Not so long ago D. Rogozin announced the creation of a new light fighter in Russia. Let's try to figure out how justified this statement is. To begin with, let's define the terminology of what exactly can be understood as a light fighter and what kind of fighters exist in the world. Four classes can be distinguished:
1) Ultralight MiG-21 class. The upper limit, both in weight and in price, for this class can be taken by the Swedish Gripen with the empty weight of the single modification JAS 39 Gripen C at 6800 kg. This machine is equipped with one engine based on the popular GE F404. In addition to it, this class includes:
- Chinese FC-1, aka JF-17, empty weight about 6.5 tons, Russian RD-93 engine, RD-33 version, which is used on MiG-29. A very cheap and rather primitive plane;
- Indian single-engine (GE F404) HAL Tejas, empty weight of about 5.5 tons, which still will not begin to replace the Indian MiG-21. Unlike the previous machine, this is a pretentious project that makes extensive use of composite materials;
- combat variants of the South Korean supersonic UBS T-50 Golden Eagle, empty weight up to 6.5 tons, based on the same GE F404 engine;
- twin-engine F-5E with empty weight of 4, 3 tons. In the past, one of the most popular combat aircraft in the world;
- twin-engine Taiwanese AIDC F-CK-1 with an empty weight of 6.5 tons.
Why is empty weight used? This is a more objective indicator. Most cars have a maximum takeoff weight of about 2 times the empty weight, but there are exceptions both in one direction and in the other direction.
These vehicles are capable of taking 2-2.5 tons of fuel, 4-6 missiles, a number of small-caliber bombs, in general, about 2 tons of combat load (for the F-5E, about a ton), with a full refueling, they reach speeds of up to 1700-2200 km / h with a practical ceiling of 15-16 km and a combat range in the first few hundred kilometers. If the FC-1 and F-5E are essentially export models, which were looked down upon in the country of origin, then all the rest are attempts at their own development by countries that do not even come close to meeting the definition of an "aviation power". They all use imported engines, usually from a heavier fighter.
For comparison: the Yak-130 has an empty weight of 4.6 tons.
2) Light - these are exactly the machines that form the basis of the air force fleet of developed countries. Let's start at the bottom.
- Single-engine Mirage 2000, empty weight 7.5 tons.
- Late versions of the single-engine F-16. Conceived from the experience of the Vietnam War as an analogue of the MiG-21, the most popular 4th generation fighter has noticeably grown fat, the empty later versions are more than 9 tons, and has learned a lot.
- French twin-engine Rafale, empty weight 9, 5 tons.
- Twin-engine Eurofighter Typhoon. Empty weight 11 tons.
- Chinese J-10. One engine from the Su-27. Empty weight 8, 8-9, 8 tons (different data). Actually, this is the basis of the Chinese Air Force.
- The twin-engine F / A-18C / D can now be considered a historical model. Empty weight about 10 tons.
- The single-engine MiG-23 and its derivatives are still found in some places, but this is essentially a museum exhibit. The weight is also about 10 tons.
- MiG-35, 2 engines, 11 tons of empty weight.
Some comparisons can be made. Referring to the specifications of the machines of the Indian tender (so as not to compare machines of different modifications in time) and comparing the thrust-to-weight ratio of empty vehicles, we find that the MiG-35 exceeds the JAS-39 Gripen NG in thrust-to-weight ratio by 16%. At the same time, the MiG-35, although in the form of a prototype, flies, and the Gripen NG exists only on paper.
In general, representatives of this class carry 4-5 tons of fuel and about the same amount of combat load. They have a maximum speed of 2400 km / h and a service ceiling of 17-19 km. Kids do not look good against the background of high school students. Almost the only car that reaches parity in thrust-to-weight ratio with high school students is the very light Tejas.
3) Medium fighters. Anything heavier than 12 tons, but lighter than the Su-27 (16, 3 tons), will be included in this class. The definition is purely formal, many classify these machines as heavy.
- F / A-18E / F Super Hornet. A proportionally larger version of the old hornet. The "hornet" has grown heavier by 30 percent.
