossible to use fighters outside the base points, which meant that if several airfields were destroyed, they would turn into useless pieces of metal.
In addition, large machines were difficult to transport over land, and their mass production was difficult to deploy in as soon as possible.
All design bureaus tried to solve this problem. These include the creation of vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, fighters capable of taking off from the ground and the reduction in the size of machines. The Sukhoi Design Bureau took the third path and as a result, a light fighter project was created with the internal code S-54. In many ways, this was a response to the F-16 fighter program in the United States and development at the OKB. Mikoyan multifunctional fighter MiG 1.44. But not only.
As experience has shown, modern aircraft carriers will fit much more of these machines than heavy fighters. In addition, due to its low cost, the light fighter is in high demand in foreign markets, which is clearly seen in the example of the Russian combat training aircraft Yak-130.
Fighter "in the trunk"
The C-54 family of aircraft has several roles: a light fighter, both ground-based and for the fleet; Aircraft for retraining pilots for new types of fighters and landing on the deck, as well as an export version.
In total, three such machines were created. S-54 - light multifunctional fighter; S-55 - two-seat training aircraft; S-56 - ship combat training fighter.
Wanting to create a small, simple and effective fighter, the designers of the Sukhoi Design Bureau simultaneously solved the problem of covert basing. In the C-54 project, an attempt was made to create an aircraft capable of being transported in small containers and taking off with minimal training.
Light deck
But still, the most likely use of the aircraft is its placement on aircraft carriers, and this possibility was assumed from the very beginning of development. The dimensions of the machine in the frontal projection do not exceed 3 by 3 meters, which means that two or three times more such aircraft can be placed on aircraft carriers without a major alteration of the ship.
It was supposed to reduce the size due to double-folding wings, as well as thanks to the landing gear, which allowed the aircraft to "squat" in the parking lot. At the same time, in a semi-retracted position, the aircraft, as it were, sits on a “twine”, which reduces its height to three meters. It was supposed to use the R-195FS engine as a power plant, and then switch to the AL-31F. In the second case, the fighter would be able to reach supersonic speed without afterburner.
As for stealth, the S-54 did not provide for such a widespread use of stealth technologies as the F-22 and F-35, but work was underway on this: it was supposed to reduce radar visibility due to a smaller number of protruding parts, as well as using radio absorbing materials. The aircraft also had to have a glass cockpit using 14-15 inch indicators and an on-board complex with a powerful computer.
Compact future
Financial problems in the mid-90s forced the project to be temporarily frozen. For its time, it was promising and relevant, and it remains so today, and in the conditions of the development of unmanned technologies, an apparatus of this class could become the basis for the creation of an unmanned fighter. Also, the development of an aircraft carrier theme in the last few years makes us return to the idea of a light and compact fighter.
The prospects of single-engine fighters are evidenced by the fact that China is currently creating such a machine, and India plans to start assembling a hundred light fighters under a foreign license, choosing between the American F-16, the Swedish Gripen and the Russian MiG-35.
At the same time, Russia is participating in this competition with the MiG-35 (which can rather be attributed to the middle class) because at the moment there is no production of single-engine fighters in our country.
In addition, during the presentation of the MiG-35, which took place in January, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin announced that RAC "MiG" will create a fifth-generation light fighter. According to some reports, this machine will have one engine, and it is possible that the developments in S-54 will be used in its creation.
Scenario of a new war
The events in Yugoslavia, Libya and Syria have shown that in a modern war, the side that is able to increase the combat power of the Air Force in the shortest possible time wins. In particular, this concerns the rapid establishment of production, which is difficult to do in the case of heavy fighters.
This means that, along with heavy aircraft, Russia should also have light, so-called "mobilization" aircraft, the production of which is easy to start during a crisis period, as well as directly during hostilities.
Currently, the most famous fourth-generation light fighters are the American-made Lockheed F-16 and the Russian MiG-29. The F-16 "Fighting Falcon" has become the most widespread fourth-generation fighter in the world. By mid-1994, more than 1700 aircraft of this type were exported to 17 states - Bahrain, Belgium, Venezuela, Denmark, Greece, Egypt, Israel, Indonesia, the Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Portugal, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey and South Korea. By the spring of 1994, the total number of orders for F-16 fighters of all modifications was 3989, of which 2208 fighters were for the US Air Force. The price of one F-16C aircraft for the US Air Force at the rate of 1992 f. was 18 million dollars.
With the decision by the US government to reduce the number of tactical air wings to 20 (corresponding to approximately 1360 aircraft), a qualitative improvement in the aircraft fleet will be required. In this regard, the US Air Force intends to sell for export 300 Lockheed F-16A / B aircraft available in tactical aviation, which have previously undergone appropriate repairs and refinement aimed at extending the service life (currently, the Air Force has 400 fighters of this modification, which are planned to be removed out of service in 1997). Instead, an additional purchase of new F-16C / D fighters is expected. In this case, according to Air Force experts, 120-130 F-16C/D fighters will be purchased between 2000 and 2010, when deliveries of the new generation JAST strike aircraft are expected to begin. For this, in 1996-1997. Lockheed will need to reopen the aircraft assembly line. The delay in the implementation of the JAST program may lead to a further increase in the purchase of F-16 aircraft (according to existing plans, the prototype JAST aircraft should be built in 2000, and the first production aircraft in 2010).
The main competitor of the F-16 aircraft on the international aviation market is the Russian fourth-generation fighter MiG-29, created in 1977. By mid-1994, more than 500 MiGs were delivered (or there were contracts for delivery) to 16 countries - Bulgaria, Hungary, Germany , India, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Malaysia, North Korea, Cuba, Poland, Romania, Syria, Slovakia, Czech Republic and Yugoslavia.
Fighter F-16
Comparison of the combat capabilities of the MiG-29 and F-16 aircraft has always received considerable attention in the pages of the world aviation press. The popular English magazine Air International recently published an article by well-known aviation journalist-analyst and scientific and technical editor of the magazine Roy Braybrook, in which, based on materials provided by the Lockheed branch in Fort Worth (where the F-16 Fighting Falcon multi-role fighter was created ”) are compared combat capabilities this aircraft and its Russian counterpart. Below is a summary of this article with comments by Vladimir Ilyin and Vsevolod Katkov (in the text of the article it is highlighted in a different font), who prepared this material for you. Drawings by M. Muratov and A. Gordienko.
The differences between the F-16 and MiG-29 aircraft are largely due to a difference in views on the combat use of fighter jets, which, in turn, is due to national military experience. When developing requirements for new second-generation combat aircraft, the US Air Force was guided by the experience of the Second World War and the Korean War of 1950-1953. In both conflicts, American air supremacy extended, as a rule, beyond the front line, which eliminated ground forces US danger of air strikes from the enemy. However, the reorientation of American aviation to conduct, first of all, nuclear war and the underestimation of the importance of maneuverable air combat led to the fact that by the end of the 1960s, the main American McDonnell-Douglas F-4 Phantom 2 air superiority fighter was inferior in maneuverability characteristics of the obsolete enemy fighter MiG-17.
In 1972, when the US Air Force embarked on a program to create a promising light fighter, they were forced to return to the concept of an aircraft with a low specific wing load and high thrust-to-weight ratio, providing good acceleration characteristics and a short steady-state turn time. The efforts of the designers focused on creating aircraft with minimal dimensions and weight, optimized for air combat within visual visibility, at transonic speeds and medium altitudes, i.e., in conditions corresponding to solving the tasks of escorting attack aircraft. The maximum maneuvering characteristics were to be achieved at speeds corresponding to M = 0.6-1.6, with special attention paid to the range of M = 0.8-1.2.
Russia's approach to the creation of a new generation light fighter was somewhat different. After 1945, there, as in Great Britain and France, efforts were concentrated on the development of interceptors with the highest possible speed, ceiling and rate of climb, designed to repel a nuclear attack on specific targets. However, unlike countries Western Europe, in Russia the so-called Stalinist approach prevailed, according to which a large number of extremely cheap and simple aircraft were required.
The desire to ensure the maximum rate of climb, which was caused, first of all, by the need to solve air defense problems, led to the fact that the fighter in Russia began to be considered as a "flying engine without fuel" (i.e., as an aircraft with an extremely powerful sieve installation and minimal internal airframe volumes that do not allow to accommodate large fuel tanks). A low specific wing load was necessary to ensure good high-altitude characteristics of the interceptor, but this also contributed to the improvement of maneuvering and takeoff and landing characteristics.
F-16 in flight. Visible whirlwinds descending from the influx
F-16 in shock version
During the Korean War, MiG-15 aircraft had superiority over American fighters at high altitudes. The new MiG-17 and MiG-19, which were created soon, also showed high combat qualities for their time, however, the ability to conduct combat in turns at low altitudes was not a strong point of these fighters. The MiG-21 that followed them was an outstanding aircraft in its class (target air defense fighter-interceptor), but its combat capabilities were somewhat reduced due to the design of the cockpit canopy, which did not provide the pilot with sufficient visibility, and the low combat load, which made it difficult to use this aircraft against ground targets. and high landing speed. Compared to the MiG-21, the MiG-23 and MiG-27 fighters with a variable-swept wing had more powerful armament and an increased radius of action, as well as better air handling characteristics, but they had poor handling characteristics at low speeds.
