Recently, in various Internet publications and discussions, the question has been repeatedly raised: do our videoconferencing systems need the products of the once famous RSK MiG? Of course, we are talking about the MiG-35 / 35D - the letter "D" denotes a two-seat modification of the aircraft.
Indeed, there are strong arguments both for and against serial deliveries of this machine to our armed forces. But before we move on to considering it, let's pay a little attention to the combat potential of the newest MiG.
A bit of history
The MiG-35 / 35D is, in essence, a "dry" and improved modification of the deck-mounted MiG-29K. This may seem strange, since it is usually the "land" machines that are taken for deck-based machines as a prototype, but … not in our case. The fact is that shortly before the collapse of the Union, the MiG Design Bureau was working on the latest modifications of the MiG-29M and M2, as well as their deck counterpart, the MiG-29K. But these aircraft were not destined to go into production, since in order to save money, they were excluded from the state defense order. The situation was saved by the intervention of the Indians, who needed a relatively light deck-based multifunctional fighter: and now, with Indian money, the MiG designers managed to bring the MiG-29K series to the stage, embodying the previously conceived innovations in it. As a result, the carrier-based MiG-29K became at some point the most advanced aircraft of the RSK MiG, and therefore it is completely not surprising that when the Indians thought about re-equipping their air forces with new light fighters, RSK MiG, deciding to participate in the competition, undertook to create a new aircraft based on MiG-29K. So, in fact, the MiG-35 / 35D appeared.
It is worth noting that the MiG-29SMT appeared at about the same time, but this, in fact, was a project to modernize the early modifications of the MiG-29.
I have no doubt that our dear readers have read many times that the MiG-35 / 35D is a 4 ++ generation aircraft, that is, in terms of its combat qualities it is close to the 5th generation of multifunctional fighters. Let's list some of the absolute advantages of this aircraft.
Ability to install radar with AFAR
Contrary to popular belief, such a radar does not give the aircraft carrying it an overwhelming advantage over an enemy equipped with radar systems with a passive phased array, but still, of course, it provides a certain superiority. It lies in the fact that a radar with AFAR is not only a means of detection, tracking and target designation, but also capable of taking part in electronic warfare, the importance of which in modern air combat is difficult to overestimate. In other words, of course, there is no need to perceive an aircraft with a PFAR as a powerless victim of an aircraft with an AFAR of equal (in terms of power) characteristics, but the AFAR certainly gives certain advantages.
Possibility of installing engines with thrust vector controlled in two planes (UHT)
One can argue for a long time about the necessity or uselessness of super-maneuverability on a modern fighter, but hardly anyone will dispute the usefulness of conventional maneuverability in air combat. The bottom line is that the term "super-maneuverability" implies the controllability of the aircraft at supercritical angles of attack, but UHT engines increase maneuverability at "subcritical" angles, and therefore, of course, are useful and necessary.
Open hardware architecture
As you know, before its appearance, numerous aircraft equipment was combined with each other by individual "grinding", and the replacement of any unit entailed the need to redesign the equipment "in contact" with it. In an airplane of open architecture, the interface of various units takes place at the software level, and the replacement of equipment can be likened to an upgrade of a computer from IBM - "plugged" a new piece of hardware into a suitable connector, installed the drivers - and that's it, you can work.
Versatility
The capabilities of the MiG-35 / 35D avionics provide it with the ability to use all available aviation ammunition that this aircraft is capable of lifting into the air, and the presence of a two-seat modification allows the MiG-35D to be effectively used as a strike aircraft.
Range of flight
For a long time this parameter was a real "scourge" of the MiG-29 family, and the point is this. At one time, the designers of the MiG, while designing a light fighter, made it a twin-engine. This, of course, gave the MiG-29 certain advantages in thrust-to-weight ratio, maneuverability, survivability, etc., but, obviously, entailed high fuel consumption, which, by definition, cannot be much on a relatively light aircraft. Thus, a short flight range became the payment for high performance characteristics in battle, and this is an extremely important parameter for a fighter. Although information about the battles of the Su-27 and MiG-29 during the Ethiopian-Erithean war is not absolutely reliable, on the basis of the available data it can be concluded that it was precisely the small fuel supply that led to the defeat of the MiG-29 in the confrontation with its heavier "brothers ". Simply put, the MiG-29s were forced to withdraw from the battle faster, and the Su-27s went astray when trying to return to the airfield. But in the MiG-35 / 35D this drawback was largely leveled: its single-seat version differs from the two-seat one in that an additional fuel tank is placed in the space of the co-pilot's cockpit, increasing the flight range (not the combat radius!) To 3,100 km. For the Su-35, this figure is higher, but not much - 3,600 km.