- F-15 options.
- The remaining experienced Mirage 4000. Yes, we take 2 engines from the Mirage 2000 and make a bigger plane, weighing 13 tons.
- The first Su-37, Soviet JSF, a well-protected single-engine vehicle with 18 (!) Suspension nodes, a relatively low maximum speed, but high shock capabilities. The project was closed in the 90s.
- F-35. "Penguin" is already known to everyone, and almost everyone scolds. The empty weight of the land version is 13.3 tons, the deck version pulls 15.8 tons. So the claims about its lightness are greatly exaggerated.
- Apparently J-31.
- From attack aircraft Su-17M4, Tornado.
Such cars were purchased mainly by wealthy buyers like Japan, Saudi Arabia. According to flight data, they do not surpass the light class, but carry 6-7 tons of fuel and up to 8 tons of combat load.
4) Really heavy machines. They are all twin-engine.
- Su-27 and its variations, the weight of the Su-35S reaches 19 tons.
- PAK FA, 18.5 tons.
- F-22, 19, 7 tons.
- J-20 is estimated at 17 tons, although who knows them, the Chinese.
- F-14, 19, 8 tons.
- MiG-31, 21, 8 tons.
- MiG 1.44, 18 tons.
Half MiG-29, Chinese FC-1 ultralight fighter with RD-33 engine
Now let's move on to the question of why heavy fighters are needed at all. Their advantage in carrying capacity is obvious. But not everything is so simple. In aviation there is such a concept as the equation of the existence of an aircraft from which it follows that the proportion of each component of an aircraft among machines of the same purpose with the same flight data is the same. That is, if we have an aircraft with a weight of 10 tons, carrying 4 tons of combat load and want to increase this parameter to 5 tons while maintaining flight data, then at the output we will get a new aircraft weighing 12, 5 tons. What does the aircraft consist of in general? Fuselage, wing, engines, payload itself: fuel, cockpit, other equipment like radar or radio station, weapons. Compare the weight of the cockpit for a 6 ton fighter and an 18 ton fighter. The configuration of the pilot does not depend on the type of vehicle, the ejection seat, the controls are similar. It turns out that the weight of the equipment needed by the pilot on both machines will be approximately the same. Cannon GSh-30-1, standard armament of Russian tactical fighters, weight 50 kg. I don't know how much the tape weighs for 150 shells, well, let it be 150 kg. In total, 200 kg for both heavy Su-27 and light MiG-29. In general, airplanes of different weight categories have a significant amount of various equipment, the weight of which does not in any way depend on the weight category of the aircraft; for a heavier aircraft, this is a gain in payload and internal volumes, which can be used in different ways. On the other hand, taking half the power plant from the MiG-29 or F-15, you cannot take half the pilot in half the cockpit, half the cannon, or half of any microprocessor unit. I have to shrink in something. If the kids of the MiG-21 category carry fuel of about 40% of their empty weight, light vehicles about 50%, then the Su-27 carries 57.7%. The Gripen, with its 3,200 km ferry range with a PTB, can only nervously smoke on the sidelines, looking at the Su-27 flying 3,600 km without any additional tanks. The MiG-31 carries even more fuel, due to which it can fly for a long time in afterburner. On a large aircraft, you can install additional equipment and put the co-pilot to serve it, without a serious drop in flight data, as was done on the F-14. The two-seater Su-30 became a bestseller, and the Su-27UB was very popular on long flights with Soviet pilots, the huge machine did not lose much from the additional load. The F-15E is also a two-seater, which is very important for a strike aircraft, for comparison, on the MiG-29UB, the radar had to be removed to accommodate a two-seater cockpit. And you can use the excess fuel for a more powerful engine, which compensates for aerodynamic and other concessions in favor of stealth. For example, the use of a flat nozzle not only increases the rate of cooling of gases from the nozzle, but also eats up a certain amount of thrust at the point of transition of the circular section of the engine into a rectangular one. Well, since we are striving for stealth, then we still need to find a place in the fuselage where to hide the weapons.