In the early 1970s, the Design Bureau began to create a new generation MiG. The tactical and technical requirements for the MiG-29 aircraft, intended to replace the MiG-21 and MiG-23 fighters, were issued in 1972, technical design began in 1974, the first of the prototype aircraft took off on October 6, 1977 ( test pilot A. V. Fedotov). MiG-29 refers to light fighters, being a continuation of the line of MiG-15 and MiG-21 aircraft. Like its predecessors, it had to have high speed, high rate of climb and a high ceiling, as high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft were still considered as potential targets for interception. It was required to provide good airborne characteristics (without the use of a variable geometry wing) and controllability at low speeds, as well as improved visibility from the cockpit during takeoff and landing modes.
The main differences between the F-16 and MiG-29 light fighters can be illustrated by the way they interact with heavy fighters. The F-16 is designed to fight for air supremacy in conjunction with the larger McDonnell-Douglas F-15 aircraft, capable of not only destroying light fighters like the MiG-21, but also counteracting the high-altitude and high-speed MiG-25. Outstanding flight characteristics The F-I5 aircraft, its powerful armament and radar made it possible to somewhat weaken the corresponding requirements for the F-16 light fighter, but the latter has a combat radius no less than that of the F-I5 aircraft. In contrast, the front-line fighter MiG-29 was created to solve the same tasks of providing air defense and gaining air supremacy as the heavy fighter-interceptor MiG-25, having a much shorter range compared to it. The MiG-29 is designed to achieve high speeds and a ceiling, and is also equipped with effective system weapons, including air-to-air missiles medium range. Figuratively speaking, the MiG-29 is a reduced F-15, which has a shorter range compared to the American fighter, while the F-16 is, as it were, an enlarged Northrop F-5 aircraft with a longer flight range.
The airframe design of the MiG-29 and F-I6 fighters is designed to achieve maximum operational overload 9. The aircraft are made according to an integrated circuit with a smooth pairing of the wing and fuselage, which provides an increase in internal volumes, reduces the weight of the wing and leads to improved maneuverability. The fighters used a wing with an influx, as well as engine air intakes capable of operating at high angles of attack.
At the same time, the fundamental differences between these aircraft were determined at the design stage. The F-16 fighter, created by the designers of the General Diemics branch in Fort Worth (since 1993, this branch has been part of Lockhnd). was designed for one Pratt-Whitney F100 turbofan engine, similar to the engine used on the F-15 fighter, which ensured the unification of the power plants of the US Air Force fighters. When choosing between the single-engine General Dipemix F-I6 aircraft and the twin-engine Northrop YF-17, the lower specific fuel consumption in transonic non-afterburning mode was a decisive factor in favor of the F100 turbofan (and, therefore, the F-16 aircraft).
Studies conducted in the United States did not reveal any advantages of twin-engine fighters over single-engine and body-mounted aircraft of the same class. In the future, these conclusions were confirmed by practice: In the period 1988-1992. for every 100,000 hours of flight, only 3.97 F-16 aircraft were lost, which is quite commensurate with the corresponding figure for double-double American fighters.
The reasons for the choice by Russian specialists of a twin-engine scheme for the MiG-29 are not entirely clear. Perhaps the accident statistics of the two-engine MiG-25 were somewhat better than those of the single-engine MiG-23 and MiG-27. It can also be assumed that the choice was made in accordance with the recommendations of TsAGI, where, as a result of purges in aerodynamic roughness, some advantage of the twin-engine scheme was revealed, in particular, a greater angular velocity turn due to the higher weight of the aircraft with two turbofans
The shortcomings of the MiG-29 fighter include a small resource of installing another RD-33 engine on it (the overhaul life is only 400 hours). During the work of the Berlin Aviation Exhibition II.A-44 (1994), it became known that this figure was increased to 700 hours, and the community life of the turbofan engine is 1400 hours. and the General Electric F110-GE-100 engine - 1500 hours.
For the American fighter, optimized to achieve maximum maneuverability at transonic speeds, an unregulated single-hop air intake was chosen to ensure stable engine operation up to M = 2.0. Research by specialists from Fort Worth led to the conclusion that the use of a large amount of variable air intake on the F-16 aircraft would lead to an increase in the weight of the airframe by 180 kg, without providing an improvement in flight performance to a speed corresponding to M = 1, 6.
The ventral location of the air intake is caused by the desire to reduce the dependence of its work on the angle of attack. Starting with an air intake located in the forward fuselage (as on the Vought F-8 Crusader aircraft), the creators of the F-16 gradually, in order to reduce the weight of the airframe, reduced its length to those limits that allowed the possibility of placing a nose landing gear under it . As a result, it was possible to obtain an air intake with a relative length equal to 5.4 of the engine compressor diameter.
For the MiG-29 fighter, designed to achieve a higher speed than the F-16 aircraft, adjustable two-dimensional four-jump air intakes with one movable and two fixed ramps were selected to ensure stable engine operation up to M = 2.3. The influence of high angles of attack on the operation of the turbofan engine was reduced due to the location of the air intakes under the wing influx.
Rakhshchnya in the design of the air intakes of the F-16 and MiG-29 aircraft are also determined different approach in Russia and the USA to eliminate the ingress of foreign objects into the engines from the runway. According to experts from Fort Worth, the suction of stones from the runway into the air intake of the F-16 is unlikely, since its opening is located in front of the nose landing gear and the lower lip of the air intake is from the ground at a distance equal to 1.2 of its own average diameter. In the 1960s, it was generally accepted that the hysometric center of the inlet section of the air intake should be at a distance of 2.0 diamsgras from the ground, and the lower lip at a distance of 1.5 diameters of the air intake. However, the successful operation of the Boeing 737, as well as other aircraft with low-lying air intakes, led to an unresolved issue with these requirements.
While the US Air Force uses well-prepared runways from which foreign objects are regularly removed, Russia has traditionally sought to ensure the operation of aircraft from poorly prepared field airfields. The front landing gear of the Russian Iegrebitsle are equipped with shields that prevent stones (but not dust) from entering the air intakes. The MiG-29 also has rotary ramps that block the entrance to the air intake channel during takeoff, and on the upper surface of the inflated part of the wing there are auxiliary air intakes that ensure the operation of the engines in takeoff mode. Before the McDonnell-Douglas F-15 aircraft of the 1st Fighter Wing of the US Air Force, based at Langley Air Force Base, arrived at the Lipetsk airport for a friendly visit, American specialists got acquainted with the state of the concrete pavement at the Lipetsk airfield and stated that their planes should use such runways and taxiways they won't be able to. The visit nevertheless took place, but the American pilots observed increased caution when taxiing, taking off and landing. Combat aircraft are successfully operated at the Lipetsk airfield, which has two runways (including a new one built in the 1980s). front-line aviation of all types, including the MiG-29, and the state of the concrete pavement Russian pilots raises no objections.
Another significant difference between the MiG-29 and F-16 is the design of the vertical tail. In the early stages of designing the F-16 aircraft, General Dynamics looked at options with one- and two-tail plumage. Model blowdowns in the wind tunnel showed that the vortices generated by the wing influxes retain a constant direction, but the central keel provides somewhat less directional stability at high angles of attack than the twin-keel empennage. However, in the end, in Fort Worth, a single tail plumage was still chosen, which achieved acceptable stability characteristics with less technical risk.
When creating the MiG-29, a two-keel scheme was chosen, operating in a four-vortex system: two vortices are generated by a vortex-generating device in the forward fuselage and two - by the wing. It can be assumed that the choice between single-fin and double-fin configurations depended on the configuration of the wing influxes, although it still seems somewhat ambiguous that the designers of General Dynamics chose the layout with an all-fin vertical tail (the F-16 is the only fourth-generation fighter with a non-delta wing that has one keel).
For the F-16 aircraft, a wing close to triangular in plan was chosen, with a sweep along the leading edge of 40 °, an aspect ratio of 3.2 and a root chord 4% thick, having a profile of 64А204. Tests in wind tunnels revealed the need to use an automatically deflectable wing tip, which serves to increase the lift coefficient and ensure stability at high angles of attack. The use of a deflected nose made it possible, at M = - 0.8, to increase the steady-state turn speed by 18% compared to the wing, the toe of which is fixed at zero angle, and by 10% compared to the best of the studied wings without a deflectable nose.
The wing of the MiG-29 aircraft with a high aspect ratio (3.4) and a sweep of 42 ° along the leading edge has a chord, the thickness of which, according to American experts, is about 6% at the root and 4% at the end. Compared to the wing of the F-16 aircraft, the MiG wing should have a slightly lower mass, but greater aerodynamic drag.
The F-16 was the first serial fighter equipped with a fly-by-wire control system (EDSU). Negative static stability at angles of attack less than 9° and М<0.8 made it possible to achieve some improvement in aerodynamic characteristics at transonic and supersonic speeds (thus, the increase in the lift coefficient was about 4% at М = 0.9 and 8% at М - 1 ,2).
In the course of comparative tests of the F-16 and the MiG-29 aircraft of the German Air Force, it was found that the American fighter has significantly higher accelerations along the crepe (due to the presence of the EDSU and the shape of the wing). This should provide him with high turn rates and a shorter turn time. A very controversial statement, since during numerous demonstration flights at international aviation exhibitions, the MiG-29 aircraft repeatedly demonstrated the ability to perform turns with a diameter of 700 m at low altitude at a speed of 800 km / h. In similar conditions, the F-16 fighter
Fighters F-16 at the time of refueling from a flying tanker KS-135
performed turns with a diameter of only about K00 m. At a speed of 400 km / h and a steady load of 3.8, the minimum diameter of the turn \ 1 and 1 -29 was 450 m.
