I read a very interesting (for me at least) article in the magazine Aviation and Cosmonautics No. 10 October 2015 “Who will be in the crosshairs.”
In the article, the author compares the combat (almost combat) characteristics of US and Russian fighters (in service with India and Malaysia). Many of the facts presented in the article have been published before, but there are also new items. And so the text itself...
CE-30MKI at RAF Coningsby, Exercise Indradanush 2015
Since the end of the Cold War, international exercises have acquired a new form, and people often take part in them. military equipment, which in case of war may end up on opposite sides of the front line. They are carried out, among other things, so that the combat capabilities of aircraft, information and combat systems, etc. can be compared.
The US Air Force is an indispensable participant in such exercises. For Americans, the latest modifications of Russian-made fighters are of particular interest, and therefore it is no coincidence that joint American-Indian exercises are held, although relations between the United States and India are not allied.
The results of exercises are usually interpreted within fairly broad limits.
At the same time, each side tries to present its participation from the most advantageous side. At the same time, no one can ignore the fact of SuZOMKA’s crushing superiority. Another thing is that this advantage has been demonstrated almost exclusively in close maneuver air battles. The conduct of close rather than long-range missile air battles is determined by the exercise scenarios. None of the participants are eager to reveal the real characteristics of airborne radars and demonstrate the features of their operation in combat mode. However, this limitation It even applies to many exercises conducted by NATO air forces.
Nevertheless, the results of the exercises give a good idea of the capabilities of the fighters and the level of combat training of the pilots. The Indian Air Force can be proud of its pilots. To no less extent, the success of the Indians was ensured by Russian aviation technology. However, one should not delude oneself - Indian Air Force pilots have won numerous conditional victories in close combat, but they still have to fly to close combat... Thus, the MiG-31 crews of the Russian Air Force do not practice close maneuver combat at all, without having any complexes about this.
However, first things first...
The Indian Air Force took part in the first international exercise (after several decades) in 2003. It was the Indo-French Garuda exercise held in India. France was represented by Mirage 2000 fighters, India - Su-30. In June 2005, six Indian Su-ZOKs flew to the French Istres Air Force base to participate in the Garude II exercise. This was the first time in modern Indian history that combat aircraft were transferred to the territory of another state. Exercise Garuda III was held again in 2007 in India. In 2010, the Su-30 visited Istres for the second time; it was a full-fledged Indian version with OVT - Su-ZOMKI. In addition to the French Mirage 2000, Rafale and Indian Su-ZOMKI, F-16s of the Singapore Air Force, IL-78MKI of the Indian Air Force, KS-135 and E-3 of the French Air Force took part in the Garuda IV exercises. The next exercise “Garuda V” took place in the summer of 2014 in India. From France, nine Rafale fighters took part in them, from the Indian Air Force - Su-ZOMKI, MiG-21 and MiG-27, as well as Il-78 and A-50.
The Garuda exercise received widespread press coverage. Broad, but somewhat one-sided: a lot of beautiful photographs, information about the aircraft that were involved in the exercises. Otherwise, the information resembled a sacramental phrase from the times of the unforgettable N.S. Khrushchev: “Hindi Rus' bhai bhai” - Hindus and Russian brothers, with the difference that the French played the role of Russians.
It probably all comes down to the composition of the participants. The Garuda exercise is primarily an Indo-French exercise and Singapore was represented only once - as an “invited guest”. France and India are allies; a strategic partnership agreement was concluded between these two states in 1998. Most likely, for this reason, information about the results of the exercise remains purely internal, even ten years after the Garuda I exercise. A completely different situation has developed regarding the US-Indian exercises.
For the first time, US Air Force and Indian Air Force pilots met during an exercise in February 2004 in Gualior, India.
The exercise was named Sore India 2004. From the US Air Force, six F-15C fighters from the 19th Fighter Squadron of the 3rd Tactical Fighter Wing stationed at El Mendorf Air Force Base (Alaska) took part in the exercises. From the Indian Air Force, the Mirage 2000, MiG-21 Bison, MiG-29, Su-ZOMK/K fighters (without thrust vector deflection system) and MiG-27 fighter-bombers took part in the exercises.
The Sore India 2004 exercise was not comprehensive, but consisted of separate offensive and defensive air battles. The battle scenario generally corresponded to that which the Americans practice in DACT training: one-on-one and group battles of a small number of technically more advanced fighters against a larger number of technically less advanced fighters. Group battles usually involved four F-15Cs against 10-12 Indian Air Force aircraft of the same type.
According to the offensive scenario The Americans intercepted Indian Air Force attack aircraft escorted by fighters.
According to defensive- protected a ground facility from attack by Indian aircraft.
The results of the exercises were quite unexpected for both sides: the Indian pilots, to their surprise, not to mention the Americans, simply defeated the enemy. According to average statistical estimates (although there is probably no more truth about the results of training battles in open sources than about real battles; all interested parties exaggerate or downplay the results), the ratio of conditional losses was 9:1 in favor of the Indian Air Force!
According to the commander of the 3rd Air Force Wing, Colonel Mike Snowgrass, the level of training of the Indian pilots and their aircraft turned out to be much better than expected: “The enemy was not only numerically superior, the Indian Air Force pilots had excellent command of their aircraft and were very well trained in tactical terms . The Indians flew various fighters, including the French Mirage 2000, Russian MiG-27 and MiG-29, but the most effective were the Su-ZOMK and the Russian-upgraded MiG-21.”
IN long-range battles
out of visual visibility, the F-15C and Su-30 detected each other using radar at approximately the same distances, but Indian pilots were more often the first to carry out conditional launches of the R-27 missile launcher and, accordingly, were more likely to win.
In maneuverable combat The Su-30, even in the version without engines with OVT, completely outperformed the F-15C, not least due to its larger fuel reserve, thanks to which the Indians could turn on the afterburners more often than the Americans and for a longer period of time.
If the results of the F-15C battles against the Su-30 were generally expected, then The MiG-21 “Bison” truly surprised the Americans!
In long-range missile battles active jamming devices installed on the Bison disrupted the capture of the Iglov radar.
In close combat The Bison gained an advantage in maneuverability over the F-15C due to its higher angular speed of turning and higher thrust-to-weight ratio.
The Americans knew about the “killer” combination of the helmet-mounted target designation system and the R-73 missile launcher from their experience in combat with the MiG-29, but did not expect to “find” it on the MiG-21. In addition, the Indians in several cases used “semi-silent” interception tactics: the airspace and guidance of the Bison group was carried out by the Su-30 crew, while the MiGs attacked in radio silence, without turning on their radars.
The Americans had to publicly agree with the fact of the successful transformation of a 2nd generation fighter, which is the classic MiG-21, into a 4th generation fighter.
The Americans cited the lack of information support from AWACS aircraft as one of the reasons for their loss at Sora India 2004 - the entire combat tactics of the US Air Force and US Navy aviation are built on providing information support to pilots by the crews of E-3 and E-2 aircraft. At Sora India 2004, the F-15C pilots had to rely only on themselves when searching for targets and assessing the situation in the air, for which they were completely unprepared. The Americans had to draw a disappointing conclusion regarding the radar with AFAR and the AIM-120 missile launcher - both are quite easily taken out of the game the latest tools Electronic warfare (however, the conclusion regarding the radar with AFAR and AIM-120 missiles was made “by calculation”, because the F-15 had conventional radars and “fired” the AIM-7 Sparrow missile).
Here's a completely unexpected conclusion: for a confident victory over the Indian Air Force in Indian airspace, the US Air Force must have one and a half times numerical superiority!
F-16C at the Indian Air Force base Kalaikunda, exercise "Cope India 2005". In the background is a MiG-27UPG.
It is not surprising that the results of the Sore India 2004 exercise were discussed not only in the Pentagon, but also in the US Congress. Congressmen, in light of the not very positive results for the United States, proposed to immediately finance the urgent modernization of the F-22 and F-35 fighters. Then there was a real battle for funding for further serial production of the F-22, and the F-35 program was hanging by a thread. That is why, almost for the only time in their history, the Americans officially acknowledged their inconvenient score in air battles. It is clear that they gave a long list of objective and subjective reasons to explain this indicator.
The Sore India 2004 exercise had an impact on the implementation of US military aviation programs, but the system of combat training for Air Force pilots has certainly not changed! Meanwhile, Colonel Snowgrass, in one of his interviews, spoke specifically about the shortcomings of the training system: “Our training against the “red” aviation is probably not good, since the enemy is better than we expected.... We have always believed in the superiority of our equipment over any other, We believed in a war with an enemy technically inferior to us, and therefore the “aggressors” imitated the corresponding ones.”
The Americans noted the differences in the Indian Air Force pilot training system. While the Americans fought with potential adversaries in exercises, adapting to their tactics, the Indian Air Force focused on its pilots fully mastering all the combat capabilities of their aircraft and imposing their tactics on the enemy.
The Americans made conclusions, but as subsequent events showed, mostly on paper.
