In the last article, we considered the reasons why the Su-33 won the race for the deck, and in this article we will try to answer another question - which fighter would be the most effective and would most closely match the tasks of our aircraft carrier?
Let's refresh our memory and recall the main characteristics of the Yak-141, MiG-29K, Su-33, as well as the most advanced carrier-based aircraft of foreign powers - the American F / A-18E Super Hornet, the French Rafale-M. And at the same time, the MiG-29KR, an aircraft that was supplied to the Russian Navy in the 21st century as the basis of the aircraft group TAKR "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov."
The first thing I would like to draw your attention to is that the author deliberately simplified the comparison criteria; the table does not contain any "limit on thrust available normal g-forces", "boundaries of a steady turn" and other "angular velocities". Not because these indicators are not needed - on the contrary, they are exactly what we need if we are going to compare the capabilities of aircraft seriously. But most readers do not know the terminology and theory to the required degree, so they would also have to write a series of articles devoted to the peculiarities of combat maneuvering of aircraft, and this is by no means interesting to everyone (and, in all honesty, it is not a fact that the author could do it correctly). So we will limit ourselves to much simpler comparisons.
On the other hand, in the table offered to your attention, the interested reader will not find a number of indicators that are familiar to him. For example, there is no combat load. Why? The fact is that a number of aircraft indicators are utterly specific and should be assessed only in conjunction with other indicators. For example, let's take the mass of an empty plane and the maximum take-off mass. Obviously, the first is the mass of the aircraft itself, without fuel and outboard weapons, without a pilot and without any equipment, and the second is the maximum with which the aircraft is able to take off from the surface of the earth without violating flight safety rules. Accordingly, the difference between these two values is the payload (including all of the above) that this or that aircraft is able to "take away". In the table it is designated as "Payload, kg (difference between empty weight and maximum takeoff weight)". At the same time, the payload that can be lifted by an aircraft with full internal tanks or with a full supply of fuel (including PTB) is of no less interest - so that the reader does not have to calculate in his head, these indicators are also calculated in the table.
Or, for example, the combat radius. Everything is very bad with him, because this indicator depends on the mass of parameters. The thing is that the combat radius of a multipurpose fighter that performs high-altitude flight and which took a full tank of fuel and was hung with a PTB, and took two medium air-to-air missiles from the combat load and the same number of short-range missiles is one value. And the combat radius of the same aircraft, which took several tons of bombs and is flying towards the target along a low-altitude profile, is a completely different value.
As an example, let us take "Rafal-M", for which a combat radius of 1,800 km and a combat load of 8,000 kg are usually indicated. Many, alas, inattentive readers are simply happy about the French aviation industry and are sincerely convinced that Rafal-M is capable of dumping 8 tons of ammunition onto an object 1,800 km away from the airfield. In reality, of course, this is not the case.
It is quite possible, of course, that the Rafal-M's combat radius will indeed be 1,800 km, but that is if the aircraft has fully filled internal fuel tanks (this is 4,500 kg of fuel) and all the PTBs that it is capable of carrying (this is another 7,500 kg of fuel). But in this case, the reserve for all other payload (including the weight of the pilot and equipment) will be only 500 kg. That is, in fact, "Rafal-M" will have a combat radius of 1,800 km with weapons from a pair of light air-to-air missiles, no more. Of course, here we do not take into account the possibility of refueling in the air, but this is not necessary, because we evaluate the qualities of a particular aircraft, and for refueling we also need another plane (tanker). So let's not multiply entities beyond what is necessary.
But back to Rafal-M. Can he "take on board" 8 tons of combat load? Without a doubt - but only if he abandons the PTB, limiting himself only to fuel that is placed in his internal fuel tanks. And, of course, in this case, the combat radius will be much less than the 1,800 km indicated in the press.
The same goes for the Super Hornet. Its maximum take-off weight exceeds that of Rafal-M by about 33%, the fuel reserve (with PTBs for both aircraft) is approximately 30%, and it can be assumed that with such initial data, the combat radius of the Super Hornet at maximum combat load it will probably be slightly less than that of the Rafal-M. However, in the reference books we read a truly furious difference, because for the Super Hornet, 760 km is usually indicated - that is, only 42, 2% of the Rafal-M!