The Russian fighter is equipped with a conventional control system, whose characteristics are close (but according to the assessment of the American test pilot D. Farley, who flew the MiG-29) to the control system of the F-15 aircraft. With M› 0.85, the MiG has a limited angle of attack of 15°. The limit on the maximum operational overload at M>0.85 is 7. According to D. Farley, at lower speeds, the angle of attack is limited to 30 *, which automatically decreases within 30% depending on the pitch change rate (so if the pitch angle increases at a speed of 10 degrees / s, the limiter begins to operate when the aircraft reaches an angle of attack of 27*). However, D. Farley flew on a prototype of the MiG-29, since, according to other sources, on serial fighters the angle of attack is limited to 24 "and increased to 30" only on a new modification of the MiG-29M equipped with EDSU. MiG-29 pilots can "overpower" the RSS limiter and reach angles of attack up to 45 ", however, the scale of the angle of attack indicator in the cockpit is only graduated up to 30 *. Using the limiting signal system (SOS) when performing maneuvers without control but roll, the MiG- 29 can safely reach angles of attack greater than 30°.The limit but the angle of attack for the F-16 is 25°.According to other sources, the maximum angle of attack of the F-16A is limited to 27.5°.
The MiG-29 is controlled by a crepe like the MiG-23 and MiG-27 aircraft. Up to an angle of attack of 8.7 °, ailerons are used in conjunction with a low-turn differentially deflectable stabilizer. When reaching angles of attack greater than 8.7 *. only the all-moving horizontal tail operates.
Despite the ability of the MiG-29 to stay in the air at high angles of attack, its pilots cannot fully use this property of the aircraft to reduce the landing distance due to the relatively low landing gear. With a landing speed of 240 km/h, using a braking parachute, the MiG's run is 600 m; on a wet runway, it increases by another 50%. The length of the run of the F-I6A aircraft with a normal landing weight but a dry runway is 650 m. Unlike Russian fighters, on American aircraft, the parachute is used only as a means of emergency braking
Since the prototype F-16 fighter was designed as an experimental aircraft, a number of controversial technical improvements were introduced into its design. So, instead of the traditional control knob in the cab, a miniature side strain gauge knob is installed; ejection seat back tilt increased from 13 to 30*; for the first time on a supersonic fighter, frameless glazing of the cockpit canopy was used.
The side stick allows the pilot to constantly keep his hand on the stop, controlling the aircraft with only the movement of the hand, which increases the accuracy of piloting. However, this design allows the aircraft to be controlled only right hand, changing hands is not possible. Currently, the F-16 is the only production fighter in the world equipped with a side control stick. The fighters that appeared later were M a clone Nell Douglas F-I5E, F / A-IS, Eurofighter EF2000, MiG-33 and others have a central RUS. At the same time, the side handle is installed on the Lockheed YF-22 aircraft - the prototype of the American fifth generation fighter F-22A, as well as on the Su-35 fighter (the latter also has a strain gauge throttle).
The inclination of the seat up to 30° makes it easier for the pilot to endure large G-loads, at the same time, this arrangement requires more effort when turning the head back.
The frameless glazing of the cockpit canopy provides a better view in the forward hemisphere, however, this design has a large mass, and the increased thickness of the glazing (unlike a canopy of a conventional design, where thick bird-resistant glass is used only on the visor) requires the separation of the entire canopy before an emergency exit of the aircraft, since ejection through glass is impossible. On a promising Japanese fighter The Mitsubishi FS-X, created as a deep modernization of the F-I6 aircraft, uses a traditional type of canopy glazing - with a fixed canopy and a rear-opening lid.
Double combat training aircraft F-168
Fighter MiG-29
The MiG-29 has a canopy of a gradient design with a visor, however, before ejection, the canopy cover must also be shot off. The high quality of the K-36 ejection seat installed on the MiG, created by NPO Zvezda, was repeatedly confirmed. The seat ensures the rescue of the pilot at speeds up to 1300 km/h and altitudes up to 25 km. When using a helmet, safe ejection is also possible at an airspeed of up to 1400 km/h. The disadvantages of the K-36 chair include its large mass - 205 kg. The F-16 aircraft is equipped with an ACES II McDonnell-Douglas ejection seat, which provides rescue during top speed but the instrument is only 1112 km / h at altitudes up to 15,240 m.
The dimensions of the MiG-29 fighter are not much larger than the corresponding dimensions of the F-16. The Russian aircraft is 15.2% longer than the American aircraft, the wingspan is 11.4% larger, while the height of the F-16 (in the parking lot) is 7.6% higher. The chassis track of the MiG-29 aircraft is 30% larger, and the chassis base is 8.7% shorter than that of the F-16. The wing area of the MiG is 36.3% larger than that of the American fighter.
The mass of the empty MiG-29 aircraft was not reported by the Russian side, however, according to experts from Fort Worth, it is approximately 11,000 kg, which is 49% more than that of the F-16A, but only 26.4-24, 2% more than the mass of the F-16C fighters, which are equipped with respectively F100-PW-229 or F110-GE-129 turbofans. F-I6C aircraft with F110-GE-129 engines (40/50 series) are 154 kg heavier than 42/52 series fighters with F100-PW-229.
However, the normal takeoff weight of the MiG-29 (with six short-range missiles and without PTB) due to the lower relative capacity of the fuel tanks is only 27% more than that of the F-16A, and 24% more than that of the F-16C, and the maximum takeoff the mass of the F-16C even exceeds the corresponding parameter of the MiG-29. Israeli company IAI on your own carried out work to strengthen the airframe and landing gear of the Israeli Air Force F-16 aircraft, which made it possible to bring their maximum take-off weight to 21,000 kg.
The F-16 aircraft has a significantly greater combat radius than the MiG-29. In fact, the practical range of MiG-24 and F-16 aircraft without external fuel tanks is almost the same (F-16 - 1600 km, MiG-29 - 1500 km). The superiority of the F-16 in maximum range was achieved through the use of larger PTBs. With two 1400 l tanks and one 1136 l tank, the ferry range of the K-16 reaches 3900 km. The MiG-29 with one PTB of 1560 liters has a ferry range of 2100 km, and with two PTBs of 800 liters and one tank of 1500 liters - 2900 km. However, in a situation similar to the one that developed in the skies of North Vietnam, when the aircraft entered into battle with each other with full refueling of internal tanks, dropped PTBs and only melee missiles on external hardpoints, F-16 fighters will undoubtedly have a large specific load on the wing and less heavy armament than the MiG-29. Thus, for the F-16A, the combat specific load on the wing is 3% higher than the corresponding parameter of the MiG-29, and for the F-16C, the excess will be 16%. The thrust-to-weight ratio of the MiG-29 will be 14% and 5% higher, respectively, than that of the F-16A and F-16C aircraft. This will provide the MiGs with an advantage over the F-16, despite the restrictions of the Russian fighter on the maximum operational overload at М> 0.85.
In 1993, experts from Fort Worth failed their own comparative analysis of the characteristics of the MiG-29 and F-16C aircraft in combat configuration (50% of the fuel in the internal tanks and two melee missiles on the external hardpoints). In their opinion, in this case, the American fighter will have some advantage over the MiG at transonic speeds when maneuvering at low and medium altitudes. In these modes, according to American experts, the combat capabilities of the MiG will be limited due to the lower maximum operational overload (7 at M> 0.85 compared to 9 for the F-16), which will affect the ability of the Russian fighter to perform unsteady turns with maximum angular speeds. At high altitudes and supersonic speeds, the advantage will go to the MiG-29. However, it should be noted that these estimates are based on a number of assumptions (in particular, American analysts do not know the exact value of the relative thickness of the root chord of the Russian fighter wing).
The normal takeoff weight of the MiG-29 corresponds to the configuration of a fighter with fully filled] gym internal fuel tanks and six UR R-60M on the underwing hardpoints. The maximum takeoff weight of the MiG was adopted with a fighter configuration with four R-60M missiles and three PTBs. However, with such a set of external suspensions, the MiG-29 is not capable of reaching supersonic speed.
In-flight combat training MiG-29UV
The MiG-29 demonstrates high flight performance, escorting the Il-103 aircraft at low speed
Improved fighter MiG-29M (MiG-33)
According to American experts, the characteristics of the radar of the MiG-29 aircraft are somewhat inferior to the capabilities of the American radar gun installed on the F-16A, in particular, according to their estimates, the range of the American radar is 20% longer. According to ANPK "MIG", the H019 radar installed on the MiG-29 aircraft, but the detection range of air targets exceeds not only the AN / APG-66 station installed on the F-16A aircraft, but also the much more powerful AN / APG-65 radar aircraft F/A-18C.
Comparative characteristics of radar
At the same time, the presence on board the MiG of an optical-electronic sighting and navigation system with a laser rangefinder and an autonomous helmet-mounted target designation system is an important advantage of the Russian fighter. During a visit to the Czech Republic by aviation delegations from France and the Netherlands, several training air battles were held between the MiG-29 aircraft of the Czech Air Force and the Daseo Mirage 2000 and Lockheed R-16A fighters, and all of them ended in the victory of the MiGs: Czech pilots, as a rule, "shot down » their opponents from the first run using a helmet-mounted sight. In addition, the MiG-29 weapon system includes medium-range air-to-air missiles with a radar guidance system, while most F-I6 fighters carry only the AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles with a thermal homing head. The equipment of the F-16C medium-range missile A1M-120 AMRAAM has just begun, and only a small number of aircraft are armed with these missiles. The typical armament of F-16A aircraft for air combat is six AIM-91 missiles. "Sidewinder". F-16ADF aircraft used by the National Guard for air defense of the continental United States can take up to two AIM-7 Sparrow missiles. In 1991, F-16C aircraft began to be armed with AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles, which can be suspended on the same nodes as the Sidewinder UR.