How was such an outstanding result achieved, because for the MiG-29K (single seat) the flight range does not exceed 2,000 km? Apparently, the increase in the range by one and a half times was the result of a number of measures, the first of which is the lightening of the aircraft structure. The fact is that the MiG-29K, being a carrier-based aircraft, carries certain equipment that is absolutely unnecessary for a land-based fighter, for example, the hook with which the “deck” clings to the air arrestor during landing, as well as folding wings. In addition, the requirements for the strength of the fuselage for deck aircraft are higher, since during takeoff and landing it is subjected to increased load, and it could be weakened without compromising performance, and it is also known about the use of lighter composite materials in the design of the MiG-35. Thus, there is no doubt that the designers of the MiG-35 managed to significantly lighten the aircraft, in comparison with its carrier-based predecessor, and all this, obviously, made it possible to increase the aircraft's fuel reserves. It is also possible that the MiG-35 / 35D fuselage has improved its aerodynamic quality, and the new engines have become more economical - all of this, taken together, has led to such a radical increase in the flight range.
Combat potential
It will be very difficult to determine it relative to other combat aircraft of a similar purpose. If, for example, we compare the MiG-35 with the newest American F-35A, designed to solve similar tasks in the US Air Force, we will see that the domestic aircraft is somewhat inferior, but in some ways superior to its overseas counterpart.
Formally, the combat load of the F-35A is higher - 9,100 kg versus 7,000 kg for the MiG, but the total payload mass, counting as such the difference between the mass of the empty aircraft and the maximum take-off weight, oddly enough, is higher for the MiG-35 - 18,700 against 15 929 kg. This means that in general, the MiG-35 can take more fuel and ammunition than the F-35A. The flight range of the MiG-35 is much higher - 3,100 km versus 2,200 km - in either case, of course, we are talking about the range at high altitude and without PTB. The speed of the MiG-35 also surpasses the "Lightning" - 2,560 km / h versus 1,930 km / h. Cruising speeds are apparently comparable, and for the F-35A and MiG-35 they are subsonic. The performance characteristics of the electronic equipment installed on aircraft are mostly classified, but it can be assumed that the F-35A radar is superior to that of the MiG-35. In addition, the degree of readiness of the Zhuk-A with AFAR is not entirely clear: at least today it has not been installed on any aircraft for the Russian Aerospace Forces. Although there was information that "Phazotron-NIIR" is completely ready for their serial production since 2010. As for the optical-location stations, then one can only guess on the coffee grounds. However, OLS were the traditional trump card of our aircraft, so it should be assumed that the capabilities of the MiG-35 are equal here, and maybe even superior to the F-35A.
It must be said that the MiG-35 designers did a great job in reducing the radar and thermal signature of their aircraft. Nevertheless, it is obvious that, at least in terms of radar stealth, the F-35 has great superiority. In addition, the F-35A has such a significant advantage as an internal compartment for the placement of weapons, which the MiG-35 is completely devoid of.
In general, perhaps we can say that the F-35A, due to its stealth, is superior to the MiG-35 as a means of destroying targets covered by strong air defense. But, on the other hand, the "stealth" F-35A remains only as long as it manages to do without weapons on external suspensions, and the size of the internal weapons compartment is relatively small. At the same time, the strike version of the MiG-35D has a great advantage due to the presence of a second crew member - no one doubts its importance for a strike aircraft today.
At the same time, in aerial combat, the advantage, rather, remains with the MiG-35 / 35D. Of course, the combination of less visibility and (probably!) Greater radar detection range seems to give the F-35A an undeniable advantage. But this is in theory - in practice, taking into account the use of the entire spectrum of modern radars, both ground-based and air-based, taking into account the availability of highly efficient passive radar detection stations in the RF, etc. etc., and without appropriate access to the classified data of the armed forces of the United States and the Russian Federation, it is absolutely impossible to figure out how much the F-35A will benefit from its invisibility in a hypothetical confrontation between the United States and the Russian Federation.