In 2005, the second US-Indian exercise Sore India 2005 took place. Conducted in November 2005 in the area of the Kalaikunda airbase, pcs. West Bengal, the two-week exercise by the US Air Force this time involved 12 F-16C Block 50 fighters from the 13th Fighter Squadron of the 35th Fighter Wing stationed in Japan at Misawa Air Base. The Indian Air Force, along with the Mirage 2000, MiG-21 Bison and MiG-27, fielded its most advanced fighter aircraft, Su-ZOMKI, equipped with OVT engines. Another important feature of these exercises was the use of AWACS aircraft by both sides. The US Air Force was represented by one E-ZS from the 961st AWACS squadron.
In preparation for the 2005 exercise, six Indian Air Force pilots completed familiarization training, including flying the F-16, at Misawa Air Base, and two US Air Force pilots were given the opportunity to fly the Su-ZOMKI in India. The result turned out to be almost similar to the results of the 2004 exercises - the Indians beat the Yankees. The Americans made another surprising discovery - Indian Air Force pilots use information coming from AWACS aircraft faster and more efficiently.
In the summer of 2008, the Indian Air Force took part in Exercise Red Flag for the first time. The Indian Air Force command sent six Su-ZOMKIs from the 20th "Lighting" squadron, two Il-78MKI tankers and one Il-76MD transport aircraft of the Indian Air Force to participate in the exercises. Route length 19000 km (!) ran through the countries of the Middle East, the Mediterranean, the Atlantic and a good half of the United States. The flight, of course, was carried out with intermediate stops in Doha (Qatar), Chorlu (Turkey), Mont-de-Marsan (France), Lajes (Azores), Bangor (Maine, USA) and took 11 days. Between each intermediate landing, one refueling was carried out in the air; they flew across the Atlantic with two refuelings.
The Indians arrived at the Mountain Home airbase. Idaho in mid-July. Here, for three weeks, work was carried out to coordinate the procedures for conducting flights that were different in the Indian and US Air Forces. As the commander of the 20th Squadron of the US Air Force, Lieutenant Colonel George Thomas, put it: “In India they fly almost the same as here, but the terminology and jargon for radio communication are completely different.”
The three weeks of preliminary training included more than just radio practice. In addition to Indian Air Force aircraft, F-15C and F-15E from the 85th Test and Evaluation Squadron from Eglin Air Force Base and eight F-16s from the 18th Aggressor Squadron from Alaska flew to Mountain Home. The “testers,” like the Indians, were to take part in the Red Flag exercises, and the “aggressors” were to conduct air battles against the Su-30 and F-15.
Joint training flights of fighter jets of the US Air Force and the Indian Air Force began on July 21. One-on-one and pair-on-pair air combat was practiced. In addition to guests, F-15 fighters from the “home” 366th Fighter Wing took part in these battles. Officially, these air battles were precisely training sessions to agree on flight rules, although in reality they were real training battles. Their results were discussed with much more fervor than the activities of Su-ZOMKA during the subsequent Red Flag exercises. Each last flight of the flight shift, a mixed Indian-American crew flew on one of the Su-ZOMKIs; accordingly, the seat in the rear cockpit of the F-15E was occupied by an Indian Air Force pilot.
A limited contingent of the Indian Air Force flew to Nellis Base on August 9, 2008.
When agreeing on the exercise scenario, the operating modes of the Bars radar installed on the Su-ZOMKI became the subject of heated discussions. The American side, hoping to obtain as much information as possible about the most modern sight of the Russian design, insisted on using combat modes, but the Indians categorically refused to disclose all the operating parameters of the Su-ZOMKI radar. However, the Indians’ agreement to operate the radar in training mode was already progress, since during the 2007 exercises in the UK, the radars of Su-ZOMKI fighters were not turned on at all!
Also, the Indian Air Force command prohibited the use of active and passive jamming means during exercises in the United States, although this ban seriously complicated the lives of pilots. The Su-ZOMKI airborne defense system, in addition to jamming, is capable of “breaking open” the air defense system, which is of great importance for victory in the Red Flag exercises. Another Indian restriction was the refusal to simulate battles using the R-77 missile launcher, an analogue of the American AIM-120 AMRAAM missile launcher.
More than enough speculation can be found on the results of the Red Flag exercise in the media and on the Internet, but official information is practically reduced to zero. The Americans, naturally, tried to get as much information as possible about Su-ZOMKI.
US Air Force spokesman Colonel Terence Fornoff released the following conclusions, obtained from observations of Indian pilots and their equipment:
The Indian Air Force is experiencing problems with Russian-made engines;
- Indian pilots are prone to “fratricide” - a “friendly” plane was shot down;
- the interval between takeoffs in the Indian Air Force is 60 seconds, twice as long as in the Air Forces of many developed countries;
- F-15 is capable of shooting down Su-ZOMKI;
- in close combat, the Indian Air Force does not pose a serious threat to the US Air Force.
The Indian side categorically disagreed with the conclusions voiced by the US Air Force colonel.
- According to the Indian version, Su-ZOMKI during training at Mountain Home not only did not lose a single battle to the “aggressors” of the 18th squadron, not a single “drying” was even close to the F-16’s kill zone in close combat, although several battles ended in vain: the fighters were unable to take the position necessary to guarantee the destruction of the target.
During the Red Flag exercise, several Su-ZOMKIs were conditionally shot down, but mainly tasks to destroy ground targets. However, during the exercises, the “dryers” still took part in several group air battles. In one of these battles, the “blues,” which included Indian Su-ZOMKIs, shot down 21 planes of the “reds” (the majority of victories were won by Indian pilots).
Regarding the so-called engine problems: more than 90% combat readiness of the Su-ZOMKI during the exercises speaks for itself, and do not forget that before the exercises the planes flew around half of the globe! During the exercise, Su-ZOMKI flew 850 hours, which is equivalent to operating six fighters of this type at home (in India) for four months.
- The “destruction” of one’s fighter actually took place, but it is a consequence of the ban on the use of Su-ZOMKI on-board information systems in full and in combat modes- Indian pilots exchanged information exclusively by voice, via radio. In this case, the Indian side could not resist the “hairpin”: "The Americans information systems worked great, but they shot down a few 'friendly' targets."
The Indian side explained the 60-second interval simply. When taking off at 30-second intervals, the likelihood of damage to the engines by objects lifted from the runway by the jet of gases from the engines of the fighter taking off ahead increases. As a rule, such objects leave nicks on the turbine blades. The defect is eliminated during repairs, but repairs of all engines until 2015 were carried out in Russia. While the Indian Air Force was being overhauled, it had to rent (and pay rent for) another engine from the manufacturer, in Russia. Replacement power plant on Su-ZOMKIs located in the USA, it was generally excluded, since Russia categorically prohibited the import of even spare engines into the United States.
Finally, the most intriguing comment from the Indians regarding the fact that the Americans stated that it was not a problem for the F-15 pilots to shoot down the Su-ZOMKI: “We fought with the Raptors - dudes. They were shot down with the first attack, and then they started again. It's like that every time. The F-15 won't be able to do anything at all. ... The angular speed of the Raptor turn is 28 degrees/s; for the Su-ZOMKA this figure, when using a deflected thrust vector, is significantly higher than 35 degrees. As an F-15 pilot, Fornof knows how difficult it is to fight the F-22 in this aircraft. If Su-ZOMKI potentially beats the Raptor like a knife cuts butter, what will it do to the F-15?”
The intrigue of this quote The point is that the Raptors did not seem to take part in the Red Flag 2008 exercise at all.
According to unofficial data, the Americans did not want to show off their newest fighter, both to the Indians and to the French, who first displayed their Rafales at Red Flag. However, battles between the F-22 and the Su-ZOMKI cannot be ruled out either. Thus, the Americans were silent for a long time about the F-22 battle against the Rafale, but when in 2012 the French showed a video with the Raptor in the sight of the Rafale, they were forced to enter into a debate on the topic of who shot down whom and how.
The American fighters did not impress the Indian pilots, but they learned an important lesson from Red Flag about the need to organize an “information battlefield.” Deputy Commander of the Indian Air Force, Air Marshal Nike, noted: “Today we will not be able to hold out for long against a worthy enemy without network-centric means.”
In July 2015, the Indian Air Force once again surprised the West.
Four Su-ZOMKIs (ten aircrews: 15 pilots and five SUV operators) from the 20th squadron of the Indian Air Force flew to the UK at Coningsby airbase to participate in the joint exercise “Indradanush 2015” (“Rainbow”) support aircraft S-17, S-130 and Il-78. The exercises took place from July 20 to July 31. From the British Air Force, Typhoon FGR.4 fighters from No. 3 Squadron RAF took part in the exercise.
IN initial phase The exercises included one-on-one and pair-on-pair air battles. Then - one “Typhoon” against a pair of Su-ZOMKI and vice versa. The culmination was four-on-four, eight-on-eight battles and an air battle between four Su-ZOMKI and six Typhoons, which performed the task of covering two S-130 transports, which, according to the scenario, were to drop a real parachute landing behind the lines of a mock enemy, against ten “aggressors” , in the role of which were “Typhoons”. Flights were carried out twice a day.