Let's try to look at it from a slightly different angle. Let's say we have a certain combat mission - to deliver 8 tons of bombs to some stronghold of world terrorism (who said Washington ?!). In this case, Rafal-M will take 8 tons for external suspension and 4500 kg of fuel in internal tanks, and its take-off weight will be maximum and will be 22 500 kg. Of course, Rafal-M will not be able to take any PTBs in this case. But the "Super Hornet" will take 8,000 kg of bombs, a full tank of fuel (6,531 kg) and, in addition, overpower one more outboard tank (1,816 kg) - the total take-off weight of the American aircraft will be 29,734 kg (which is 32% more than the same indicator "Rafal-M"). But at the same time, the mass of fuel in the internal tanks and the only PTB of the "Super Hornet" will be 8 347 kg of fuel (85, 5% more than the "Rafal-M")! Does anyone still believe that the combat radius of a French aircraft with such initial data will be greater than that of an American? In other words, it is most likely that 1,800 km of combat radius for Rafal-M is with a maximum of PTB and a pair of light air-to-air missiles, and 760 km of Super Hornet is for its shock configuration, God knows how many tons of combat load. And we still don't know anything about the flight profile!
But even if we seem to know the combat radius in comparable categories (say, in the version of a fighter with a PTB) of different countries, it is far from the fact that they are comparable. The fact is that the combat radius implies (in short) flying to the maximum possible distance, completing a combat mission and returning home with a small emergency supply of fuel for unforeseen needs. The combat mission for the fighter will obviously be air combat and the destruction of the enemy. So, for different countries, everything can be different here - both the emergency stock rate, and the understanding of how long the air battle will last, how much of this time the aircraft will use the engine afterburner mode (which requires a large excess consumption of fuel relative to the non-afterburner mode), etc. etc. Hardly anyone can guarantee all these data from the countries whose planes we are comparing coincide - and without this, alas, the comparison of "bare numbers" of combat radii is unlikely to be correct.
On the other hand, there is such an indicator as practical range. It is measured in kilometers and shows how much an aircraft can fly (one way) when fully fueled (PTBs are negotiated separately), but without a combat load, taking into account fuel consumption for takeoff and landing operations and a small emergency supply of fuel. In fact, it is undesirable to compare this indicator for aircraft of different countries "head-on", but nevertheless there are fewer errors with it than when comparing combat radii. At the same time, for aircraft of the same generation (in our case, it is important, for example, the absence of internal armament bays for all types of compared vehicles), it can be assumed that the combat radius with an equal combat load will correlate approximately in the same way as the practical range of aircraft. In other words, if the practical range of the Rafal-M and the MiG-29KR is the same and is equal to 2,000 km, then with an equal mass (and aerodynamics) combat load, the combat radii of these aircraft will also be, if not the same, then very close, regardless of what reference books write. Let us repeat once more - the reference books do not lie, but the conditions for which the combat radii of the aircraft are calculated can vary greatly, which makes the figures for the final values incomparable.
In view of the above, we will be comparing different payload options and practical flight range instead of combat radius instead of combat load. But, besides this, it would be nice to somehow assess the capabilities of the aircraft in battle (without touching their avionics for now, but taking into account only the maneuverable characteristics). Alas, as we said earlier, it is extremely difficult to do this according to all the rules (for example, try to find the indicators of the drag of this or that aircraft!) wing loading. Although there are many important nuances here, an aircraft with a higher thrust-to-weight ratio and rate of climb and lower wing loading (the word “specific” is usually omitted, although this is what is meant) is also more maneuverable in dogfight. Those readers who believe that close air combat is dead - please, instead of "in dogfight" read "when performing an anti-missile maneuver."
And what do we see in the end?
Yak-141 or horizontal take-off and landing aircraft?
At first glance, it is obvious that the Yak-141 is outperforming the MiG-29K in almost all respects.
The MiG's payload is 23.5% higher than that of the VTOL aircraft, while it is 12% and 27% faster at the ground and at altitude, respectively. The practical range at high altitude with a PTB for the MiG-29K (that is, in fact, in a fighter configuration) is 42.8% higher than that of the Yak-141! In fact, it is this figure that characterizes the difference in the combat radii of the Yak-141 and MiG-29K when solving air defense missions and, as we can see, it is very much not in favor of the Yak-141. In addition, the load on the wing of the Yak-141 is significantly greater than that of the MiG-29K, the thrust-to-weight ratio in the "normal take-off" weight is, on the contrary, lower and also the rate of climb is lower. True, the thrust-to-weight ratio, calculated for the maximum take-off weight, is still lower for the MiG-29K, and this is a definite plus for the Yak-141, but the aircraft's effectiveness in aerial combat should still be assessed from the standpoint of a normal take-off weight, because before engaging in battle, the plane will spend some time in the air, wasting fuel to enter the patrol area and the patrol itself. So the fuel reserves will not be full (in the end, the PTB can always be dropped), and if the enemy is in dangerously close proximity and it is urgent to lift the vehicles into the air, there is no point in overloading the PTB aircraft at all.