The engine thrust also strongly depends on the air density, and in the highlands, especially when the air temperature is 30-40 degrees, the thrust can drop so that the load will have to be seriously limited, for example, the Su-17M4, not small planes, only a couple of FABs were carried in Afghanistan -500, the third bomb was taken only in winter. That is, the reserve of traction and fuel does not pull a pocket.
Of course, not everyone was lucky enough to live in the largest country in the world, and not everyone needs cars that can fly 1000 km with 4-5 tons of missile and bomb load and return back at one internal gas station. So Mirage 4000 died, little France turned out to be cramped for him. And if the need arises, then they get out at the cost of reducing flight data due to outboard / conformal fuel tanks and air refueling.
If we return to Russian conditions, then first of all we need to provide our own air defense, and if strike aviation in the event of a threat of war can be transferred to a threatened direction, then air defense fighters must be ready to take off at any time. Huge spaces in the conditions of a sparse airfield network make relying on heavy machines justified, at least it makes sense to have a lot of them, and it is not a fact that it is more expensive than using mainly light equipment, since the latter will require more. Yes, and a lot of pilots are trained for one built aircraft during his service, each one spends a lot of money even before he sits in the cockpit of the car on which he will serve for the first time. And the notorious attitude - 70% light, 30% heavy - is taken from the ceiling. There were other opinions, for example, 2/3 heavy, but "why should we build more battleships than cruisers." If you look at the history of the Soviet, and then the Russian Air Force over the past 30 years, you can see that contrary to the assertions about the evil Poghosyan, who strangles MiGs and light fighters as a class, the topic of LPI itself did not go further than pictures in the USSR, but MiG 1.44 even made a couple of flights, and statements that the PAK FA will replace the Su-27 and MiG-29 are quite frequent. The C-54/55/56 family did not find support. For the MiG-31, despite the "wrong" origin, a modernization program was developed, which is now being implemented. It seems to me that Poghosyan has nothing to do with it, and the choice of machines for modernization is due to their practical value. The MiG-31 has a powerful avionics complex, the Su-27 has a huge range with a good resource, and the MiG-29 … in 2008, as you know, an aircraft of this type crashed due to the destruction of the tail unit, after studying the entire fleet, only 30% of cars that did not show signs of corrosion, and also the MiG-29 carries only 4300 liters of fuel, which is very small for a car of this dimension. It is characteristic that the MiG-29M's fuel supply increased by 1,500 liters at once, reaching the level of other vehicles of the same class. In conditions of a shortage of everything and everyone, it is quite logical to rely on the most combat-ready, and it is precisely as an interceptor of the MiG-29 of old modifications that it is not of great value.
Whether or not to adopt the next version of the MiG-29, I will not say, because I do not have all the information about the project. But if the machine is noticeably cheaper than the "dryers", then it is worth tightening the air defense of densely populated areas with it. After all, it is not the arctic deserts that need to be protected first of all; a minimal presence will suffice there. The volume of production can fully justify the costs of revision and introduction into production, since the MiG-29K is already being built in series. The MiG-35 will also be able to occupy the empty niche of the MiG-27. The decision should be made on the basis of calculations.
Su-37 is the first to be serious
More interesting is the question with a hypothetical promising LPI. Obviously, it makes sense to develop and introduce into production a new aircraft only if it promises a sharp increase in combat capabilities compared to the modernization of existing models. Any radars with AFAR can be installed on the old modernized aircraft, thereby saving a lot of resources for development and restructuring of production. The PAK FA, in comparison with any modifications of the Su-27, has two serious features that, in principle, are inaccessible to the latter:
1) PAK FA was originally designed for a long supersonic flight, unlike the Su-35, which can only go to supersonic without afterburner in some modes and clearly has the same restrictions on the use of weapons at such speeds as the Su-27. It should be understood that the aircraft flies in different modes, and the PAK FA optimization for supersonic flight may mean that in subsonic modes it does not surpass the Su-35 with the same engines, if not inferior, but the very high flight speed itself already gives an advantage when approaching the enemy. In general, it can be assumed that if there is a lag behind the Su-35 at low speeds, then it is not critical, and will manifest itself only when the battle is dragged out and the energy accumulated earlier is wasted. In addition, achieving a higher speed with the same engine thrust increases the range and capabilities of the aircraft as an interceptor.