In air battles, the Indian Air Force defeated the British with a score of 12:0! Following the US Air Force, it was the Royal Air Force's turn to experience shock. In this case, the situation is even more serious. The Typhoons were flown by pilots who took part in “policing missions” over the Baltic. NATO countries constantly keep their fighters at the airfield in Siauliai, ostensibly to protect the airspace of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. These aircraft regularly take off to intercept and escort any aircraft of the Russian Air Force and Naval Aviation that appear over the Baltic Sea.
During such interceptions, “DACT training” takes place with the participation of Russian Su-27s. DACT winners are not always the cool guys with nicely painted airplanes. For example, there is information that their command did not recommend that NATO pilots approach the peeling-to-the-primer "dryers" from Besovets... In the skies of their native England, the Typhoon pilots had the opportunity to find out what awaits them in the event of a meeting with much more advanced ones than the Su -27 Russian-designed fighters.
The British media, much more objective in comparison with the American ones, especially noted that the Su-ZOMKI and the Typhoon FGR.4 belong to the same generation. Both fighters are equipped with radars with AFAR and IR sighting systems. Their maneuvering characteristics are generally similar - the Typhoon's turning radius is smaller, but the Su-ZOMKI, due to the use of OVT, is faster able to change its position in the horizontal and vertical plane.
Exercise Indradanush 2015 was not the first time Indian Su-ZOMKIs appeared in Europe.
In 2007, Indian fighters took part in joint exercises at Waddington airbase, but then only single air battles were carried out with severe restrictions due to the requirements of the Indian side. In fact, these were pure “dog fights” without the use of radar, medium- and long-range missile launches. In the 2015 exercises, the restrictions were much less stringent, although again mainly close maneuver combat was carried out.
The objectivity of the British SI is objectivity, but the British called the information released by a representative of the Indian Air Force about the score 12:0 “the usual bravado of fighter pilots,” although they recognized Su-ZOMKI terrible weapon in experienced hands. Official Representative The RAF was more reserved: “Our analyzes do not confirm this (Indian) information. RAF pilots and Typhoon aircraft performed well in training exercises with the Indian Air Force. Both sides learned from the exercises useful experience, which will be taken into account in future exercises.”
Not only India
Perhaps the most intriguing recent years became the joint exercise of the US Air Force and Malaysia “Sore Tai-fan 2014”, held in June 2014 in Malaysia. For the first time in history, in head-to-head battles, albeit training ones, the F-22 officially came together on one side, and the Su-ZOMKM and MiG-291\1 on the other.
Aircraft that took part in Sora Tai-fan 2014”: Hornet, MiG-29, SU-30MKM and Hawk of the Malaysian Navy, American F-22 and F-15.
From the Malaysian Air Force, four Su-ZOMKM from the 11th squadron of the Malaysian Air Force, four MIG-29N from the 17th squadron, two F-18Ds from the 18th squadron, four Hawks from the 6th and 15th squadron took part in the exercises. th squadrons, as well as several transport aircraft and helicopters. The US Air Force was represented by six F-22 Raptors from the 19th and 199th squadrons of the 154th Fighter Wing stationed in Hawaii, eight F-15Cs from the 131st Fighter Squadron of the 104th Fighter Wing National Guard(permanent location at Barneys Air Force Base, Massachusetts) and transport aircraft.
According to the exercise scenario combat operations were practiced over the waters of the South China Sea adjacent to the coast of Malaysia. The US and Malaysian air forces alternately acted as attackers and defenders. In one of the training missions, eight F-15Cs were trained to intercept two Malaysian C-130s and one American C-17, which had fighter cover in the form of four Su-ZOMKMs, six F-22s, two MiG-29s and two F-18. As usual, air battles became mandatory in such exercises, which were carried out in one-on-one and pair-on-pair scenarios, as well as a pair of Malaysian Hawks against one US Air Force fighter.
Hokies and Raptor taxi to the start
These exercises aroused great interest in aviation circles around the world, however, none of the parties that took part in Sora Taufan 2014 provided official information about the results of the exercises. However, just a month after the completion of the exercises, “leaks” appeared in the press about the Raptors allegedly “shot down” by the Malaysians. Interestingly, one F-22 was shot down... by a Hawk! It is not difficult to guess which party allowed or deliberately organized the leak of information.
Moreover, even before the completion of the exercises, the Malaysian press published a photograph taken from the cockpit of an American F-15 using a camera mounted on the pilot’s aircraft. The photo shows a MiG-29 attacking an F-22 on a collision course. It can be seen that the F-22 was clearly within the range of the MiG’s cannon. According to the commentary on this photo, the MiG-29 pilot carried out an attack in radio silence mode following guidance from the F-15 pilot - the same one who took the photo.
A short note about the air battle between the Su-ZOMKM and the Raptor was published in the Malaysian magazine Life&Times at the end of July 2014:
***
“Mogwai” (call sign of the Su-ZOMKM pilot) detected the enemy to his right. The planes approached at a speed of about 900 knots (1665 km/h). The fighters missed each other very quickly, but Mogwai instinctively turned the stick towards himself and to the side, putting his huge fighter into a left turn. The overload pressed the pilot into the seat, he craned his neck, trying not to lose sight of the enemy. The silhouette of a US Air Force F-22A Raptor fighter appeared in the sight. The pilot constantly worked with the throttles, all the time “Mogwai” visually recorded the enemy, but with one eye he followed the speed value that was displayed on the HUD. On a turn, Su lost speed and energy, and a “dog fight” always requires constant monitoring of energy.
Two fighters fought a classic battle in a horizontal plane at an altitude of 4600 m above the training ground. “Mogwai” and “Smegs” (SUV operator’s call sign) piloted the Malaysian Air Force’s newest and most advanced multi-role fighter aircraft, the Sukhoi Su-ZOMKM “Super Flanker”. The nozzles of the two Lyulka AL-31FP engines deviated at a crazy angle and Mogwai began to lift the nose of its fighter towards the central part of the Raptor fuselage.
- “Mogwai” saw “Raptor” in front of it, which is also equipped with a thrust vector deflection system, but only in one, vertical, plane. The symbols of “capturing” a stealth aircraft appeared on the HUD. Now “Mogwai” was waiting for a sound signal to be heard in the headphones, allowing the use of weapons, or for the target to be framed by a mark for aimed shooting from a cannon. From the back seat “Smegs” commented on the situation: “Makan dial Makan dia, beb! Lagi! Lagi! Lagil" His work was partly tactical (situation analysis), partly commanding (controlling the actions of the pilot), in addition, "Smegs" provided "Mogwai" with an additional pair of eyes.
In this one-on-one battle, only missile launchers were allowed. short range and guns. The Raptor's armament consisted of an AIM-9M Sidewinder missile launcher and an onboard six-barreled M-61 A Vulcan cannon of 20 mm caliber. "Super Flanker" carried super maneuverable
UR Vympel R-73. In addition, the Su-ZOMKM had a single-barreled 30-mm GSh-301 cannon.
MiG-29 over the F-22 raptor!During exercises in Malaysia.
This was the second fight after takeoff from Malaysian Air Force Base Butterworth. In the first, luck favored the guys from the Sukhoi cockpit. Since there was enough fuel left in the tanks of both fighters after the first battle, the exercise leader allowed another fight...
The situation in an air battle changes quickly, and the advantage of one crew is short-lived. The pilot has only one to two seconds to aim a burst from a cannon.
Just as the Mogwai was about to fire its cannon, the Raptor pilot banked the plane and at the same time raised its nose, performing a high-G maneuver. Clearly visible strands of air turbulence came off the Raptor’s wings. The American turned on the afterburners, and a blue flame burst out of the nozzles of the Pratt & Whitney F-119 engines. He went up almost vertically, like an angel yearning for heaven.
“Rasak! Pacak! Dia rasak, bail,” shouted “Smegs.” "Rasak" means "go up" in Malaysian Air Force pilot jargon. Mogwai was a fraction of a second late. “Raptor” managed to accelerate before “Mogwai” moved the throttles to the “Zone 5” position, turning on the afterburners. But it was impossible to catch up with Raptor.
F-22 and F-15 on exercises in Malaysia
After the flight, Malaysian Air Force pilots shared with Life&Times their impressions of the two-week Sore Taufan exercise: “Objectively, there are no winners or losers in such exercises. It is more important for us to gain new experience. ... They (the exercises) allow us to test the quality of our training and flight organization,” said the Super Flanker pilot. Fighter pilots use energy manoeuvring charts (EM charts) when planning air battles. “We have EM charts for the F-15, but we did not know anything about the Raptor, since such information is classified. Now we have learned something and are able to plan battles taking into account the shortcomings of this fighter,” added the Sukhoi pilot.
The opportunity to go head-to-head with the world's only 5th generation fighter in service has caused excitement among Malaysian Air Force pilots. Many people wanted to test this fighter. Although the results of the exercise are classified, it is known that several Malaysian pilots performed excellently in battles with the Raptor.
While Malaysian Air Force pilots have already encountered F-15s in previous exercises, Sore Taufan 2014 was the first time the Raptors appeared in Southeast Asia.
F-15 and MiG-29 during exercises in Malaysia
Aviation has always excited people's minds, and combat fighters were rightfully considered the crown of its development. Now that the world is once again unsettled, and many politicians are increasingly using the expression “Second Cold War,” it is interesting to compare the arsenals of potential “friends.” The fashionable expression “fifth generation product” first appeared in military aviation. Let's try to figure out what it means.