The Yak-141 has less operational overload, less suspension for weapons, less practical ceiling … it seems that the lag in each indicator individually does not look fatal, but the VTOL aircraft lags behind in almost all respects, and here, of course, the quantity is already turning into quality. And as the only advantage of the Yak-141 is the possibility of a vertical landing (all aircraft indicators are given under the condition of a short take-off of 120 m). If we compare the capabilities of the Yak-141 with the load during vertical takeoff … then the comparison with the MiG-29K does not make any sense at all due to the not even obvious, but overwhelming advantage of the latter. Also, the Yak-141 did not have any special advantages in terms of the specifics of the carrier-based aircraft. The need to provide a short takeoff required a spacious flight deck. Yes, for the Yak-141 there was no need to equip the ship with aerofinishers, since they are simply not needed during a vertical landing, but the aircraft required special seats equipped with a special heat-resistant coating (it is required for the flight deck of an aircraft carrier, but for VTOL landing sites there are requirements for it is much higher, and the site itself should be stronger - the exhaust directed downward is not a joke).
But, if everything described above is true, how could the Yak-141 take part in the “battle for the deck” described in the previous article, after all, its lag is so obvious? This, as well as many other questions regarding the Yak-141, caused such a lively discussion in the comments that, in the author's opinion, they should be raised again.
As we said earlier, according to the Government Decree adopted in 1977, the Yakovlev Design Bureau was charged with creating a supersonic VTOL fighter and submitting it for state tests in 1982. The Yakovlevites rolled up their sleeves and … began to develop an aircraft with a single lift-sustainer engine … That is, in fact, the Yakovlevites undertook to create "Harrier", only better "- a single-engine VTOL aircraft capable of reaching a speed of Mach 2. But it soon became clear that such a project faced a lot of difficulties and gradually the designers again leaned towards the combined power plant. In the spring of 1979, they submitted to the MAP commission a draft design of an aircraft with a single R-79V-300 engine, as well as materials on VTOL aircraft with a combined powerplant. Based on the results of the analysis, the commission instructed the Yakovlev Design Bureau to create a draft design of a VTOL fighter with a combined power plant. At the same time, work on the study of the possibilities provided by VTOL takeoff with a short takeoff (WRC) was just beginning in the country - suffice it to say that for the first time the WRC was carried out from the deck of the ship only in December 1979.
In other words, at the time of the decision to equip the fifth aircraft carrier with a springboard, we, in fact, did not have a very good idea of what the Yak-141 would be (a single engine, or a combined installation), we had not yet worked out the WRC for VTOL aircraft with a combined installation, and so about how VTOL aircraft will behave with one or another type of power plant when starting from a springboard - they could only theorize. And at that time it was assumed that the use of the springboard would significantly increase the capabilities of the Yak-141. Accordingly, in November 1980, the commander-in-chief of the Air Force and the Navy approved a refinement to the tactical and technical requirements of the Yak-141, and the task was set to provide a shortened takeoff with a takeoff run of 120-130 m, takeoff from a springboard and landing with a short run. Interestingly, a number of publications indicate that a springboard with an ascent angle of 8, 5 degrees was made on the famous NITKA, designed for a simplified energy-saving start of Yak-141 vertical takeoff aircraft. But then, when it became clear that horizontal take-off and landing aircraft were quite capable of mastering the springboard launch, the lift angle of the springboard was increased to 14.3 degrees.
It is interesting that even in 1982-1983. The possibility of using a springboard for the Yak-141 was considered quite actively - during these years, specialists from the Ministry of Aviation and the Air Force conducted theoretical studies of increasing the capabilities of the Yak-141 both during WRC and when using a springboard. It is interesting that the author, in his comments to the previous article of the cycle, was repeatedly pointed out that the Yak-141 combined installation does not present any advantages for a springboard launch compared to WRC (that is, a short take-off from a horizontal surface). The author could not find any confirmation or refutation of this thesis, but the fact is that at the time of the decision to equip the fifth aircraft carrier with a springboard, this feature of the Yak-141, if it existed, in any case was not yet known.
Nevertheless … work on bugs! We have to admit that the thesis previously put forward by the author:
"At least in 1988, the choice in favor of the Su, MiG or Yak has not yet been made"
incorrect in the part that by 1988 the Yak had already dropped out of the "race", and only the MiG and the Su were "arguing" among themselves. As far as can be judged, the Yak-141 finally lost the "battle for the deck" of the fifth aircraft carrier (the future "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov") somewhere in the period 1982-1984: in the eighty-second from the springboard (having an inclination of 8, 5 degrees) for the first time launched the MiG-29, thereby confirming the possibility of a springboard start for aircraft horizontal takeoff and landing, and in 1984 flights were carried out (from a springboard at an angle of 14, 3 degrees) and the MiG-29, and the Su-27. In addition, in 1984, the most powerful supporter of VTOL aircraft, D. F. Ustinov.