The standard armament of the MiG-29 is up to six short-range missiles R-bOM or intermediate-range missiles R-73, as well as up to four medium-range missiles R-27R or R-27T. Up to six RVV-AE missiles can be suspended on modernized aircraft.
In terms of ground attack capabilities, the MiG-29 is inferior to the F-16 fighter, which has a large maximum takeoff weight. So, with a combat load consisting of 2000 kg of bombs and two R-60M missile launchers, the MiG-29 takes only one PTB on the ventral suspension unit, and the F-16, carrying similar weapons, can hang a PTB. In addition, the American aircraft is equipped with a fuel and in-flight refueling system receiver, which is not available on serial MiGs (it is planned to equip the MiG-29 with an in-flight refueling system only as part of the modernization program for these fighters). According to American experts, the combat radius of action with weapons consisting of two 900 kg caliber bombs and two air-to-air melee missiles (P-60M or AIM-9 "Sidewinder") along the profile "large-small-small-high altitude ”, is 1200 km for the F-16C aircraft and 500 km for the MiG-29, and for a completely low-altitude profile, respectively, 740 and 315 km.
From the above, it can be concluded that the F-16 is an air superiority fighter optimized for air combat at subsonic and supersonic speeds at low and medium altitudes. In addition, the large maximum takeoff weight (exceeding the maximum takeoff weight of the MiG-29) makes the F-16 a good strike aircraft. The mass of the bomb armament of the original MiG-29 fighter is 2000 kg, during the modernization it was increased to 4000 kg.
The MiG-29 was also designed to fight for air supremacy, but it is also capable of effectively solving the tasks of object air defense, intercepting high-speed high-altitude targets. At the same time, its impact capabilities are limited. Both aircraft are perfectly suited for solving the combat missions assigned to them, but it seems appropriate to further modernize them. For the F-16C, it may be to develop a wing larger area, and for the MiG-29 - in increasing the take-off weight, creating new PTBs that allow flight at supersonic speeds, equipping the aircraft with an in-flight refueling system, increasing the maximum operational
The influx of the wing of the MiG-29M fighter has a sharp leading edge
overloads up to 9 at M> 0.85, as well as an increase in the resource of the airframe and engine. In 1988, the General Dynamics company was working on the creation of a modernized version of the Ajal Falcon aircraft with a wing of increased span and area, which, according to the company's specialists, should have increased the angular velocity of an unsteady turn from 17-18 degrees / from to 21 deg./s. However, due to lack of funding, and also the desire of the Air Force not to start programs that could become an alternative to the ATF program (F-22), work on the Agile Falcon fighter was stopped.
It should be noted that R. Braybrook's article compares the latest F-16C aircraft with the MiG-29 export version built in the mid-1980s. Such a comparison is not entirely correct: it would be more appropriate to compare the F-16C aircraft of the 40/42 and 50/52 series with the MiG-29S and MiG-29M (MiG-33) fighters, created in the second half of the 1980s almost simultaneously with the latest modifications of the F-16C fighter (the MiG-29S is being mass-produced, the start of mass production of the MiG-29M, which has passed state tests, is delayed due to insufficient funding). According to representatives of the Design Bureau. A. I. Mikoyan, these aircraft have improved avionics, an expanded armament, including, in particular, air-to-air missiles RVV-AE - an analogue of the American A1M-120 missile, air-class missiles - various types of surface and adjustable bombs (on the MiG -29M). MiG radars have large viewing angles and auto-tracking in azimuth (for MiG-29M - 90 °, MiG-29S and F / A-18C - 70 ° and F- 16C - 60 °) and provide long ranges of air-to-air weapons.
The maximum range of launching missiles at an air target with an EPR of 3 mg, km
The flight characteristics of the modernized MiGs have also increased. The thrust armament of the MiG-29S fighter (H = 1 km, M = 1.0, 100% fuel in internal tanks) is 1.52, MiG-29M - 1.43, F-16C - 1.05 and F / A- 18C - 1.00. This provides the MiG-29M and MiG-29S aircraft with higher flight characteristics and maneuverability characteristics than their American counterparts. The rate of climb of MiG-29S, MiG-29M, F-16C and F/A-18C aircraft (H = 1 km, M - 0.9, 100% fuel in internal tanks) is 252, 234, 210 and 194 m/s, respectively . The maximum instantaneous rate of turn is comparable to 23.5, 22.8, 21.5 and 20.0 deg/s.
The high-speed interception line for the YiG-29M aircraft (M = 1.5, on external suspensions - four medium-range missiles, two melee missiles and a PTB) is 410 km, for the F-16C - 389 km, for the F / A-18C - 370 km and the MiG-29S - 345 km. The radius of action during a low-altitude breakthrough (flying at an altitude of 200 m with a PTB› is 400 km for the F-16C aircraft, 385 km for the MiG-29M, 372 km for the F / A-18C and 340 for the MiG-29С Thus, Russian and American light fighters of the fourth generation have approximately the same range characteristics.
According to the specialists of OKB im. A. I. Mikoyan, the new modifications of the MiG-29 have slightly better performance than their American rivals. Thus, the average flight time for failure and damage detected in flight and on the ground is 7.3 hours for the MiG-29M, 13.6 hours for the MiG-29C, 3.7 hours for the F/A-18C, and 3.7 hours for the F-16C. 2.9 hours. Specific maintenance costs for the MiG-29M and MiG-29S are 11 man-hours per flight hour; for F/A-18C and F-16C aircraft, this indicator is equal to 16 and 18, respectively. ANPK "MIG" obviously used information about the time between failures in the early stages of operation of the F-I6 and F/A-I8 aircraft
The fuel receiver of the MiG-29K aircraft
Experienced fighter YF-17 - competitor YF-16
As well as the article by R. Braybrook, written on the basis of materials provided by Lockheed, the above comparative analysis of the characteristics of the upgraded MiG-29 aircraft and American fighters to a certain extent reflects the desire of ANPK MIG to promote the advertising of its products, showing its superiority over foreign analogues. The data of this analysis sometimes diverge from the information given in the foreign press. However, the objective results of the flights of the MiG-29, MiG-29M and MiG-29S against the background of the demonstration of American F-16 and F / A-18 aircraft during the work of numerous aviation salons of recent times make us treat the characteristics published by the ANPK with a high degree of confidence.
An aircraft similar in purpose and combat capabilities to the F-I6 fighter is the F / A-I8 carrier-based fighter, designed for the US Navy and Marine Corps. Currently, this aircraft, manufactured by McDonnell-Dutlas, is the main American competitor of the F-16 aircraft and is also actively moving to the world market. As a consequence of the struggle between Lockheed and McDonnell-Dutlas to obtain export orders, an article published in the Armed Forces Journal can also be regarded. Its authors - T. McAtee and D. Oberle, staff members of the Lockheed branch in Fort Worth, fighter pilots with great experience - prove the advantages of the Lockheed F-16 single-engine aircraft over the McDonnell-Douglas F / A-I8 twin-engine fighter. Despite the somewhat tendentious tone of the publication, a number of its provisions are of interest to Russian readers.
The difference in MTBF between F-16s and F/A-18s is only 5%. About five failures per 100,000 flight hours is an excellent result for both aircraft, given the variety of tasks these fighters perform. But for comparing aircraft, it is more convenient to take into account accident data for the last five years, since they reflect the effectiveness of the measures taken to improve safety. Such a comparison shows that the F-16 aircraft has more low level accident rate, and the company managed to implement a more effective set of measures to improve safety.
In flight F/A-18
F/A-18 during in-flight refueling
Full-size model of a promising aircraft F/A-18E
McDonnell-Douglas, trying to prove the benefits of the F/A-I8 aircraft, focuses on the number of engine failure accidents that occurred in 1992. However, using only one year of data for comparison is misleading. In fact, in 1992, the F / A-18 had an accident rate of 5.5, and the F-16 - 4.1. A more objective evaluation criterion is the overall aircraft loss rale, which shows that the difference between aircraft in terms of safety is insignificant.
The total accident rates associated with engine failure are also very close (1.17 per 100,000 flight hours for the F-16 and 0.86 for the F/A-18).
McDonnell-Douglas specialists argue that when comparing the F-16 and F / A-18 aircraft, one must take into account the features of the latter, due to its use from the deck of an aircraft carrier. However, with the exception of the takeoff and landing, the F / A-18 and F-16 fighters perform the same operations. It is no secret that around 75% of F/A-1S sorties around the world were carried out from coastal airfields. Despite the fact that flying from aircraft carriers poses an increased risk, in fact only three F/A-18 fighters were lost during takeoff or landing on the deck, while four aircraft of this type crashed while landing on coastal airfields.
According to official data, during the fighting in the Perepiskoyu Bay area in the winter of 1991, F / A-18 fighters completed 9250 sorties, while losing two aircraft, while F-16 aircraft made 13,066 sorties and lost aircraft. This contradicts the data given in a number of McDonnell-Douglas publications (five lost F-16s and one F/A-18). In addition, it should be taken into account that the F-16 aircraft carried out strike operations in the depths of Iraqi territory, while the F / A-18 fighters were used in safer southern regions. Despite a more serious threat from enemy air defenses, the F-16 aircraft loss rate was the same as that of the F / A-18 fighters (0.2 aircraft per 1000 sorties), and less than that of the twin-engine F-15E multifunctional fighter (0.9 aircraft per 1000 sorties). In addition, due to the smaller size of the F-16 aircraft, hits were less common. The F/A-18 fighter is approximately 1.4 times larger and has been hit twice as often on average. McDonnell-Douglas claims that many F / A-18s returned from missions on one engine. However, studies in 1991 showed that a direct hit on a GE F404 engine on an F/A-18 aircraft causes catastrophic damage that could result in the loss of the aircraft.