In fact, the term has been around for many years. For the first time, the military and designers of the USSR and the USA thought about such a fighter at the very beginning of the 1980s. The main features of such an aircraft were the so-called three “Cs”:
- super maneuverability;
- ultra-low visibility;
- supersonic flight.
Phantoms of the Cold War
Programs to create 5th generation fighters started almost simultaneously in the USA and the USSR. It was expected that the fighters would enter service with the air force as early as the 1990s. However Soviet Union collapsed, and in 2000, due to lack of funding, the multirole front-line fighter program (1.42) was frozen and terminated. The only flight model built, “product 1.44,” made only two flights and was mothballed.
In parallel, in the USSR and then in Russia, work was carried out on another experimental aircraft with a forward-swept wing, the S-37 Berkut (according to NATO codification - Firkin). The fighter was planned to be equipped with the most modern systems: an onboard radar with an active phased array antenna (AFAR) with an increased detection range, a rear-view radar, an optical-electronic complex, and a wide range of weapons to perform air interception functions and engage sea and ground targets. The S-37, like the MiG-1.44, was equipped with AL-41F engines. The Berkut program also did not go beyond the prototype, but served as a flying platform for the design of a new 5th generation aircraft.
F-22A fighter
Meanwhile, the United States managed to seriously get ahead of Russian developers. As part of the ATF (Advanced Tactical Fighter) program, by 1990 the first prototypes of new fighters, created on a competitive basis, were already ready. As a result of the tender, in which two pairs of prototypes participated, the winner was the project of the Lockheed company (now Lockheed Martin), which received the designation F-22 Raptor in the series. The contract for the production of engines was concluded with Pratt & Whitney, which developed the F119-PW-100 product.
Initially, it was planned to build nine pre-production single-seat F-22A and two two-seat F-22B (the latter were later abandoned). During flight testing in 1992, a prototype crashed during landing at Edwards Air Force Base. After that, over the course of five years, major changes were made to the design of the fighter. The aircraft in its final form was designed by 1995, in the middle of which the assembly of an experimental aircraft began, which made its first flight on September 7, 1997. Serial production of the Raptors began in 2000, but they began to enter service with the US Air Force only three years later.
Dear and very secret
The F-22 program turned out to be one of the most expensive in aviation history. According to experts, the development and serial production of a significantly reduced number of aircraft (187 instead of the initially planned purchase of 750) amounted to 62 billion dollars, or about 339 million per 1 serial fighter. At the moment, serial production of the aircraft has been completed, and they are in service with 8 air wings of the US Air Force.
F-22A assembly line (currently discontinued)
Today, the F-22A Raptor is the only 5th generation serial fighter in the world that implements the above-mentioned main features of aircraft of this type. In addition, it is characterized by high automation of the processes of piloting, navigation, target detection and weapon use. The aircraft is equipped with an airborne active phased array radar AN/APG-77. The main armament is located in three internal compartments - 6 medium-range air-to-air missiles AIM-120 AMRAAM (from 50 to 100 km) in the central ventral compartment and 2 short-range air-to-air missiles AIM-9 Sidewinder (up to 30 km) in two side compartments.
Launch of the AIM-120 AMRAAM aircraft missile
In addition, the vehicle has four suspension points under the wings, which can be used to accommodate external fuel tanks and aircraft missiles. However, these weapon options dramatically increase the visibility of the aircraft and significantly reduce its maneuverability.
F-22A fighter with open weapons bays
The appearance of the F-22 was formed during the Cold War: its priority task was to gain air superiority. However, fighting ground targets and participating in local conflicts in third world countries were not among the Raptor’s tasks at that time. The use of high-precision JDAM-type ammunition on it began only in 2005. In 2012, the US Air Force received the first modernized F-22 aircraft, which had improved ground-fighting capabilities and was armed with GBU-29 SDB (Small Diameter Bomb) guided bombs. In addition, it is currently not capable of using the latest modifications of air-to-air missiles: short-range AIM-9X Sidewinder and medium-range AIM-120 DAMRAAM (killing range up to 180 km). These types of missiles will be available to arm the F-22 starting in 2015 and 2018, respectively.
Testing the use of short-range aircraft missiles AIM-9X
Training and combat useF-22
Given the secrecy of the technologies used in the F-22 program, the U.S. for a long time did not allow the deployment of fighters outside the country. Only in 2007 did they begin to be based abroad for the first time - on the island of Okinawa (Japan). In 2014, “Japanese” aircraft participated in exercises with the Royal Malaysian Air Force, which included the Russian-made Su-30 MKM 4++ generation multirole fighters (according to NATO codification – Flanker-C). In 2007, fighter jets intercepted for the first time a pair of Russian Tu-95MS strategic bombers (NATO codification: Bear) off the coast of Alaska.
At first they refused to deploy F-22s at American air bases in the Middle East. However, already in 2009, aircraft appeared in the UAE based on AlDhafra. In March 2013, the fighter reportedly intercepted an Iranian F-4 Phantom II, which in turn was attempting to intercept an MQ-1 Predator attack drone flying along the coast. According to press reports, it was only in September 2014 that the United States decided to use F-22s to strike ground positions of Islamic State militants located in Syria. During this raid, fighters used 1,000-foot bombs, guided by GPS signals. However, the US authorities considered the use of such expensive aircraft in the fight against rebels to be inappropriate.
What's in Russia?
As already mentioned, for a number of reasons (primarily due to the collapse of the USSR) in Russia the development of a 5th generation fighter was much slower. However, this made it possible to rethink the goals and objectives of the program, because the 1990s and 2000s were not in vain for the Russian aviation industry. During this period, very successful multifunctional intermediate generation fighters appeared - 4++ Su-30MK (according to NATO codification - Flanker-C) in various versions. They have become export hits around the world and form the backbone of the air forces of India, China, Malaysia, Vietnam, Venezuela, Indonesia and other countries.
Su-35S (according to NATO codification – Flanker-E+)
As it turns out, the key to success in modern aviation is a suitable aerodynamic platform and modern on-board radars coupled with flight and navigation systems, as well as powerful jet engines with all-angle thrust vectoring and a wide range of weapons of all classes. A further development in this direction was the appearance of the Su-35S fighter (according to NATO codification – Flanker-E+), which was created in the interests of the Russian Air Force and should be the main multi-role fighter until the advent of 5th generation production aircraft.
Long-term construction has moved forward
Taking into account the difficult economic conditions, as well as the experience and costs of the United States in creating the F-22, Russia decided to develop a middle-class fighter - in size it was supposed to be between the light MiG-29 (according to NATO codification - Fulcrum) and the heavy Su-27 (according to NATO codification – Flanker). At the same time, the domestic fighter must surpass all Western analogues and provide a variety of combat capabilities. Based on these requirements, in 2001 a tender was announced for the development of a promising front-line aviation complex (PAK FA). The competition was won by the Sukhoi company with the T-50 project.
First flight of the T-50–1. Photo: Sukhoi Holding Holding Company
The construction of prototypes and preparation for serial production were carried out at the aircraft plant in Komsomolsk-on-Amur. The experimental T-50 made its first flight in January 2010. Currently, 5 samples are already being tested. In 2014, state tests of the fighter began at the Ministry of Defense training ground in Akhtubinsk, where, simultaneously with test pilots, the military began mastering the vehicle. According to the Sukhoi company, as part of preliminary tests of the T-50, aerodynamic characteristics, stability and controllability indicators, dynamic strength were assessed, as well as the functioning of the complex of on-board equipment and aircraft systems was tested.
Flight of a pair of T-50s. Photo: Sukhoi Holding Holding Company
T-50 equipment and weapons
Since the summer of 2012, two aircraft have been testing the latest airborne radar system with AFAR, as well as a promising optical-electronic detection system.
A prototype of an airborne radar with AFAR at the MAKS-2009 air show
Aircraft refueling and super-maneuverability mode are already being tested. It is planned to use the new “117” product as the main engine for the T-50, which will have higher performance than the previously created AL-41F engine.
Engine AL-41F1
Unlike the F-22, the Russian fifth-generation fighter will be multi-role from the very beginning. On the T-50, an optical-electronic system will be integrated into the on-board radar, which is still not available on its American counterpart. The T-50 is planned to have a much wider range of weapons. As an air combat weapon, the T-50 will carry several RVV missiles (according to NATO codification - AA-12 Adder) in short, medium and long range modifications. Moreover, the latter is capable of hitting enemy aircraft at a distance of up to 200 km - at least this is reported in promotional materials at MAKS-2013. There are no analogues to it in the world today.
Long-range aviation missile RVV-BD
Air-to-ground missiles that the new fighter could be armed with were also demonstrated at the exhibitions. One of these may be the new Kh-38ME aircraft missile (according to NATO codification - AA-11 Archer). It is designed on a modular basis, which allows the use of different combined guidance systems. The latter may include an inertial system and options for final precision guidance - based on homing heads (laser, thermal imaging, radar type) or satellite navigation. Depending on the modification, the missile is equipped with a high-explosive fragmentation, penetrating or cluster warhead.