2) Implementation of the most important measures to reduce radar signature. It should be borne in mind that the radar range is proportional to the fourth root of the RCS. However, reducing the detection range and especially the capture range of missile seeker missiles by at least several tens of percent is already a great achievement. In combination with the high flight speed and the ability to accommodate rather large ammunition in the internal compartments, low visibility makes the PAK FA an ideal vehicle for first strike and air defense suppression. For air combat, the ammunition placed inside the vehicle, apparently, reaches 8 missiles.
It is logical to expect that the LFI should also seriously surpass the MiG-35 in stealth and dynamic characteristics, but the possibility of achieving this seems questionable. Just because of the size of the car. Indeed, in order to realize stealth, the weapon must be placed somewhere inside the fuselage, and this immediately imposes certain dimensional restrictions on the aircraft. Having made a bomb bay, from the point of view of strength, we add a huge hole to the fuselage, that is, a weakened place, and for the weapon it is necessary to provide mechanisms for its launch. That is, while maintaining the same fuel reserve, the weight of the car will increase slightly, and in the light class it may no longer hold up. The equation of existence suggests that we should look for similar fighters as a guide. Now only F-35 and J-31 can be considered as such. There is little information about the Chinese, it remains to be guided by the F-35. And here we see that the F-35's capabilities for transporting weapons inside are not impressive, 2200 kg, that is, a couple of bombs and 2 missiles for options A and C. For option B, only 1300 kg (you still love "verticals" ?), and the maximum mass of bombs does not exceed 450 kg. Well, or if there are no bombs at all, then you can hang 4 missiles. The question immediately arises, how can such an aircraft be used in a stealth configuration? It is obvious that the first strike bomber, 2, carried the same bombs at one time by the F-117. There are already problems with smaller ammunition, they must be placed somehow, that is, as a front-line bomber, the machine is so-so, as a fighter with 4 short- and medium-range missiles too. The car turns out to be a niche, the F-117, which at one time occupied this niche, built only 59 production copies …
Perhaps the Americans do not envisage the stealth mode as the main one, because in total the F-35A carries 8278 kg of fuel and 8150 kg of missile and bomb load, the maximum take-off weight reaches 31750 kg. For comparison, the F / A-18E with an empty weight of 14.5 tons has a maximum take-off weight of 29.9 tons (specification data for the Indian tender), the 11-ton MiG-35 and Typhoon have a maximum takeoff weight of 23.5 tons, the ratio of the maximum to empty a little more than 2, and the 19-ton Su-35 generally does not pretend to be more than 34, 5 tons of maximum takeoff. The ratio of maximum and take-off weight is close to the F-35 Rafale - 24.5 tons at 9.5 tons of empty weight. Curiously, like the F-35, the Rafale was conceived as a single aircraft. An abnormally large maximum take-off weight does not mean anything good for flight data, either the machine must have increased strength in order not to collapse from overloads, or the requirements for flight data are reduced. On the other hand, for the Su-35, one can see the desire to save weight, in absolute numbers its combat load is already very high. It is not surprising that the overweight "penguin" does not fly very well, turning into an inconspicuous high-tech bomb carrier. The inability to use the area rule adds to the problem, since it is problematic to tighten the fuselage due to the compartment with the weapons. Perhaps it is for this reason that the F-35 cannot surpass the speed of sound without afterburner. If the Americans think that they need a barge, and there a low ESR and smart electronics will help, then we may not be happy with that, and such a small number of missiles on an internal sling is not very impressive. We need a more aircraft for air defense, the Su-34 will perform strike functions in the next 30 years, in addition to it there are heavy bombers, and they even promise to create a PAK DA. In the F-35, you can reduce the fuel reserve, the load on the external sling, and the released internal volume can be used for additional weapons, or the car can be tightened, raising the flight data while maintaining a small stock of missiles. But carrying a lot of weapons and flying well at the same time is unlikely to succeed.