It should never be forgotten that aircraft do not conduct battles in a spherical vacuum - a modern aircraft is nothing more than a part of a general system for detecting, targeting and destroying air, land and sea forces. Such a system has a powerful synergy, as well as the ability to compensate for the shortcomings of its constituent elements at the expense of the merits of others. The MiG-35 has undeniable advantages in comparison with the F-35, associated with good maneuverability, greater speed and range, and the country's air defense system may well be able to enable it to realize these advantages. Note also that the F-35A can realize its merits only as part of a single system - for example, there is little point in talking about the invisibility of the "Lightning" in air combat, if the latter operates in isolation from AWACS and electronic warfare aircraft. For the obvious reason that the included F-35A radar will immediately unmask the American aircraft.
In general, after studying the performance characteristics of aircraft and their on-board equipment, cited in open sources, one gets the impression that the MiG-35 / 35D in the "top" configuration is quite competitive with any foreign aircraft of the 4th generation, including the latest US developments, coming with a prefix "Silent" ("Silent Eagle", "Silent Hornet"), which in the logic of the domestic defense industry would have received the status of aircraft of the "4 ++" generation. If the MiG-35 / 35D is inferior to the aircraft of the F-35 family, then the lag is not fatal, and according to some parameters, the brainchild of the RSK MiG has an advantage over the Molniya.
But, if all this is so, then why is the idea of mass deliveries of the MiG-35 to the Russian Aerospace Forces subject to so many criticism?
Arguments against
Perhaps the first thing that critics of the MiG-35 draw attention to is that the aircraft of the Su family are still superior to the MiG-35 in their combat potential. Which, in general, is not surprising, since a heavy aircraft will always have an advantage over a light one, simply by virtue of the fact that it can accommodate more powerful equipment, and the Su-30SM and Su-35, unlike the MiG-35, are heavy multipurpose fighters.
At the same time, critics of the MiG-35 do not forget about the criterion "cost / efficiency" - many of them say that the worst performance characteristics of the MiG-35 in comparison with the same Su-35 could well be compensated for by the lower price of the MiG. But there is no exact data on the relative cost of the aircraft, and the opponents of the "thirty-fifth" make a completely logical assumption that equipping the MiG-35 / 35D with the latest avionics will make its price comparable to the Su-35. That is, they agree that this price will still be lower, but they believe that it will not be so much lower to compensate for the drop in the combat qualities of the aircraft.
In addition, the need to unify the aircraft fleet of the Russian Aerospace Forces is also mentioned. Today, there is already a large variety of types, the troops are Su-34, Su-30SM, Su-35, Su-57 so on? It is also said that the presence of heavy and light fighters in the Aerospace Forces, for solving generally similar tasks, is conceptually unjustified, and that the logic of the development of the air force requires a transition to a single type of heavy (multifunctional) fighter. And besides, many do not classify the MiG-35 as a subclass of light fighters, considering it an intermediate link between medium and heavy aircraft.
Let's try to figure it all out. And let's start, perhaps, with the mass.
MiG-35 - light or heavy?
Unfortunately, on this issue RSK "MiG" keeps deathly silence: on the official website of the organization in the performance characteristics section of these aircraft there is only a mysterious phrase "Information is being updated." However, in fairness, we note that for other aircraft of the MiG family, the empty weight is usually not given there. But in other publications, alas, confusion and vacillation reign.
The fact is that in some cases for the MiG-35 the mass of an empty aircraft is indicated as 13,500 or even 13,700 kg. However, many other publications say only 11,000 kg. Which one is right? Apparently, the figure is exactly 11,000 kg. So, for example, an article was published on the website of the Russian Aircraft Corporation, in the infographic of which 11 tons are shown.
But where did such a difference in the treatment of mass come from then? Apparently, this was the case. Due to the lack of accurate data on the mass of the empty MiG-35, analysts considered that it should not be less than that of its "progenitor", the MiG-29K, for which a number of publications just indicate 13, 5-13, 7 T.
But this approach is completely wrong. As mentioned above, a carrier-based aircraft with its folding wing (and the necessary mechanization for this), hook, catching the air arrestor, increased requirements for the strength of the fuselage will always be much heavier than its land-based counterpart. It is also interesting that the mass of the empty MiG-29M2 was 11 tons, and the MiG-29SMT - 11.6 tons. lighter composite materials could have been used for the construction of the aircraft, the mass of the MiG-35 at the level of 11,000 kg or so looks quite real.