It is expected that the first production T-50 fighters will begin to enter service with the Russian Air Force in 2016, and by 2020 their number will increase to 55 units.
Flight of three T-50s during MAKS 2013
T-50vs F-22 Raptor
Although the Russian 5th generation fighter is somewhat late, it may ultimately be significantly superior to its American counterpart. Let's try to summarize the comparison of the two machines.
Value for money
The American aircraft was designed during the Cold War and, as time has shown, turned out to be unclaimed and very expensive. Russia used the gap from the United States wisely - the experience of creating the F-22, its operation and capabilities were assessed. The PAK FA will be a multi-role fighter with a wide range of missions.
Maneuverability
Overly carried away by the desire for stealth, the United States created aircraft that were incapable of super-maneuverability and poorly suited for close combat. The T-50 prototype publicly demonstrates aerobatic maneuvers, and in full configuration with basic all-aspect engines will demonstrate true super-maneuverability.
Dominance in the air and on the ground
The F-22 was planned as an air superiority fighter using only air-to-air missiles at extremely long and medium ranges. Its use as a carrier of precision weapons to destroy ground targets became possible much later. At the same time, the F-22 can use an extremely limited set of weapons with guidance based on GPS signals. The lack of its own optical-electronic system does not allow the use of a wider range of missiles and guided bombs.
The T-50 will immediately have all the capabilities to hit air and ground targets, including such specific ones as enemy air defense radars, while the American HARM anti-radar missile does not fit the dimensions of the F-22’s internal weapons bay. The presence of super-maneuverability modes and effective short-range missiles of the RVV-MD type will give the T-50 an advantage in close maneuver combat. Possession of ultra-long-range RVV-BD missiles will allow the T-50 to hit the enemy at a distance at which he cannot respond.
In conclusion, here is a quote from a person who can hardly be suspected of bias. “The analysis data that I have seen on the PAK FA indicates that the aircraft has a rather complex design, which is at least as good as, and according to some experts, even superior to, American fifth-generation aircraft,” said former US Air Force intelligence chief Gen. Lieutenant Dave Deptula.
Combat aviation in modern warfare occupies one of the leading places.
Using only combat aircraft, modern countries can overthrow regimes, destroy the enemy’s economy and infrastructure, and hinder his ground operations; and the entry of even one aircraft carrier seriously changes the balance of power in the region.
F-22 is the only 5th generation production fighter
But the real ratio of the aviation capabilities of the United States and Russia, despite all the Kremlin’s assurances, shows an incredible lag in both quantitative and qualitative terms.
In terms of technology, Russia lags behind by decades, and in quantitative terms by several times.
"Observer", based on data collected by Flight Global, conducted an analysis real opportunities aviation of the USA and the Russian Federation.
Three times superiority
In terms of the number of combat aircraft, the United States has continued to hold the leading position for many years now. The Pentagon, based on the results of 2015, has 2,785 combat aircraft. The closest competitor is China, which has 1,528 units. They are already followed by Russia, which has 1,438 combat aircraft.
But when assessing Chinese combat aviation, it is necessary to take into account the fact that every fourth Chinese combat aircraft is modified copies of Soviet aircraft from the 50s and 60s. True, their production is still ongoing or was completed several years ago.
In turn, Russia is also at the stage of a critically needed renewal of its aircraft fleet, which were developed in the 70-80s. Now it is partially modernized. Thus, since the beginning of the 2010s, the Kremlin has launched a large-scale program to improve the combat qualities of vehicles by installing new engines, electronics and weapons with new types of missiles.
If we directly compare all US and Russian fighters, the Pentagon has an almost threefold advantage in numbers. But it should be noted that in the United States, almost all fighters have the ability to launch high-precision strikes against ground targets. In Russia, this capability is available only to modified fighters and is mainly assigned to the Su-24 and Su-34 front-line bombers, as well as the Su-25 attack aircraft.
Another critical aspect of the air war remains the increased mobility of US aircraft. The Pentagon not only has a huge number of air bases around the world, but also the largest aircraft carrier fleet, which includes 10 aircraft carriers.
In addition, the US Air Force operates the largest fleet of aerial tankers and airborne early warning aircraft, which significantly enhance aviation capabilities.
Decade gap
The current state of Russian aviation is driven by the chronic lag of the USSR from the United States in the aviation sector. With the collapse of the Soviet country, it only worsened, creating an additional 10-15 year gap in technology between the countries.
Now Russia's fighters at its enterprises are up to generation 4+, the level that American aircraft reached in the 80-90s of the last century. At the same time, the United States was already developing the fifth generation F-22 fighter. Similar developments in Moscow were disrupted by the collapse of the USSR and the deep economic crisis of the 90s. Development was able to resume only in 2002.
During this time, the United States not only began production of its F-22, but also completed its serial production, producing about 200 units.
Its Russian counterpart PAK-FA, designated T-50, is only now undergoing flight tests, which have been ongoing since 2010. And if the Kremlin’s initial plans by 2020 envisaged the creation of 52 T-50 fighters, now the contract has been reduced to 12 units. At the same time, the development itself is divided into two stages - in addition to the economy, problems with the development of a new engine and the lack of new missiles for the T-50 also affected.
“Before 2017, the first stage of creating the T-50 fighter with a transition engine will be completed. Until 2020, the latest standard engine and new weapons will be tested,” said the general director of the Tactical Missile Weapons Corporation, Boris Obnosov, as reported by RIA Novosti.
Things are even worse in Russia with the project of the new PAK-DA strategic bomber, which should replace the honorary veterans of the Tu-95, which made its first flight under Stalin, and the newer Tu-160. But now the Kremlin is trying not to remember this project, which, according to initial plans, was supposed to “get off the ground” in 2020.
As of 2015, it is known from Russian media reports that work is now in the state of “reconstruction and technical re-equipment of the production base” for the production of prototype PAK-DA aircraft. Considering the fate of the T-50, it is quite possible to assume the real time frame for completing the project.
At the same time, judging by the preliminary description, when choosing a preliminary design design, the “flying wing” scheme won. “Due to the huge wingspan and design features, the PAK-DA will not be able to overcome the speed of sound, but will be invisible to radars,” Izvestia wrote, citing a source in the Russian Air Force.
Thus, the PAK-DA will most likely be an analogue of the famous American “stealth” B-2, which made its first flight back in 1989. At the same time, work is already underway in the United States to create new car at its base.
Race of generations
To be fair, it is worth noting that the development of new generation aircraft faces certain difficulties not only in Russia. Even in the United States, the government was forced to reduce purchases of B-2 bombers to 21 units. The cost of one B-2, excluding development costs, reached $1.1 billion. The F-22 fighter costs less, but also an astronomical amount - 150 million, excluding development costs. These aircraft received the status of the most expensive aircraft in their classes throughout the history of aviation.
Even the new American project of the F-35 light fighter, which was created as a cheaper version of the F-22, ran into high costs. At the same time, the developer Lockheed Martin does not disclose the full cost of the aircraft, publishing only data on the cost of the aircraft without an engine. Thus, the basic version of the F-35 without an engine costs $98 million, and the most expensive, with the ability to take off and land vertically, costs $116 million, without an expensive dual propulsion system.
Such limited data, as well as the massive rejection of the F-35 by foreign customers, forced Western journalists to conduct their own research into the cost of the F-35. As a result, they estimate the average price to be $150 million for the base version. And 200-300 million dollars for the most expensive one.
It is worth noting that for $150 million you can buy 3-5 4+ generation F-16 fighters, depending on the configuration. And, as practice shows, the capabilities of the F-16 are quite sufficient to solve most combat missions during modern local wars. And stealth technologies cannot always provide absolute invulnerability; they increase operating costs and impose restrictions on the amount of ammunition.
War 4+
In this situation, aircraft of previous generations remain the main, although not decisive, striking force in both the United States and Russia.
For the United States, this is a huge fleet of F-15, F-16 and F-18 fighters, and A-10 attack aircraft. For Russia - MiG-29/35, Su-27/35 fighters, Su-25 attack aircraft, Su-24 front-line bombers and the Su-34 that replace them. Their main difference, without going into a comparison of missile weapons, is only bringing Russian vehicles to the level of their American counterparts.
The same concept, especially in the light of the vague prospects of the F-35, is followed by NATO countries. Their budgets also do not include astronomical amounts for the purchase of supernova aircraft.
As a result, the current state of aviation is at a stage where technology makes it possible to create more advanced equipment, but the leadership of countries either does not have the money for it or does not see the need for it. At the same time, the United States is in the most advantageous position, retaining the opportunity to respond to the appearance of even the serial Russian fifth-generation fighter T-50 with its modification of the F-22 to the 5+ generation level. And also having a huge infrastructure that allows the Pentagon to use aviation anywhere in the world.
Let us recall that Obozrevatel has prepared a series of materials about the real state of Russia’s nuclear forces.
The creation of this article was provoked by regular disputes and measurements of various “organs” in topics about our aviation. In general, the audience for these discussions can be divided into those who believe that we are hopelessly behind, and those who, on the contrary, are subject to unprecedented enthusiasm and firmly believe that everything is wonderful. The argument basically boils down to the fact that “nothing flies with us, but everything is cool with them.” And vice versa. I decided to highlight several theses around which frequent debates flare up, and give them my assessment.