An example of the survivability of a single-engine aircraft is the case when a radar-guided surface-to-air missile exploded near an F-16 fighter and fragments that flew through the air intake hole damaged the turbofan engine. However, the F-16's damage-resistant engine continued to run and the plane landed safely.
The F-16 fighter victories in the air speak for themselves. With 69 aerial victories, the F-16 has never been shot down by an enemy aircraft. Information about the victories in air combat of F-16 aircraft, cited by General Dynamics and Lockheed in their advertising brochures, is contrary to reality. Only during the fighting in Lebanon in the summer of 1982, Syrian Air Force fighters shot down at least six Israeli Air Force F-16 aircraft (including five fighters shot down by MiG-23MF aircraft). It is reliably known that during the same period, F-16A fighters destroyed only one MiG-23MF (in the battle on June 8, 1982), seven Syrian Su-22M fighter-bombers, as well as several Mi-8 and Gazel* helicopters. The vast majority of Israeli BSC air victories were achieved using McDonnell-Douglas F-15A fighters, interacting with Grumman E-2C Hawkeye AWACS aircraft. During the battles with Iraq in the winter of 1991, F-16 fighters did not destroy a single enemy aircraft, while G-15S fighters shot down 34 Iraqi Air Force aircraft, F / A-18 - two MiG-21 fighters, or F-7 (with in this air battle with the Iraqi MiG-25P, one Hornit was lost), and the F-14 and A-10A destroyed one Iraqi helicopter each. The F / A-18 has two victories and one defeat (from the Iraqi MiG-25 fighter).
Comparative dimensions of the production aircraft F / A- 18C (left) and the prospective F / A- 18E (to the right of the center line)
Despite small differences in terms of reliability, survivability and combat readiness, both aircraft are approximately equal.
The flight characteristics of the F-16 fighter are superior to those of the F/A-18 in almost all modes. Even with a standard EW container on an external sling, the F-16 has an advantage over the F/A-18. The F-16 aircraft has a long range for strike operations and demonstrates excellent capabilities for conducting maneuverable air combat. The statement about the longer combat flight duration of the F-I6 aircraft compared to the F / A-I8 fighter is doubtful, since the code contradicts the information on the combat capabilities of the exterminators contained in other sources. At one time, the US Air Force preferred the YF-16 prototype aircraft to the YF-17 aircraft due to its high maneuverability and better acceleration characteristics. The weighting of the F / A-18 design, due to the "deck" purpose of the aircraft, further increased the difference between the fighters. The F-16 accelerates and turns faster than the F/A-18. In addition, he can patrol and conduct air combat for a longer time. During joint flights with the F-16, the F / A-18 aircraft had to carry the PTB in order to have range characteristics commensurate with those of the "clean" F-16.
For the same allocated amount, the Air Force can purchase and operate three F-16s or two F/A-18s. Maintenance and operation of the F / A-18 fighter costs 30-40% more than the F-16, with the main share of the costs falling on the engines of the F / A-18 aircraft, the life cycle of which is 43% more expensive.
McDonnell-Douglas claims that "choosy" buyers chose the F/A-I8 because they "saw the advantage of a twin-engine design." The F/A-18 aircraft has been delivered to seven countries. In each case, it turned out that the real value of the contract was higher than originally agreed. Therefore, Switzerland and Finland have reduced the number of purchased aircraft. South Korea changed its mind and chose the F-16 fighter, while other countries were forced to seek additional funds. No country has reordered the F/A-18, while of the 17 countries that have purchased F-16s, 11 have reordered the fighter and seven have done so twice or more.
Among the important problematic issues that require priority consideration by the scientific community and the adoption of appropriate decisions, first of all, is the rationale for the rational appearance of aviation branches (operational-tactical, long-range, military transport, army). This is especially relevant for the period up to 2025, that is, for the period of the next SAP and beyond.
Detailed scientific analysis should be subjected not only to the generalized quantitative and qualitative characteristics of each individual aviation complex, achievable in the considered perspective, but also to possible options for shaping the appearance of each complex, taking into account its place in the system of military development as a whole, in the implementation of long-term state policy in all its aspects (economics, geopolitics). Let us highlight the key problematic issues: the appearance of a promising light fighter and its place in the front-line aviation (PAK FA), the appearance of a promising long-range aviation complex (PAK DA), taking into account the development of the entire fleet of heavy aircraft, including naval aviation, the role and place of a promising attack aircraft, taking into account the rapid development of high-speed helicopters and fire systems, the concept of a promising UAV subsystem and its place in the system military aviation.
Task Analysis
To determine the appearance of a promising light fighter, the most important term is "dimension". The current regulatory and technical documents do not provide for the classification of combat aircraft by weight. However, its absence significantly complicates the conduct of various kinds of research, the organization of design work, the adoption of important decisions that have national and even international level. An integrated approach to the justification of a rational fleet of aircraft of various types of aviation required a new approach to the classification of fighter fleet complexes. A thorough analysis of the tasks of fighter aviation in operations and combat operations in various theaters of operations and the cost indicators of groupings led to the conclusion that it is expedient to divide front-line fighters into light and heavy ones. With the leading role of the 30th Central Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense, TTTs were justified for each of the selected classes of fighters, in accordance with which the tasks of gaining air supremacy were assigned to the light fighter, mainly by covering the troops and objects of the front, and the heavy fighter was to provide cover for the Air Force strike groups over enemy territory to the entire depth of operations and the solution of air defense tasks.
“With the normal development of the situation in the world and the state of the economy, the total fleet of front-line fighters of our country should be about a thousand aircraft”
With this concept, a light fighter should have been used mainly in conditions of information support from the ground and have an appropriate range of action, and a heavy fighter should have operated outside the field of ground-based information and control systems. In full accordance with the specified conceptual provisions, the requirements for on-board equipment and the composition of the means of destruction of aviation systems were formed. The numerical composition of each class of fighters in the general grouping of front-line fighters had a ratio of 1:2, that is, about 1/3 of heavy fighters and 2/3 of light ones.
The classification of the fourth-generation fighter fleet adopted in our country had an analogue in the form of American F-15 and F-16 fighters, although the F-16А airborne armament did not initially include medium-range air-to-air guided missiles (UR) and, therefore, did not long-range air combat was ensured, and the maneuvering characteristics of the aircraft did not allow close maneuverable combat. At the same time, the composition of air-to-surface weapons included a very wide range. As a result, the F-16А, according to our classification, was more related to fighter-bombers.
Of the foreign fifth-generation fighters, the F-22 rightfully belongs to the heavy ones at present. The F-35 aircraft, which is being developed to replace the F-16, has several modification options and can be considered with great care as a light fighter. The foregoing carries a very noticeable semantic load in comparative assessments various options aviation complexes. So, for example, our fifth-generation fighter PAK FA can be compared with its foreign analogue F-22, not F-35.
About definitions
The lack of a unified approach to the concept of dimension makes it much more difficult to obtain adequate estimates of the consumer properties of AK both in the domestic and foreign markets. The transition to the analysis of the historical aspects of the dimensions of the modern fighter fleet requires consideration of the terms (concepts) "multifunctional aviation complex" (MFAC), "fifth generation AK" and "AK dimension". In the military encyclopedic dictionary the following definition of the AIAC is given: an aircraft capable of solving several tasks that differ from each other - defeating ground (surface) targets, conducting air combat and air reconnaissance.
As can be seen from the definition, the concept of "MFAK" refers only to aircraft without a pilot (crew). This is very important, because it is difficult to imagine a pilot of even a very high class who is able to conduct modern highly maneuverable air combat with equal success, and even as part of a tactical group, and at the same time possess the skills of searching, detecting a target, anti-aircraft maneuvering, aiming and striking at camouflaged targets from application aircraft guns, short-range, medium-range and long-range unguided missiles, aerial bombs, one-time bomb cassettes.
Unambiguously agreeing with the definition of the MFAK given in the dictionary, we can immediately state the fact that the vast majority of front-line (tactical) fighters developed in the world were created as multifunctional, and the development of highly specialized ones was practically not carried out. The main reasons for this were, on the one hand, a fairly broad generality of requirements for the characteristics of strength, thrust-to-weight ratio, general-purpose on-board equipment and the desire to reduce the cost of creating an AK of a given class that solves a wide range of tasks, on the other. So, for example, the on-board equipment of all modern developed or modernized MFAKs incorporates a multifunctional radar and an optoelectronic surveillance and sighting system, which usually includes a television system, a laser rangefinder-target designator and a laser spot direction finder, which ensure the use of AK as for air targets , and on ground (surface) objects. The armament of the MFAK is close in composition and differs, as a rule, only in the number of aircraft weapons of destruction (ASP) and their total mass. The armament complex usually includes short and medium-range air-to-air missiles, general-purpose air-to-surface missiles, air-to-ship and air-to-radar missiles, as well as aerial bombs, including number and adjustable. Equipping the AK with means of electronic warfare (EW) and communications is also common.
The term "fifth generation fighter" appeared in the mid-90s and most likely in connection with the deployment of work on a new generation of avionics equipment (avionics) of fighters, including such as the F-22, F-35, PAK FA. Today, a fifth-generation fighter is most often understood as an aircraft that combines the implementation of Stealth technology, supersonic cruising speed and super-maneuverability, as well as an integral structure of modular-type avionics with an open architecture, involving the integration (merging) of data from various sensors and being an element of a global information and combat system.