For smaller models, the idea of placing weapons inside should be immediately discarded as hopeless, such an aircraft will no longer be a penguin, but a pregnant cow. Of course, you can try to get by with little blood and not bother with the internal placement of weapons, especially since a container has already been presented for the F / A-18E / F, which, if necessary, allows you to hide part of the ammunition, but then it will be most effective to simply gradually upgrade the existing generation 4 fighters +.
However, in order to build an airplane of a certain dimension, it is necessary to have a suitable power plant. The F-35 uses the F135 engine with a monstrous 19.5 tons of thrust, we have nothing like this. As, by the way, with the Chinese, 2 RD-93 engines are only 16.6 tons of thrust, even the newer RD-33MKV from the MiG-35 will not give out more than 18 tons, but they will weigh more than one F135. Perhaps the J-31 is just an experimental vehicle. You cannot hang more than 60% of its weight on half of the PAK FA power plant, and this is a maximum of 11, i.e., it is impossible to take a ready-made engine, as is often done. But no one will create one more motor in addition to the RD-33, AL-31F and AL-41F families at the existing technological level, the most reasonable thing in the current situation is to bring to mind the second stage engine for the PAK FA and after that design the engine with the desired thrust. And the engine of the second stage will not appear soon. It is unlikely that it should be expected at all before 2025. True, it will be necessary to develop not only the engine, but also all other equipment that cannot be taken from the PAK FA. And then do the work on "installing microcircuits in aluminum." How long can it take? Not a fundamentally new Su-35 made its first flight in 2008, 3 flight prototypes were built, one of which was defeated, despite this, in 2009 a contract was signed for the Su-35, the first 10 aircraft, assembled according to to this contract, they left for the test program, and the first squadron should be expected only in 2014, that is, the technically not the most difficult project required 6 years from the first flight, before appearing in combat units. How much more time will it take to eliminate childhood illnesses, God only knows. With LFI, everything will be much more difficult.
That. The LFI project can very easily eat up years of work by the most qualified engineers and generate something incomprehensible at the output, and it does not pull a full-fledged stealth like the PAK FA, and is too expensive for the mainstream like the MiG-35. In general, for air defense, stealth is not a supercritical characteristic. How are the F-22s and F-35s supposed to be used in aerial combat? Shooting from a long distance, that is, exclusively ambush tactics in the style of the MiG-21 in Vietnam, but no matter how they describe the successes of the MiG-21, it should be admitted that the Phantoms performed the task of driving Vietnam into the Stone Age very successfully. The Vietnamese ambushed them not because it was so effective, but because there were few planes. In general, the success of air defense actions can be measured very simply: if a strike is struck at a protected object, the air defense did not fulfill its task. For example, during the Second World War, the Finnish aviation with its huge number of aces could not prevent the Soviet Air Force from bombarding Finland with bombs, and the air defense of the Third Reich, despite the aces with more than 200 shot down, completely failed its task. Who needs a downed plane when bombed-out cities and factories are blazing on the ground? Obviously, it is impossible to effectively prevent enemy aircraft with shelling from 90 km, most of the missiles simply will not get anywhere, the attackers have sufficient means of protection against such bites. It is necessary not to hit and run, but to attack aggressively, until the attacker, as in the famous song, flies to meet the coffin, or to his base. And the pilot must be prepared for the fact that he will have to fight seriously, and not just shoot from a safe distance. That is, flight data and more rockets with kerosene are much more important. Justifying that instead of an inexpensive MiG-35 or a powerful Su-35, you need a machine with missiles in its belly, which still unmasks itself at the moment of an attack, can be difficult.