For those who value their time, I give conclusions at the very beginning:
1) The US Air Force and the Russian Air Force are approximately equal in both quantitative and qualitative terms, with the US having a slight advantage;
2) The trend for the next 5-7 years is to achieve almost complete parity;
3) PR, advertising and psychological warfare - favorite and effective method conduct of US military operations. An enemy who is psychologically defeated (by lack of faith in the power of his weapon, hands, etc.) is already half defeated.
So let's begin.
Is the US Air Force/Navy/Guard the most powerful aircraft in the world?
Yes, this is indeed true. The strength of the US Air Force as of May 2013 was 934 fighters, 96 bombers, 138 attack aircraft, 329 transport aircraft, 216 tankers, 938 training aircraft and 921 other aircraft.
For comparison, the strength of the Russian Air Force as of May 2013 is 738 fighters, 163 bombers, 153 attack aircraft, 372 transport aircraft, 18 tankers, 200 training equipment and 500 other aircraft. As you can see, there is no “monstrous” quantitative superiority.
However, there are nuances, the main one of which is - US aviation is aging, and there is no replacement for it
.
| Name | In operation (total quantity) | Percentage of exploited | Average age (as of 2013) |
| Fighters | |||
| F-22A | 85 (141) | 9,1% | 5-6 years |
| Su-35S | 18 (18) | 2,4% | 0.5 years |
| F-15C | 55 (157) | 5.9% | 28 years old |
| Su-27SM | 307 (406) | 41,6% | 3-4 years |
| F-15D | 13 (28) | 1,4% | 28 years old |
| MiG-29SMT | 255 (555) | 34,6% | 12-13 years old |
| F-16C | 318 (619) | 34% | 21 years old |
| MiG-31BM | 158 (358) | 21,4% | 13-15 years old |
| F-16D | 6 (117) | 0,6% | 21 years old |
| F/A-18 (all mods) | 457 (753) | 48,9% | 12-14 years old |
| F-35 (all mods) | n/a (71) | n/a | 0.5-1 year |
| Total USA | 934 (1886) | ~ 17.1 years | |
| Total RF | 738 (1337) | ~ 10.2 years | |
| Bombers | |||
| B-52H | 44 (53) | 45,8% | 50 years |
| Tu-95MS | 32 (92) | 19,6% | 50 years |
| B-2A | 16 (16) | 16,7% | 17 years old |
| Tu-22M3 | 115 (213) | 70,6% | 25-26 years old |
| B-1B | 36 (54) | 37,5% | 25 years old |
| Tu-160 | 16 (16) | 9,8% | 20-21 years old |
| Total USA | 96 (123) | ~ 34.2 years | |
| Total RF | 163 (321) | ~ 31.9 years | |
| Stormtroopers | |||
| A-10A | 38 (65) | 34,5% | 28 years old |
| A-10C | 72 (129) | 65,5% | 6-7 years |
| Su-25SM | 200 (300) | 100% | 10-11 years |
| Total USA | 110 (194) | ~ 13.4 years | |
| Total RF | 200 (300) | ~ 10-11 years | |
| Attack aircraft | |||
| F-15E | 138 (223) | 100% | 20 years |
| Su-24M | 124 (300) | 81% | 29-30 years old |
| F-111/FB-111 | 0 (84) | 0% | Over 40 years |
| Su-34 | 29 (29) | 19% | 0.5-1 year |
| Total USA | 138 (307) | ~20 years | |
| Total RF | 153 (329) | ~24.4 years | |
| AWACS | |||
| E-3 | 24 (33) | 100% | 32 years old |
| A-50 | 27 (27) | 100% | 27-28 years old |
At the same time, the Russian aviation fleet will be actively modernized over the next 5-7 years . Including through the creation of completely new aircraft. At the moment, contracts for production/modernization have been concluded until 2017 MiG-31BM- 100 units; Su-27SM- 96 units; Su-27SM3- 12 units; Su-35S- 95 units; Su-30SM- 60 units; Su-30M2- 4 units; MiG-29SMT- 34 units; MiG-29K- 24 units; Su-34- 124 units; MiG-35- 24 units; PAK FA- 60 units; IL-476- 100 units; An-124-100M- 42 units; A-50U- 20 units; Tu-95MSM- 20 units; Yak-130- 65 units. By 2020, more than 750 new machines will be put into operation.
To be fair, I note that in 2001 the United States planned to purchase more than 2,400 F-35. However, at the moment, all deadlines have been missed, and the entry into service of the aircraft has been postponed until mid-2015.
We have only a few 4++ aircraft and no 5th generation, but the USA already has hundreds of them?
Su-35
Yes, that's right, the US has 141 in service F-22A. We have Su-35S - 18 pieces. PAK FA - undergoing flight tests. But you need to consider:
a) Airplanes F-22 discontinued
due to 1) high cost (280-300 units. $ versus 85-95 Su-35); 2) they overlooked the issue of the tail unit (it fell apart when overloaded); 3) glitches with the fire control system (fire control system).
b) F-35, with all his PR, very far from 5th generation
. And there are plenty of shortcomings: either the EMDS will fail, or the airframe will not work as it should, or the control system will malfunction.
c) By 2017, the troops will receive: Su-35S - 95 units, PAK FA - 60 units
.
d) Comparing individual aircraft outside the context of their combat use is not correct. Fighting- this is a high-intensity and multimodal mutual destruction, where much depends on the specific topography, weather conditions, luck, training, coordination, morale, etc. Individual combat units do not solve anything. On paper, any ordinary ATGM modern tank will tear, but in battle conditions everything is much more prosaic.
Their 5th generation is many times superior to our PAK FA and Su-35S?
This is a very bold statement.
a) If F-22 And F-35 so cool, why are they: 1) So carefully hidden? 2) Why don’t they allow EPR measurements to be taken? 3) Why aren’t there demonstration dogfights or at least simple comparative maneuvering, like at air shows?
b) If you compare the performance characteristics of our and American aircraft, you can find a lag in our aircraft only in terms of EPR (in Su-35S) and detection range (20-30 km). 20-30 km in range is bullshit for the simple reason that the missiles that we have are superior to the US ones AIM-54, AIM-152AAAM in range by 80-120 km
. I'm talking about RVV DB, KS-172, R-37. So, if the radar F-35 or F-22 have a better range against unobtrusive targets, then how will they shoot down this target? And where is the guarantee that the “contact” will not fly “low”?
c) There is nothing universal in military affairs. An attempt to create a universal aircraft capable of performing the functions of an interceptor, bomber, fighter and attack aircraft leads to the fact that universal becomes synonymous with mediocre
. War recognizes only the best models in their class, tailored to solve specific problems. Therefore, if an attack aircraft, then - Su-25SM, if a front-line bomber, - Su-34, if interceptor, - MiG-31BM, if a fighter, - Su-35S.
G) “America spent $400 billion
in R&D to create the F-35, and $70 billion
for the F-22. Russia spent only $8 billion
to create the T-50. Doesn’t anyone realize that if Russia would spend $400 billion on a research project, they would probably produce an aircraft capable of conquering the world in a second…”(c) War is not a comparison of who has X longer. What is more important is who will have the best X in terms of price/quality ratio.
Does the United States have significant superiority in strategic air forces?
This is wrong. IN combat strength The US Air Force operates 96 strategic bombers: 44 B-52N, 36 B-1B and 16 V-2A. B-2- exclusively subsonic - carries only free-falling bombs from nuclear weapons. B-52N- subsonic and old, like a mammoth. B-1B- is not currently a carrier of nuclear weapons (START-3). Compared to B-1, Tu-160 has a 1.5 times greater take-off weight, 1.3 times greater combat radius, 1.6 times greater speed and a greater load in the internal compartments. By 2025, we plan to commission a new strategic bomber ( PAK YES), which will replace Tu-95 And Tu-160. The United States has extended the service life of its aircraft until 2035.
If we compare their ALCMs ( cruise missiles) with ours, then everything turns out quite interesting. AGM-86 ALCM has a range of 1200-1400 km. Ours X-55- 3000-3500 km, and X-101- 5000-5500 km. Those., Tu-160 can shoot at enemy territory or AUG without entering the affected area, and then calmly leave at supersonic speed (for comparison, the maximum operating time at full thrust with afterburner for the F/A-18 is 10 minutes, for the 160th - 45 minutes ). It also raises deep doubts about their ability to overcome the normal (non-Arab-Yugoslav) air defense system.