And what is the mass of 11 tons for a fighter today? This is slightly more than the French "Raphael" (10 tons) and the latest modifications of the American F-16, which weighed up to 9, 6-9, 9 tons, and absolutely the same as the European "Eurofighter Typhoon" (11 tons). But, for example, the F / A-18E / F "Super Hornet" is noticeably heavier - 14.5 tons. Of course, the difference between the MiG-35 and early modifications of the F-15C is relatively small - 11 and 12.7 tons, but after all it's the good old Eagle from 1979. If we take the modern modification of the once best heavy fighter in America, the F-15SE Silent Eagle, which in our rating system should be considered the generation “4 ++”, then the mass of this aircraft (empty) is 14.3 tons, which is 30 % surpasses the MiG-35.
Well, if we take a new line of American 5th generation fighters, then the heavy and empty F-22 weighs 19.7 tons, and the relatively light F-35A - 13 171 kg. In other words, if the author is right in his assumptions, and the weight of the empty MiG-35 is indeed 11 tons, then with which aircraft do not compare, the MiG-35 remains just a light fighter.
Price quality
This is perhaps the key question for the MiG-35. Alas, the author of the article cannot boast of exact figures, but nevertheless there is a somewhat reasonable assumption that here the MiG-35 is doing very well.
The calculations could be based on 2 contracts: concluded with the Indians in 2010 for the supply of 29 MiG-29Ks and concluded with the Chinese for the supply of 24 Su-35s in 2015. In the first case, the contract value was $ 1.5 billion., in the second - $ 2.5 billion. One must understand, of course, that the indicated price included not only airplanes, but also pilot training, spare parts kits, maintenance and much more - but comparing these contracts, we see that one The MiG-29K cost the customer about half the price (51.7 million dollars versus 104.2 million dollars) than the Su-35.
At the same time, one should not forget that the MiG-35 is in many ways similar to the MiG-29K, and due to the lack of some equipment (hook, folding wing mechanization, etc.), with other onboard equipment being equal, it would cost even less than the MiG-29K. Of course, the "top" configuration of the MiG-35 will cost significantly more than the MiG-29K, nevertheless there is a new avionics, improved engines, but how much will all this increase the cost of the aircraft? According to the author of this article, no more than 30-40 percent. As a justification, let me remind you that both the engines and avionics of the Su-35 are much more modern than the Su-30SM, but the difference in cost between them hardly exceeds 25% - for example, in those years, the export price of the Su-30SM was about $ 84 million. …
And now, if the author is right in his assumptions, then for the cost of two Su-35s, you can buy three "top" MiG-35s - and this is already quite a significant difference.
But it's not only that. By and large, it is not the purchase price of an aircraft that matters, but the cost of its entire life cycle, divided by the number of hours that aircraft can spend in the air. And here, judging by the reports of the MiG-35 designers, they managed to achieve great progress by reducing the indicated price by about half of the existing one. It is indicated that the airframe resource has been increased by 2, 5 times (although it is unclear from the level of the MiG-29K or MiG-29M2), the resource of the new engine is indicated at 4000 hours, which corresponds to the best world practices, etc. But in general, given the lower operating costs, the MiG-35 may turn out to be significantly cheaper than the Su-35. The author of this article will not be at all surprised if the MiG-35 will have a double superiority over the Sukhoi heavy fighters at the "full cost of an aircraft-hour". At the same time, although the Su-35 in the air will obviously be stronger than the MiG, it is very doubtful that it will be twice as strong.
Isn't it time for the concept of dividing fighters into light and heavy into the dustbin of History?
Judging by the latest data - no, it's not time. If we consider the composition of the air forces of the countries of the world, we will see that the transition to one type of multifunctional fighter is made either by countries that have relatively small air forces, where the use of two types of aircraft is deliberately irrational, or by those countries that are not going to fight alone against an equal enemy. …
So, the United States, which has the strongest air force in the world, even in the concept of the 5th generation, provided for the division of fighters into light and heavy (F-35 / F-22). We see the same in the Air Forces of India and China - at least for the time being they are not going to give up light fighters in favor of heavy ones. The Japanese Air Force, along with the heavy F-15s, has been using light Mitsubishi F-2s, based on the F-16, since 2000. The Israeli Air Force, which has repeatedly and deeds confirmed its highest level of combat capability, also prefers a combination of light F-16 and heavy F-15, and there is no evidence that the F-35 they are purchasing today will become a single type of combat aircraft for them.