Another very important issue is related to the possible volume of production. The Americans plan to build more than 3,000 F-35s, of which about 800 will be spread over the countries participating in the project. The Russian Air Force now has 38 fighter squadrons. This gives a staffing number of 456 vehicles. With a complete replacement with PAK FA and LFI in a ratio of 1: 2, only 300 machines are used for LFI. And with such a volume of production, the savings from the LFI will generally cover the costs of its development? At the same time, we will have weaker air forces. Of course, there are also exports, where LFI should have an advantage over PAK FA due to a lower price. Well, on this occasion I can immediately say: "Good luck!" The largest contracts for the supply of combat aircraft usually amount to several dozen machines. For example, the Typhoon's production volume is only 518 vehicles, of which most of all, as many as 143 units, are intended for Germany. France, having invested a lot of money, developed Rafale, its own need for it about 200 cars, the Indian contract for 126 cars, which can also be canceled, is the only salvation for the French. Countries that could theoretically buy from us a hundred modern fighters in the world can be counted on one hand: India, China, Indonesia. India ordered 3 hundred Su-30s, but in order to acquire a light fighter, it contacted the French, China is trying to do its own thing, Indonesia could have bought it long ago, but apparently it doesn't hurt. Vietnam, with its large population and very serious problems with China, purchased 48 Su-30s, the rest of the buyers took from 6 to 24 aircraft in different configurations. That is, as soon as the Indian market closes, you can forget about the serious export of combat aircraft.
It is interesting that the export of the ultralight category machines is also not brilliant, 50 JF-17s were acquired by Pakistan, the Swedes delivered as many as 44 Gripenes to different countries, however, Switzerland should buy 22 more aircraft, which is typical, according to the Swiss, Rafale and Typhoon performed much better, but the cost outweighed. Now Gripen has won a Brazilian tender for 120 cars, albeit on very interesting terms, first the supply of all the cars, and then only the money, this is in addition to the usual agreements for such contracts to respect the buyer and invest a couple of billions in his industry. The Korean "golden eagle" has managed to sell 24 vehicles to Iraq and 16 vehicles to Indonesia, but these are training options, the combat FA-50, except for South Korea itself, so far no one needs it. Most of the world is simply not able to buy a large batch of combat aircraft, at best it acquires some kind of used junk, or a Chinese F-7, this is a variant of the MiG-21.
In this regard, the persistent desire of individual citizens to make a combat aircraft on the Yak-130 cannot but cause surprise. Such an attempt will lead to an inevitable increase in the weight and size of the machine and will, in fact, lead to the creation of a completely new aircraft. So if we want to create a reincarnation of the MiG-21, then we will not need the Yak-130. But you will need RD-33. But in our Air Force, which learned the Su-27, such a machine will not find a place for itself, and we have already considered the prospects in the world market.
Another idea, to make a light attack aircraft out of the Yak-130, also cannot but cause a smile, especially since we have had a simple subsonic attack aircraft for a long time - the Su-25. The most logical thing would be to reproduce it at a modern technical level. And there is no doubt that conceptually the car will not change. There is little sense in chasing bearded men in the mountains with KABs, you still have to hit the squares, and gliding bombs from a distance of 120 km are unlikely to frighten air defense systems covered by "Tungusks", striking everything that has risen above the radio horizon within a radius of tens or even hundreds of kilometers. So our promising light attack aircraft will still have to fly at low altitudes, with the corresponding requirements for passive protection. And if we try to implement these requirements, not to mention the missile and bomb load, then the resulting machine will grow just up to the size of the Su-25. You can, of course, try to increase the thrust of the engines by 10-15 percent, leave the combat load at the Yak-130 level (a pair of NURS packages or small-caliber bombs), by eliminating the co-pilot's cockpit, expand the avionics, install a gun. And then write funerals for the families of the pilots shot down from the ancient DShK. It is not surprising that our Air Force abandoned such a dubious happiness.
Thus, we can conclude that the feasibility of developing an LFI is currently not obvious due to the difficulties with the implementation in this size class of the key elements of the stealth technology used in the F-22 and PAK FA. And also the lack of a large guaranteed market, which would justify the huge investment in the development of the machine. In addition, there is no suitable engine for LFI and will not appear in the near future.
S-21 KB Sukhoi amazes with the perfection of forms