Summing up
, I want to note once again that modern air warfare is not about individual battles in the air, but about the work of detection, target designation and suppression systems. And look at the plane (be it F-22 or PAK FA) like a proud, lonely “wolf” in the sky - no need. There are a lot of all sorts of nuances around in the form of air defense, electronic warfare, ground-based RiRTR, weather conditions, flares, LTC and other joys that will not allow the pilot to even reach the target. Therefore, there is no need to compose sagas and sing hymns to single fantastic winged ships that will bring laurels of victory to the feet of those who created them and destroy everyone who dares to “raise a hand” against their creators.
| PAK FA | F-22 | F-35 | Su-35S | |
| Maximum take-off weight, kg | 37 000 | 37 600 | 31 750 | 34 500 |
| 394 | 487 | 606 | 556 | |
| Maximum speed, km/h | 2500 | 2100 | 1900 | 2400 |
| Cruising speed, km/h | 1300-1800 | 1570 | 850 | 850 |
| Range without PTB, with combat load, km | 2700 | 2500 | 2520 | 3000 |
| Joint traction, kgf | 2 at 17,600 | 2 to 15,810 | 1 in 19,500 | 2 per 14,000 |
| Rate of climb, m/s | 230 | n/a | n/a | 280 |
| Maximum operational overload | 10-11 G | 6G | 7.5G | 10G |
| EPR | from 0.005 to 0.3 m² | from 0.0001 (?!) to 0.3—0.4 m² | 0.005 m² | 0.5-2 m² |
| Working ceiling, m | 20 000 | 20 000 | 20 000 | 18 000 |
| up to 10,000 | n/a | up to 7 700 | up to 8,000 |
So, we already know that in the USSR fifth-generation fighters were developed simultaneously with similar developments in the USA, but the collapse of the country prevented the plan from being realized.
Was this work in vain? No. Of course, the aircraft developed in those years did not go into production, but as a result of this work many advantages were obtained.
Firstly, a huge amount of research and design work has been carried out, a huge amount of experience has been accumulated, which has not gone away.
Secondly, not only the Mikoyan and Sukhoi design bureaus were engaged in this work. Research institutes TsAGI, VIAM, CIAM, CIATIM, engine builders, radar developers, and a huge number of other institutes, design bureaus, and factories worked on new aircraft. After all, thousands of subcontractors are involved in the production of the aircraft, and each of them received his own task.
Thirdly, despite the secrecy, Russian specialists followed with interest the progress of the development and testing of the Raptor by the Americans. After all, someone else’s experience, successful or not, teaches competent specialists something, and besides, it becomes clear what exactly your future aircraft must withstand, what you need to strive for so that it is superior to the enemy.
Therefore, when in 1998 the designers again received technical specifications for the development of a fifth-generation fighter (in terms of its requirements, it was not too different from the previous one), they already had ready-made versions of preliminary designs in each design bureau. Without going into details, I will say that the task again included two aircraft - light and heavy, and they also considered options for a “medium” fighter and a vertical version. And again they decided that the MiG-35 could be suitable for the role of the LFI, the vertical version was postponed for the future, and as a result they settled on the Sukhoi Design Bureau with the PAK FA (aka T-50, aka Su-50).
What is he like? Some journalists from the tabloid press say that this is a stupid copy of the American Raptor. I will say right away that this is not at all true. An aerodynamicist can see this immediately, but it is also obvious to anyone interested, especially if you compare the two aircraft in side view: the short Raptor with huge fins, and the flat, long PAK FA. Next, let's look at the differences in more detail.
And if you just think a little: the plane was developed precisely with the goal of being superior to the Raptor, otherwise why would it be needed at all? And this was controlled not only by the domestic Ministry of Defense, but also by the Indian one, since the project was a joint one, and they would not waste such huge money in vain. And since the Raptor’s capabilities have long been known, there was no need to even guess. I will add that Indian representatives put forward very strict requirements for the aircraft, and defended them very stubbornly. They agreed to cooperate only when they familiarized themselves with the project in detail and were convinced of its prospects.
How is it different? There are many interesting features.
Let me say for starters that in the comments to previous articles, as well as in reposts on other sites and in LiveJournal, there are insistent demands to compare the capabilities of the PAK FA and the Raptor, as well as their number, pilot flight hours and other details. It’s as if the United States is already at war with Russia. Guys, I’ll tell you a secret about terrible things: firstly, neither the Raptor will be able to fly to Russia, nor the PAK FA to the USA. And if it comes to a direct collision, then it is necessary to compare not fighters, but strategic missiles and missile defense systems. Although this comparison will again not be liked by US supporters, since even from the ancient “Satan”, whose resource was recently extended, the US still has no protection. “ Star wars“SDI turned out to be fake, and there is neither money nor even brains for European missile defense. Available strategic weapons in the USA is rapidly falling apart: Catastrophic degradation. Pay attention to the comments, competent specialists communicate there, and they are clearly “in the know.”
True, some American journalists had a lot of fun by declaring that the great and terrible F-35 would patrol over Poland and shoot down Russian ballistic missiles, starting somewhere in the Urals, but here one can only envy the thick weed they smoke. How many kilometers are there from Poland to the Urals? What missile is capable of such a range? Will the F-35 lift it? How long will it take her to the Urals? Or chase “Satan” all the way to Washington and fall into the target with her?
Well, how about comparing the capabilities of airplanes? Why not! The only thing that hinders this is secrecy, and therefore do not cling too much to the data: both for the Raptor and for the PAK FA, they were taken, of course, from open sources.
So, the first difference is super-maneuverability. It was preserved despite the strict requirements for stealth, which go against aerodynamics. At the same time, they applied new solutions that are not found either in the Raptor or in other aircraft. This is, for example, the rotating part of the wing swell, that is, the swell plays the role of not only a vortex generator, but also the front horizontal tail. This solution reduces visibility.
The engines are spaced apart (in the Raptor they are side by side). This allows for increased maneuverability, and at the same time frees up more space for internal weapon compartments. The ventral tunnel between them increases lift, and maneuverability is maintained even at high altitudes. At the same time, spaced engines increase survivability in the event of combat damage or engine fire.
Another original solution - the engines are not parallel, but at a slight angle to each other (damn, I once stared at the photos for a long time until I was convinced that this was not an optical illusion. In normal mode, the direction of the jet stream is compensated by an all-angle rotating nozzle, and in In the event of failure or combat damage to one engine, this arrangement allows you to stay in the air more confidently. This photo clearly shows that this is not an optical illusion; at the same time, both the weapon compartments and the rotating part of the wing surge are visible:
The plane has two inclined fins, like the Raptor. But there are also new items here: firstly, they are much smaller in area, which reduces visibility, and secondly, they are all-moving, there are no separate steering wheels. This is also for stealth. In addition, they also play the role of an air brake, that is, they can deviate uncoordinatedly in different directions. A separate brake is no longer needed, which reduces weight.
So that I won’t be caught praising everything we have, I’ll say that there was a puncture in the keels. There are too many new things: they are all-moving and can serve as an air brake, and have a small area, the lack of which is compensated by automation, and are made of carbon fiber (this is lighter in weight and better for stealth), and the way they are installed is quite tricky... As a result, the strength of the keels turned out to be insufficient , and the then Air Force Commander-in-Chief Mikhailov stated that a decision had been made not to strengthen them, but to limit the maximum speed of the PAK FA to 2M (approximately 2125-2400 km/h - it is unknown at what altitude this figure was meant) instead of 2.15M according to the technical specifications and even more - really. I was still surprised then: okay, let’s assume that the military will not trample against their commander-in-chief, although this is not a fact, the designers also don’t really need to resist, but what about the Indians? It seems that they nevertheless resisted: on February 13, 2012, the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Air Force, Colonel General Alexander Zelin, stated that a comparative analysis of the characteristics of the Russian fifth-generation fighter T-50 with the American F-22 and Chinese J-20 shows that the T-50 surpasses foreign analogues in maximum flight speed (both afterburning and non-afterburning), maximum flight range, thrust-to-weight ratio, maximum realizable overload, smaller take-off and mileage, and also looks better than foreign analogues in terms of on-board equipment characteristics.
I will add that the report in the American press that the Raptor reached a speed of 2.6M is not true. With Raptor’s air intakes, which are unregulated in the classical sense, this is impossible in principle; in addition, at such speeds the thermal barrier already begins to noticeably act (the heating of the aircraft from air friction at such a speed is over 300 degrees), and neither aluminum nor carbon fiber will withstand it.
It’s not worth talking about maintainability and, even more so, the price of aircraft.
ENGINES.
The flat nozzle was abandoned in favor of super-maneuverability. At the same time, visibility in the rear hemisphere theoretically becomes worse, but look at shooting the Raptor in a thermal imager: it doesn’t help much, to put it mildly.
The air intakes, like those of the Raptor, are curved in two planes, that is, the engine blades are not visible to locators. According to other sources, they are not too curved, and in front of the blades there will be a special device - a radar blocker. Now the PAK FA flies on one of the modifications of the AL-41F engines. They have less thrust than those that are currently being tested and will be installed regularly, but all the requirements for the fifth generation are met even with them. The new engine will have not only higher thrust, but also better efficiency. Although the efficiency of Russian engines has surpassed American ones, already starting with the pair of Su-27 and F-15. It is difficult to find specific characteristics of fuel consumption, but here are indirect data:
The first value is PAK FA, the second is F-22
normal take-off weight: with 100% fuel: 30610 kg/30206 kg
Fuel weight: 11100 kg/9367 kg
Practical range: 4300 km/2500 km
Of course, fuel consumption is also reduced by better aerodynamics compared to the Raptor, but neither this nor the 1.7-ton larger fuel supply alone will provide such an impressive difference in range.