The term "dimension" is commonly understood as the normal take-off weight of the aircraft, that is, the weight at which the requirements of its basic performance characteristics are met. As additional indicators of dimension, the mass of an empty aircraft and the mass of the combat load are often used. In the works of the 30th Central Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense, carried out in the late 60s - early 70s, it was proposed to conditionally divide all combat aircraft according to the normal takeoff weight (G 0) into four groups: ultralight (G 0 ≤ 10 tons), light (from 10 to 17.5), medium (from 17.5 to 23) and severe (more than 23).
The indicated approach to the weight classification of combat aircraft of front-line (tactical) aviation by mass is, on the whole, mechanistic in nature. It is based on the consideration of the entire set of aircraft for various purposes (fighters, attack aircraft, attack aircraft, trainers) built in different countries in different time. This, in particular, can explain the wide range of dimension changes in each weight class. Considering this issue in relation to a specific fighter fleet requires taking into account a number of important additional factors. The latter primarily include the target orientation of the analysis and consideration of world trends in the development of the combat capabilities of promising MFAKs of one or another weight class.
From these positions, the ultralight class should be excluded from further consideration, since it primarily includes combat AKs created on the basis of training aircraft, and they can hardly be considered promising fighters, even taking into account the fact that they are capable of close air combat. With a reduction in the mass of a fighter less than ten tons, it is impossible to achieve a level of efficiency that allows it to withstand potential opponents in air battles. From the same positions, it is quite acceptable to combine the middle and heavy classes into one heavy class. In favor of such an association is the absence of fundamental differences among the middle class, which determine their separation into an independent class. So, for example, they practically do not differ in maneuverability, and in terms of flight range and composition of weapons, a heavy fighter, as a rule, surpasses an average one.
The analysis carried out indicates the admissibility of applying the following classification, which has been established for the fourth generation when determining the dimensions of promising combat fighters. Light class - normal takeoff weight up to 18 tons (Mirage-2000, Rafal, F-16C, EE 2000, F-35A, Russian versions of the MiG-29). Heavy - normal takeoff weight over 18 tons (Tornado, F / A-18C / D, F-35C, F-15, E / I, F-14D, F-22, Russian versions of the MiG-31, Su-27 and Su-30). The proposed distinction takes into account the most important factors in terms of areas of combat use, zones, tasks and information support conditions and allows us to emphasize the need to consider a two-component fleet of front-line fighters both from the standpoint of the country's needs and from the standpoint of the place of our combat vehicles in the world market, taking into account the reality of the existence of fifth-generation fighters .
Offers
Let's go back to a reasonable two-component fleet of fighters and a ratio of heavy to light 1:2. Military expediency is determined by the real needs in the fleet (number) of consumers and maintenance costs.
If we confine ourselves to system-wide considerations, then hardly anyone will object to the assertion that the total fleet of our country's front-line fighters should be about a thousand aircraft (with the normal development of the situation in the world and the state of the country's economy). At the same time, about three hundred aircraft will be assigned to each of the three strategic directions. It seems that this is a very acceptable figure for approximate calculations. And if we take into account that the length of our borders is over 60 thousand kilometers, then 60 fighters per thousand kilometers is a very modest figure.
A thousand fighters in the Russian Air Force can be considered the minimum necessary (expedient) also for reasons of internal needs. This refers to the maintenance of trained flight and technical personnel, maintenance educational institutions, ensuring the continuous flow of personnel to combat units, maintaining the entire infrastructure of combat training and comprehensive support.
Of considerable interest is the analysis of the results of a comparative assessment of the effectiveness of various types of foreign-made fighters in solving one of the most important tasks - the destruction of the air defense system of a potential enemy. Estimates were obtained by IABG (Germany) and DRA (Great Britain) on the basis of simulation modeling, air combat effectiveness assessments were carried out by the RAND Corporation (USA). The main (complex) indicator of effectiveness was the cost of the aircraft fleet capable of solving the task, which is the product of the cost of the basic version of the considered carriers and their combat equipment without the cost of logistics, training of flight personnel, and the required number of aircraft to destroy the enemy's air defense system.
The results obtained quite convincingly confirm the fact that a light fighter of the "Rafale", "Eurofighter" type, which has a high combat effectiveness, can rightfully take its rightful place in any grouping.
From the standpoint of military expediency, the rational ratio of light and heavy fighters is unlikely to change significantly in comparison with the figures relating to the fourth generation, and if they are possible, then only in the direction of light ones. Two provisions speak in favor of such a hypothesis. First, based on the provisions of our Military Doctrine, there is no need to escort large masses of bomber aircraft to a depth of up to 2,000 kilometers in conditions of powerful enemy air defense. We are not going to fight simultaneously with the whole world. Secondly, air cover for troops from an air enemy in the border areas with the help of long-range fighters from the depths of their territory has never been and will not be rational both in terms of flight time and fuel consumption, and in terms of organizing combat operations and control active forces aviation.
One of the most complex and responsible tasks in the field of air defense - the interaction of ground and air forces - must be carried out in each specific direction by a clearly oriented composition of forces. At present, even the thinned network of airfields in our country makes it possible to successfully solve the problem of basing the required number of light fighters on the main directions. Where this problem is acute (Arctic regions), heavy fighters should really play the leading role - today it is the MiG-31, in the future - the PAK FA.
From the standpoint of the economy (reducing the cost of creating and maintaining a fleet of light and heavy fighters), the arguments are again only in favor of a light one. Estimates of the cost of one kilogram of modern Su-27 and MiG-29 fighters are known - from 3.5 to 4.5 thousand dollars, F-22 - 10 thousand US dollars. It seems that our PAK FA has no less these figures, therefore, for simplicity of reasoning, we will take as a basis 10 thousand dollars per kilogram of the mass of an equipped fighter aircraft with a full range of weapons. Then we get very simple, but very convincing indicators. The cost of purchasing a fleet of a thousand heavy fighters, with an average weight of 25-30 tons, will average $275 billion, for light ones with an average weight of 17-18 tons - an average of $175 billion, and a mixed fleet purchase in a ratio of 1:2 - $210 billion. Thus, the savings on purchase alone is $65 billion, or 30 percent. Considering the fact that one hour of flight of a heavy fighter today costs one and a half times more than a light one, and the average flying time of a second-class pilot cannot be less than 130-150 hours per year, it is quite understandable that the cost of an annual operation of an AK is also proportional to the weight of the aircraft. Savings due to the operation of a mixed fleet over the life cycle of AK (30 years) - 25-30 percent. In absolute terms, this is a very impressive amount.
In terms of their combat capabilities, the classes of fighters under consideration differ less and less. This is largely facilitated by the rapid pace of miniaturization of electronic equipment of both aircraft and weapons. At the same time, the task of achieving such indicators characterizing a promising fighter as super-maneuverability, supersonic cruising speed and low visibility, is solved with a light fighter at a lower cost than with a heavy one. Suffice it to recall here the problem of the engine.
Analysis of the feasibility of creating a light fighter for the foreign market is also associated primarily with the cost of AK. The vast majority of buyers from relatively small countries (both in terms of territory and economy) are already striving to purchase, first of all, light-class AKs. In the short term, this trend will only intensify. These countries include both our partners in the CIS and other traditional buyers. This is explained by the cost of purchase and operation, as well as military expediency. It is from these positions that our MiGs have become so widespread, and it is from these positions that the main manufacturers of aviation equipment (USA, China, Brazil, South Korea, Turkey) are intensively developing light-class AKs as part of fifth-generation programs.
Today, the proportion of fighters of the two classes in terms of numbers and development costs is 2:1, that is, two heavy ones for one light one. The skew in the development of our fighter aircraft is obvious. The main reason is the obvious disregard for the scientific approach to the formation of important conceptual aspects of the justification of weapons systems of any kind (kind). The period of rapid growth in the number of different kinds of precocious concepts with the simultaneous elimination of the leading role of research organizations of the Moscow Region and the defense industry has ended. It would be right to recall the achievements of domestic military science during the formation of the fourth generation of aviation systems, when decisions on the quantitative and qualitative composition of the fleet of front-line fighters were not only rational, but also unique. Rationality, in particular, consisted in justifying a fleet capable of solving the entire scope of tasks assigned to front-line fighter aircraft, with minimal costs for its creation and maintenance, and uniqueness in fixing two schools of creating effective world-class aviation equipment on a competitive basis.
As a result, today there is hardly a single state in the world that is unfamiliar with our brands - Su and MiG. In fairness, it should be noted that, as a rule, states with a relatively small territory and limited economic opportunities are more familiar with the MiG brand. And this is quite understandable from the standpoint of the expediency of spending on ensuring the country's security, taking into account geopolitical and economic factors. This understanding gave us an invaluable opportunity to be present in dozens of countries around the world. As a rule, the Su brand is more familiar to major states. It makes no sense to compare the importance or value of these world brands, because both of them are our national treasure and should be treasured.
Gennady Mustard,
First Vice-President of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Military Sciences, Professor, Honored Worker of Science and Technology of the Russian Federation
Original 21.02.2018, 08:28
Despite excellent performance, the fate of the latest aircraft is in question
Factory tests of the MiG-35 4++ generation multipurpose light fighter have been completed. Test pilots took part in them, highly appreciating the work of all aircraft systems - on-board radio-electronic equipment, sighting and navigation complex, radar station, engines, defense complex.