Another thing is the European NATO countries, such as England, Germany, France, etc. They are really trying to get by with a single type of combat aircraft, which was supposed to be the Eurofighter Typhoon, that is, in fact, a light fighter.
But today their independent political ambitions do not extend beyond unconditional domination over third world countries like Libya, for which the capabilities of Eurofighter or Rafale are more than enough. Well, in the event of a serious "mess", the Europeans are waiting for the help of Uncle Sam, with his mass of heavy fighters.
As for Russia, purely theoretically, of course, it would be best to have a VKS armed with one type of heavy multifunctional fighter in single and strike two-seat versions. Alas, such a wish is comparable to the famous "it is better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick." Better is better, but how to achieve this? The budget of the Russian Federation is clearly unable to provide the Aerospace Forces with a sufficient number of heavy fighters, and the number … It is, taking into account the military power of our potential enemies, is of great importance. As a matter of fact, there is a simple fact - a light fighter can solve a number of tasks in a modern conflict no worse than a heavy one, so it is irrational to use heavy equipment everywhere. And as long as this statement does not become obsolete, light fighters remain necessary in the Russian Aerospace Forces weapons system.
Unification
Of course, the fewer types of aircraft in service, the easier and cheaper it is to ensure their supply, repair, etc. And from this point of view, the massive deliveries of a new type of aircraft, which is the MiG-35, is an undoubted evil. But on the other side…
First, whatever one may say, it will no longer be possible to unify our armed forces for Sukhoi products. The fact is that, as you know, relatively recently, our carrier-based aircraft received a small series of MiG-29K - and like it or not, these aircraft will remain in service in the coming decades. It is obvious that today it would be an act of immeasurable waste to take and throw them in a landfill. And if you don't throw it away, you still have to supply, provide, repair, etc. etc..
So the MiG-35, which is largely unified with the naval MiG-29K and KUB (more precisely, the KR and KUBR), will probably not add any excessive diversity, but it can make the supply and maintenance of the MiG-29K somewhat cheaper than now. Simply due to economies of scale.
Well, for the Aerospace Forces as a whole … Today it is already obvious that the Su-35 will remain the most massive heavy fighter for a long time, and even when the number of Su-57 in the ranks of the Aerospace Forces exceeds their number, the Su-35 will still make up a significant part of the country's heavy fighters. … Unfortunately, the Su-35 does not have a two-seat modification; instead, the Su-30SM is used, and this is still a different aircraft. The only good news is that the modernization of the Su-30SM will follow the path of maximum equipment unification with the Su-35. It is already being said about the modification of the Su-30 with the Su-35 engines, etc. But the Su-34, according to the author of this article, turned out to be superfluous for the Aerospace Forces and, theoretically, it would be better to replace them with the Su-30SM for the same amount. But the Su-34s have already been purchased and are in service, so there is nothing you can do about it. Thus, with a somewhat massive entry into service of the MiG-35 in the coming decades, the backbone of tactical aviation will be the Su-57, Su-35 and Su-30, whose unification will grow over time, the Su-34 and the MiG-29KR / KUBR family coupled with the MiG-35. Six types of aircraft. It could be smaller, of course, but the same Americans, along with different, and sometimes very different modifications of the F-16, also serve as F / A-18, F-15 in single and two-seat versions, three versions of the F-35 and more F-22. At the same time, one should not think that in the future the United States will be able to do with only the F-35 and F-22, although these are already four different aircraft - the fleet is seriously thinking about a heavy interceptor, and it is unlikely that the two-seat F-15E will be “retired”. Americans will have enough capabilities of the F-35.
In general, it cannot be said that the adoption of the MiG-35 will be a disaster for our suppliers. But such an action will help RSK MiG to remain in the ranks, to retain the cadre of specialists for the development of multifunctional fighters of new projects, at least with the aim of creating competition for the Sukhoi Design Bureau. And, in addition, the export potential of the MiG-35 is undoubtedly great, the adoption of the family of the Aerospace Forces will increase it many times over, but we all seem to be in favor of switching from trading in hydrocarbons to selling high-tech products?