By the way, many modifications of both this and the new engine are being developed, with improved parameters, reduced weight, etc. All of them are designated differently (AL-41, Type-30, product-117, product-129, product-133, project “Demon”, etc.), and it’s not too easy to understand. Again I remember the heavy sigh in one of the American aviation magazines: “The designation system of the Sukhoi Design Bureau terrifies bourgeois analysts.”
A new feature is a plasma ignition system, which allows you to get rid of oxygen supply when starting the engine even at high altitudes.
The fighter itself can be as good as you like, but without weapons it is worthless. Let's see what the designers have prepared? The set is quite extensive.
For close combat - a 30 mm caliber gun. There are two internal compartments for bombs and missiles, each over 5 meters long. You can “hide” from 6 to 12 bombs or missiles there. In addition, up to six external hardpoints can be installed. Let's look at what the PAK FA can take with it.
But first, a little about the types of rockets. The first missiles were unguided; to launch them, you had to aim using the same sight as for cannons/machine guns. They appeared with us back during the Great Patriotic War, terrifying the Germans no worse than the famous “Katyusha”, but their descendants NURS (unguided rocket) or NAR are still used today, more often on helicopters. Everyone has probably seen launching devices in the form of cylinders with several holes for missiles, this is exactly them.
Then airborne locators appeared, or, more precisely, interception and targeting radar stations, and with them radio-controlled missiles. The pilot on the locator screen locks onto the target, approaches it within the missile launch range, the “PR” signal lights up - launch is allowed, we press the trigger, the missile leaves the pylon, but we continue to hold the enemy on the locator screen. At the same time, a narrow radar beam is directed at him, and the missile follows this beam. And only when she gets so close that you can no longer miss, the “Lapel” signal lights up - you can leave. Sometimes this can be dangerous if the target is a loaded bomber or tanker. It can explode so hard that you will be hit by fragments.
They try to defend themselves against such missiles by shooting passive jammers, simple packs of foil tape. In the hope that the radar beam will lose the plane and will follow the ribbons. In response, locators began to sort targets by speed so as not to notice low-speed ones, and take other measures to combat interference.
Next they developed homing missiles. Their thermal homing head (TGSN) senses heat from the enemy's engine. As you get closer, the “ZG” light comes on - the heads are locked, which means that the missiles have seen the target, launched - and you can go away immediately. This is called the “set it and forget it” principle. It’s interesting to smoke near such a rocket and see how the seeker is watching your cigarette. At first it’s somehow not very pleasant to see this
They protect themselves from them by shooting off heat traps; everyone has seen footage on TV of similar “fireworks” flying out of an airplane.
Well, then missiles appeared with a wide variety of guidance methods, including multi-channel ones, which are not so easy to deceive. I won’t explain in detail: it will take up too much space. So:
1. The main weapon is the RVV-BD, a long-range air-to-air missile.
Maximum range launch - 300 km (export version - 200 km), and according to some data, it reaches high-contrast targets even from 400 km. Please note: below all the data is given for export versions of missiles and bombs (the letter “E” in the designation often comes across means export), they are simply easier to find. As you can see, you can do much better for yourself. Warhead weight 60 kg, high-explosive fragmentation. The guidance system is inertial, with radio correction and active radar homing at the final section of the flight path.
Let me remind you that the AIM-120C missile, which the Raptor is armed with, has a launch range of 120 km; in the future it will be modified to accommodate the AIM-120D missile with a launch range of 180 km. True, the Americans have missiles serious problems, their engines suddenly turned out to be unreliable, although before that they worked normally: “Bad luck again! Problems with the AMRAAM rocket engine.” They refuse at low temperatures, and their acceptance has been suspended. Let me remind readers that at an altitude of 10 km the temperature in both summer and winter is approximately minus 56.5 degrees. And since this missile is the main one for all aircraft of the NATO bloc, consider that there is nothing to hit the enemy with... Or rather, there is something, but only at low altitude, not in winter and not in polar latitudes.
The launch range of option “E” is up to 110 km. The mass of the warhead is 22.5 kg, rod-based, multi-cumulative. The guidance system is inertial with radio correction and active radar homing at the final section of the trajectory.
A missile for close-in, highly maneuverable air combat with all-aspect passive infrared guidance (dual-band IGS). Launch range - up to 40 km. The mass of the warhead is 8 kg.
A very interesting rocket. The engine has a controlled thrust vector, and if the pilot captures a target using a helmet-mounted system somewhere on the side by turning his head, then this missile is capable of turning towards the target. IR-guided missile suppressors either blind the guidance heads with a laser or shoot off heat decoys. But this missile will still distinguish a trap from an aircraft due to the difference in ranges, and the laser beam will “turn off” only one “color” of it.
Refers to short-range modular guided missiles. Through the use of various types of guidance systems and various combat equipment, expanded combat capabilities are provided during operations wide range ground targets, as well as surface targets in the coastal zone.
Kh-38MLE - inertial + semi-active laser
Kh-38MAE - inertial + active radar
Kh-38MTE - inertial + thermal imaging
Kh-38MKE - inertial + satellite navigation
The first three types can be equipped with combat equipment with a high-explosive fragmentation or penetrating warhead. Kh-38MKE - cluster warhead
Launch range from 3 to 40 km
5. X-58USHKE.
Anti-radar missile. What is it? We release it at any ground-based locator, and it goes to the target along the beam of the same locator. Moreover, even if the locator is turned off, she will not lose it.
The missile is used both against programmed radar targets and against targets promptly detected by the PAK FA target designation system. The maximum launch range (in the range of carrier altitudes from 200 m to 20 km) is 76 - 245 km. The probability of a missile hitting a circle with a radius of 20 m, in the center of which there is a working radar, is at least 0.8. Warhead - high-explosive, weight 149 kg. The launch mass of the rocket is 650 kg.
Other weapons are also being developed against locators and any other electronics - so-called electromagnetic ammunition, which can be made in the form of a rocket, aerial bomb, grenade for a grenade launcher, artillery shell, etc. The idea is that we release such ammunition at an enemy locator, command post etc., but it does not explode, but briefly emits a powerful electromagnetic pulse (which, although weaker than at the moment of the explosion of an atomic bomb, is sufficient), and within a radius of several tens (or even many hundreds) of meters it “dies” » any electronics - locators, computers, radio stations, control systems, not to mention mobile phones, for example.
Moreover, since in modern weapons is full of electronics, it is much easier to disable it, making this weapon a useless pile of iron, than to destroy enemy equipment brute force explosion. This way you can neutralize planes, tanks, locators, and communications. You can provoke non-contact detonation of mines, missiles, bombs... you can also in peacetime, for example, drive up to some skyscraper in which many financial organizations, as it was in the World Trade Center, on a harmless-looking van, and there is no need to crash planes into it and sacrifice people - just destroy all the computers with databases, and chaos throughout the world is guaranteed...
And although such weapons have long been researched and produced in many countries, they do not like to advertise specific production samples, preferring to talk about the theory of their use. But all this was a lyrical digression; I don’t know whether this will happen at the PAK FA.
6. KAB-500S-E, Adjustable aerial bomb
Weight - 560 kg (including 195 kg - explosive mass). The height of the discharge is from 500 m to 5 km. Targeting accuracy (Equo) is 7 - 12 m. The warhead is high-explosive.
It's probably not full list weapons, they write about 14 different types of weapons, but for now they decided to declassify only this one. However, the X-35 anti-ship missile is also mentioned here and there.
ON-BOARD EQUIPMENT.
Weapons are good, but in order to get them anywhere, you need various and complex aiming devices; the days of a conventional crosshair are long gone. The PAK FA uses the so-called “smart skin”, when all antennas on all sides of the aircraft are combined into a single complex. What is there?
The main part, of course, is the bow AFAR, which has 1522 transceiver modules (Raptor has 1200). Two side-view AFARs. Two AFARs in the wing tips. Two L-band AFARs in the slats. This is the decimeter range (somewhere from 15 to 30 cm), stealth in it is clearly visible, although the accuracy is worse than in the centimeter range. But the main thing is that the pilot is warned, he sees the target, and then there are the problems of the RVV-BD missile, which has enough of its own guidance systems, and when it comes closer to see it, it will become more and more accurate and confident. Raptor does not have such a decimeter radar, and is not expected to do so in the foreseeable future. Of course, it is better to get closer to 120 km - the launch range of the Raptor missile, everything will be much more accurate there: there the Raptor will already be seen by a conventional radar, and, most likely, even by an optical system.
They prefer to remain silent about the rest of the antennas, although there is probably an antenna on the back, because it also appeared on some versions of the Su-27. On it, some of the missiles could be suspended “backwards”. A surprise for the enemy who is catching up with you.
In addition to the N-036 type radar, there is an optical multi-channel all-round viewing system OLS-50, capable of seeing day and night, and even in the ultraviolet range. Her details are also not disclosed.
Of course, there is a helmet-mounted target designation system and much more, but since secrecy in our country is traditionally higher than in the United States, which is good, much of the data is still unknown. Other details are in the video:
Well, no Raptor can fly like that!