“The aircraft allows the use of the entire range of existing and prospective Russian and foreign weapons, including those intended for heavy fighters,” said the general director of the Russian Aircraft Corporation MiG. Ilya Tarasenko.“The MiG-35, in terms of its combat capabilities, the volume and effectiveness of the tasks to be solved, and the price-quality ratio, is today the perfect combat vehicle for operations in conditions of high-intensity armed conflicts.”
The corporation's press release says that the entire fleet of Russian light fighters will be replaced by the MiG-35. However, there is still no final clarity on this issue. This aircraft has a very difficult fate, which was predetermined both by the internal problems of the corporation, and by external ones, often lacking quality. new car no relationship. One thing can be said with complete certainty - the MiG-35 will be supplied to the foreign market in large quantities.
Now RAC MiG aircraft are operated in 33 countries of the world. More than half of them, during the presentation of the MiG-35 at the MAKS-2017 air show, announced their intention to purchase a new fighter. Which, of course, is connected not only with the excellent value for money, but also with the availability of infrastructure for servicing MiGov machines in these countries, as well as with the preparedness of the service personnel and pilots
At the same time, the Russian Ministry of Defense intends to introduce the MiG-35 into the Aerospace Forces with great caution. There is not even a contract, but an agreement of intent to acquire only 30 fighters by 2020. At the same time, the Aerospace Forces and the Navy operate 170 light MiG fighters. At this rate, it will take a very long time to replace them.
The bet was made on heavy fighters of the Sukhoi Design Bureau. Although this is contrary to the basic principle of building fighter aircraft, according to which the number of light aircraft should be twice the number of heavy ones. This is primarily due to two factors. First, light fighters are cheaper. Secondly, it is easier to restore their loss in the course of hostilities.
In order to somehow deal with this disproportion, RAC "MiG" is forced to make not only technical advances, but also act in the advertising field. The announcement of the successful completion of the MiG-35 tests was accompanied by a statement by the Director of the Department of Information Policy and Public Communications Anastasia Kravchenko on the modernization of the aircraft to the level of the fifth generation.
Although it will be quite difficult to do this. First of all, it is unlikely that it will be possible to significantly reduce the visibility of an aircraft without radically changing its airframe. The use of only the most advanced coatings is not enough to transfer the aircraft to the next generation. True, even now the effective scattering area of the MiG-35 is small - less than 1 sq.m. While for "ordinary" fighters this parameter reaches 4-5 sq.m.
Also, the "fives" must have supersonic non-afterburner speed. For what it is necessary to significantly improve the engine. Our engine builders solve this problem not in one year. But the MiG-35 should have no problems with super-maneuverability. Already now he is quite "nimble". At the same time, there is a modification of the engine, almost ready-made, with a deflected thrust vector.
As for the on-board radio-electronic equipment (avionics), there are no particular problems here either. Already, the aircraft uses a radar with an active phased antenna array, which is one of the requirements for fifth-generation aircraft. And the rest of the equipment is already the most modern, not inferior in terms of capabilities to the avionics of the Su-35, and even the Su-57. So, it can be assumed that as a result of modernization, one more will be added to the two plus signs in the generation. And it will be ok. Because the American F-35 also cannot be attributed to the fifth generation fighters.
But in addition to objective assessments of the machine in terms of its performance characteristics, there are also reputational ones. And here the MiG-35 is not doing the best in the best way. The plane took too long to make. Work on the deep modernization of the MiG-29 began at the beginning of the century. And they went at a "torn pace." What was due to both personnel reshuffling in the RAC "MiG", and the financing of the corporation on a residual basis. That is, what remains of the needs of the Sukhoi Design Bureau, which created the first Russian fifth-generation fighter PAK FA, now the Su-57.
That is why the aircraft in 2011 lost a grandiose Indian tender for the purchase of 125 fighters worth several billion dollars. An absolutely raw aircraft was put to the test - with other engines and with a different radar. As a result, it turned out that the engines do not provide the declared thrust, and the radar suffers from “myopia”. However, the main reason that the Indians, accustomed to our MiG-29s, suddenly recoiled from the MiG-35 was that not only was it not a production aircraft, but it had not even passed any tests at home. That is, at that time he was an absolutely dark horse, from which it is not known what to expect.
Almost 7 years have passed since the MiG-35 was left out of the Indian tender. During this time, RAC "MiG" and upgraded to a large extent on-board equipment, and pulled up the tactical and technical characteristics of the fighter. As a result, now we are dealing with an almost new aircraft.
As mentioned above, some systems meet the requirements for fifth generation aircraft. Such, for example, is the Zhuk-A radar with AFAR, which makes it possible to detect a fighter at a distance of up to 200 km. The number of targets tracked - 30, fired - 10. The resolution when mapping the terrain - 1 m x 1 m. The radio technical characteristics of the radar were not disclosed. But it can be assumed that it uses a method of operating at different frequencies with reduced energy radiation in order to mask the aircraft.
By the way, the heavy Su-35 fighter, with which the MiG-35 is sometimes illegally compared, uses a radar with a passive antenna array, which is a minus. Because in a radar with AFAR, the antenna is capable of operating in parallel in several modes - detecting air targets, emitting radar signals, communicating with the ground and other aircraft.
In addition to the radar, an optical-location system (OLS) is used. It operates in a passive mode, that is, it does not emit any physical waves by which the fighter could be detected by the enemy. In addition, for the first time in the history of military aviation, the MiG-35 uses not one OLS, but two - forward vision, as well as surveillance of ground targets. At the same time, it must be said that even some heavy modern fighters do not have OLS. For example, the F-22 does not have it.
The fighter's weapons control system includes a helmet-mounted target designator, which allows the pilot to better navigate in difficult situations and make optimal decisions. And again, the F-22 doesn't have that "smart helmet" that the pilots of the elite squadrons equipped with these very best American fighters constantly complain about.
There is a powerful defense system. Communication equipment allows the MiG-35 to be used as a command aircraft, providing targeting for the group's aircraft and otherwise helping the group carry out its combat mission. The avionics has an open architecture, which makes it possible to simplify the connection of new equipment as much as possible without resorting to installation and debugging at the factory. That is, the modernization of the MiG-35 can be carried out directly in combat units.
The fighter uses RD-33MK engines (deep modernization of RD-33), which meets most of the requirements that apply to engines for fifth-generation aircraft. They use plasma ignition, as well as a fully digital control system that optimizes all operating modes and transitions between them. As a result, thrust was increased (up to 9400 kgf in afterburner) and resource, as well as fuel consumption was reduced.
Well, and, finally, about weapons. Due to the miniaturization of avionics and a number of other engineering measures, it was possible to raise the combat load of a light fighter to a quite decent level of 7 tons. The ammunition can include both "cheap" free-falling bombs, and the entire set of modern high-precision missiles - "air-to-air", "air-to-surface", anti-ship, anti-radar. Moreover, the fifth-generation Su-57 fighter is also equipped with many of them.
At the same time, the range of the aircraft has also been significantly increased compared to various modifications of the MiG-29. The combat radius reaches 1000-1100 km. At the same time, the MiG-35 is equipped with an in-flight refueling system.
And one more thing, thanks to which the new development of Migovets can be considered a huge step forward. The cost of operating the MiG-35 has been reduced by 2.5 times compared to the previous aircraft of this Design Bureau.
All this suggests that the MiG-35 has become the best Russian light fighter. Of course, he cannot compete with the Su-57 and even with the Su-35 in terms of the power of the strikes. However, it has its own extremely important tasks, for the solution of which it is irrational to involve heavy aviation equipment.
About the fifth generation fighter Russian media They've been talking for over a year now. The main hero of this hyped topic is the Prospective Aviation Complex of Front-line Aviation, presented in the face of the Sukhoi Design Bureau prototype under the T-50 marking. For more than three years after the first prototype was taken into the air, many critical articles appeared against the PAK FA, both positive and not so. Time will show how the new aircraft will live up to its expectations. However, one significant point deserves special attention. The fact is that the plane of the chief designer of the fighter, Mr. Poghosyan, turned out to be heavy (the normal take-off weight of the aircraft is 26.5 tons). At the same time, the fact that, in addition to a heavy machine, the Russian Air Force also needs easy option fighter of the future.
If we turn to prehistory, then the classification of fighters, conditionally dividing them into “light” and “heavy”, was introduced back in the 70s during the implementation of a two-aircraft fleet of 4th generation fighters. Then it was necessary to delimit the area of operations of the two newly appeared MiG29 and Su27 fighters. The distinction assumed that the "heavy" fighter should provide tasks outside the field of action of ground-based information control systems, and the "light" should be mainly used in conditions of information support from the ground. Thus, the “heavy” fighter was assigned, first of all, the tasks of ensuring the actions of other branches of aviation, and the “light” fighter was assigned the task of covering. Since then, it has been generally accepted that a "light" class fighter assumes a dimension of up to 15 tons, and a "heavy" class - over 22 tons. The situation is approximately the same in the United States, where the main competitors of Soviet aircraft are fourth-generation fighters F-16 and F -15 - were also subdivided into "light" and "heavy", respectively. Each of the aircraft was created for its own tasks, each had its own performance characteristics.
Competition drives progress
To date, the latest modifications of the fourth-generation Soviet fighters MiG-35 and Su-35 still form the basis of light and heavy fighter aviation in Russia. However, as the vector of development of the Russian aviation industry shows, this will not last long. Unfortunately, at the moment the famous RAC "Mig" is in a critical position. After the failure of the Indian tender for the supply of the latest MiG-35s, the aircraft manufacturing company has only one loophole for export - the ship version of the MiG-29K. Contracts for its supply to the Indian Navy have already been signed. It is also possible that RAC "Mig" will carry out the modernization of high-altitude interceptors MiG-31, but this is where the optimism of the legendary Design Bureau, unfortunately, ends.
Over the past 10-15 years, there has been a pronounced tendency to throw RAC "Mig" into the background of history, in connection with which many of its programs were strangled, including the project to create a multifunctional front-line fighter of the fifth generation Mig 1.44., A new jet training aircraft Mig- AT, Mig-110 multi-purpose transport aircraft. Finally, quite recently, RAC "Mig" with its production facilities and personnel lost a tender for the development of an unmanned strike aircraft little-known design bureau Sokol, whose staff is only 100 people. This is despite the fact that the Migovites already had their own developments in this direction in the person of the Skat UAV.
Thus, the desire of the main interest in the fall of the MiG - the managers of the United Aviation Corporation (UAC) and the United Engine Corporation (UEC) - to eliminate all competition in Russia in aviation, and primarily fighter aircraft, is clearly visible. And the absence of competitors, as you know, implies the sole right to dispose of budgetary cash flows. At the same time, for the sake of this goal, they are ready to go for the development of aviation technology together with foreign firms, even if the Russian aviation industry in this cooperation is destined for the role of, say, a metal supplier. A vivid example of this is now the Superjet-100, which consists of more than 70% of imported components. In turn, Zagranitsa is doing everything to push its Russian competitors out of the way of progress.
Meanwhile, there is competition in all developed aviation powers. For example, in the United States, one of the main competitors of the Boeing (produces the F-15) remains the Northrop Grumman (known for its B-2 bomber). But in addition to this, in fighter aviation there are Lockheed Martin, which in recent years has come to the fore with its fighters of the future (F-22 and F-35) and General Dynamics, whose aircraft, the fourth-generation light fighter F-16, still considered one of the most successful in history. And most importantly, in the development of both heavy and light next-generation fighters in the United States, a competition was held in which two competing firms presented their prototypes. Both of the latter were won by Lockheed Martin, first with the F-22, which left the YF-23 prototype (developed by Northrop Grumman jointly with McDonell Douglas) out of work, and then with the F-35, which turned out to be more presentable for the military , how prototype Boeing - X-32.
The same can be said about the PRC, where the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation is also actively working next to the Chengdu Aviation Company (CAC), which is currently developing its heavy fifth-generation J-21 fighter jet. The latter, by the way, not so long ago took to the air its prototype fifth-generation light fighter, known in the media as the J-31.
There are also companies in Europe that compete with each other within the European Union. And if these firms are monopolists within their own countries, then in the foreign market their rivalry becomes real. So, together with the largest French aircraft manufacturing company Avision Dassault, the Eurofighter concern is promoting its aircraft, which, in addition to the European Aerospace Concern, includes the British defense company BAE Systems and the Italian Alenia. It should also be noted that the Swedish SAAB, which also produces very good aircraft.
These examples clearly show that if the state wants to make progress in the development of combat aircraft, including new generation fighters, to participate in the design new technology must have at least two competing firms. At the same time, it is important to note that in Soviet times the presence of two or more design bureaus specializing in fighter subjects, no matter how paradoxical it may sound, created real competition. Designers from different design bureaus went out of their way to create a better machine that fully meets the needs of the military. This competition then played one of the key roles in the development of fighter aviation in our country.
In Russia, the situation is developing in such a way that only one company, UAC, can remain in the aircraft industry. Moreover, the head of the KLA, Mikhail Aslanovich Pogosyan, continues to supervise Sukhoi and, of course, is interested that he has no competitors in any of the segments of military aviation. This is all the more alarming, since the Migovtsy still have an excellent school and good experience in the design and construction of light fighters. At the same time, an analysis of the world history of fighter aviation exports and scenarios for the development of Russian export prospects clearly indicate that if we want to stay on the market, then in addition to a heavy fighter, we need a lighter aircraft designed for our range of tasks.
We need a next generation light fighter
The export of arms plays one of the key roles for the Russian defense industry. In the recent past, in the absence of a state order, largely due to foreign contracts, the Russian military aircraft industry did not completely stand up and was able to maintain at least some potential. However, experts' forecasts about export prospects look far from being the most promising. It turns out that after 2015 Russia will produce only "heavy" class fighters, the demand for which in the world is very limited. Now the Russian segment of the market includes 58 countries (all countries to which Soviet / Russian combat aircraft were supplied). At the same time, about 80% of combat aircraft put on the market belong to the "light" class. This orientation of the aviation market only confirms the relevance of maintaining a two-aircraft fleet of Russian fighters, since otherwise Russia could lose up to 80% of its market segment. Then Russia will cease to exist altogether as a subject of the combat fighter aviation market.
It is also important to consider that our main importers of "heavy" fighters have long gravitated toward developing their own aircraft in order to gain complete independence from foreign suppliers. China is a prime example of this. After all, the presence of its own school of aircraft engineering, which allows the production of high-quality combat aircraft, is identical to the status of a great power.
In retrospect, many years of experience show that it is precisely light fighters (10 to 15 tons on average) that enjoy the greatest success on the world market. Vivid examples of such machines are the same MiG-29, the American F-16, the French Mirage-2000 and Rafal. They are cheaper, consume 
less fuel, they are more difficult to detect, since their effective dispersion area is several times smaller. No wonder the heavy F-15 is in service only with relatively rich countries, such as Japan or Saudi Arabia. In addition, the capabilities of "heavy" class fighters turn out to be excessive for most countries that import combat aircraft, especially for small states pursuing purely defensive goals.
But the most interesting lies in the following. Soviet and world experience shows that a fleet consisting of "light" and "heavy" class fighters, differing in areas of action, compared with a fleet consisting only of "heavy" class fighters, requires more than 20% less costs with the same efficiency. .
There are other important arguments as well. Exists world statistics, which says that in all countries, aircraft carriers with a displacement of 50-60 thousand tons (the size of our Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier) are based on aircraft of the same dimensions as the MiG-29. This is due to the lack of sufficient space for aircraft storage. So the PAK FA, which is even larger in size than the Su-33, which is also considered a large-sized aircraft, will allow you to take on deck no more than 36 cars against 47 for the Su-33. A new-generation light carrier-based aircraft would make it possible to further increase the number of regular aircraft carrier combat units.
Everyone and sundry is now engaged in a light fighter ... except Russia
If we talk about the development of the world market for fighter aircraft in the short term, the picture may look something like the following. The Americans, apparently, will remain on horseback. On the one hand, the F-22 has already been taken out of production due to its exorbitant cost (about $146 million for one basic machine). Even relatively wealthy NATO countries would hardly be able to afford such a luxury in large batches. On the other hand, they have a cheaper F-35. It is on him that the Americans will place their main stake in subsequent years. This aircraft has already been successfully tested and is starting to be delivered. European countries, for example the Netherlands. And although in terms of performance characteristics it clearly falls short of a full-fledged fifth-generation fighter, this aircraft is unique - it can be used as a fighter, bomber and attack aircraft, which will subsequently replace the A-10 Thunderbolt II, F-16, as well as shipborne F / A- 18 Super Hornets. The aircraft can be based on aircraft carriers, has the ability to take off and land vertically. As for the F-22, this aircraft fulfilled its task - it became an excellent laboratory for testing advanced systems that will later be used on next-generation aircraft, the development of which is already underway in the United States.
Meanwhile, all the leading aviation powers in the world are now developing a fifth-generation light fighter. In addition to the Chinese J-31, which was shown to the public for the first time relatively recently, such developments are underway in India, Israel, Brazil, South Korea, Japan and even Turkey. In short, even if the PAK FA can be brought to perfection, there will be no flurry of contracts for it. It is too expensive (more than 100 million dollars for the export version) and not all countries can afford it. But by that time, Pogosyan's fighter will already have competitors in the face of light vehicles - the F-35 and the Chinese J-31. By the way, the F-35 was actually conceived as an export fighter. The Americans plan to supply NATO countries and their allies with up to 3,000 such vehicles.
As a result, now the Americans already have the F-35, and we are just beginning to think about the possible creation of a light version of such a fighter in the future. Moreover, even if a command is given, its development will most likely be carried out at Sukhoi, and not at RAC Mig. And now, according to a number of analysts, the Sukhovtsy have not yet learned how to make light fighters.
But the worst thing is not this. Even new lightweight the fighter will be lifted into the air, pass all the tests and be ready for export, a lot of time will pass (10 years at least), and by that time, in addition to the Americans, Europeans, Chinese, Indians will present their light cars, who will simply divide the market among themselves and Of course, they will do everything not to let anyone in there.
In this regard, there is no explanation for the state's ignoring the need to create a fifth-generation light fighter, despite the presence of more than convincing arguments for the expediency of such a development, primarily in the interests of preserving the part of the market that we own.
Moreover, the development of a cheaper “light” class fighter compared to the PAK FA, research on which has been conducted since the 90s of the last century, is not specified by any document. And this is despite the fact that the results of the studies carried out testify to the expediency of including a "light" class fighter in the RF Air Force weapons system.
Now one thing can be said - the decision taken in the absence of the state's ability to simultaneously finance two R&D projects cannot in any way be considered a reason for revising the concept of the existing two-aircraft fighter fleet. Otherwise, in 10-15 years, and maybe even earlier, no one will need Russia in the fighter aviation market anymore. At the same time, whether PAK FA will be able to live up to expectations and go for export at least to the Indians remains a big question.
Please enable JavaScript to view the
Loading...