In other words, our fifth aircraft carrier was originally created as a VTOL carrier ship, which was to become the basis of its air group. The springboard was supposed to be used to increase the capabilities of the VTOL aircraft based on it. We did not yet have knowledge of how useful (or useless) the springboard was for the Yak-141 at the time of the decision (1979). It is not excluded that when deciding on the "springboard" of the fifth aircraft carrier, the schematic diagram of the Yak-a power plant (single engine or combined) has not yet been determined. But from the moment when the possibility of basing horizontal take-off aircraft on the aircraft carrier (1982-84), possessing much better flight characteristics than VTOL aircraft, was confirmed, the Yak-141 went into the shadows and was in demand mainly only as a new aircraft for four previously built TAKR-ah: "Kiev", "Minsk", "Novorossiysk" and "Baku", as well as, perhaps, "Moscow" and "Leningrad".
So, the Yak-141 dropped out of the carrier-based fighter race for the newest aircraft carrier.
MiG-29K or Su-33?
It must be said that in the USSR, an unambiguous answer to this question was never sounded. On the one hand, in the second half of the 80s, the MAP commission leaned towards the MiG-29K, also because it was smaller and, all other things being equal, made it possible to form an air group of more vehicles than was possible for the Su-27 … At the same time, if we look at the plans for the formation of the Ulyanovsk ATAKR air group (the seventh aircraft carrier of the USSR with a nuclear power plant and catapults), then there were two options for equipping it: 24 Su-33 and 24 MiG-29K, or 36 Su- 27K. That is, the Su-33 was present in the air group on a permanent basis.
Consider the data in the above table. The first thing that catches your eye is that despite the fact that the Su-33 is heavier, it does not take up as much space as the MiG-29K, as it might seem. With folded wings and plumage, the Su-33 "fits" into a 156.8 m2 square, while the MiG-29K fits into a 135.5 m2 square, that is, the difference is only 15.7%. In addition, in the hangar, the planes are not in squares, but something like this:
And in terms of mass … Still, the mass of the empty Su-33 is only 26% more than the mass of the empty MiG-29K. Therefore, the thesis about the smaller capacity of the Su-33 in comparison with the MiG-29K needs further study - it is clear that the same hangar of the MiG-29K should include more than the Su-33, but… one and a half to two times? If such limitations really exist, then they, most likely, are connected not only with the geometric dimensions of the aircraft.
The next very interesting indicator is the mass of fuel. The internal fuel tanks of the Su-33 are 65% more capacious than that of the MiG-29K - 9,400 kg versus 5,670 kg. As a result, the heavier aircraft has a significantly greater practical range - at high altitudes the Su-33 is able to cover 3,000 km, while the MiG-29K is only 1,650 km, that is, almost half as much.
However, the MiG-29K can carry a PTB, but the design of the Su-33, unfortunately, is not provided for. At the same time, the practical range of the MiG-29K with the PTB is the same 3,000 km as that of the Su-33. And this, in turn, means that the combat radius of the MiG-29K with PTB in the version for solving air defense missions (say, with two medium air missile systems and the same number of short-range missiles) will be quite comparable to the combat radius of the Su-33 with the same the same load. Of course, the Su-33 will be able to take more missiles, but then its combat radius will decrease. Of course, if it were possible to hang the PTB on the Su-33, then its practical range and combat radius would be much higher than that of the MiG-29K, but the Su-33 does not carry PTB.
As a fighter for maneuverable combat, the Su-33, apparently, has a preference. It has less wing loading, but at the same time its thrust-to-weight ratio is higher than that of the MiG-29K. As for the climb rate, the author could not find data on the Su-33, but for various modifications of the Su-27 it was 285-300 m / s, for the MiG-29K - 300 m / s. Of course, the Su-33 was heavier than the Su-27, but on the other hand it had a PGO, which added to its climb rate, so it can be assumed that in this indicator there was an approximate parity between the MiG-29K and the Su-33. The speed of these two fighters is equal both at the ground and at altitude. But in general, the Su-33 should have had an advantage in aerial combat.
However, this does not mean that the MiG-29K was somehow flawed among the carrier-based aircraft of the world. If we compare the same indicators for the MiG-29K, Super Hornet and Rafal-M, we will see that the brainchild of the MiG Design Bureau has a significant superiority over the American carrier-based fighter in literally all parameters, and the French Rafal-M wins in load on the wing, losing in speed and thrust-to-weight ratio at an almost equal rate of climb (the Frenchman's advantage is only 1.7%).
And here we need to make one extremely important reservation. The fact is that when compiling the table, the author made two big assumptions in favor of foreign fighters. The first of them is this: all jet engines of modern fighters have two indicators of power (and thrust) - the maximum power that the engine develops in non-afterburner mode and maximum power during afterburner. However, for domestic engines of deck aircraft, a third, special operating mode was introduced, which was necessary to ensure take-off, or go-around in case of an unsuccessful landing attempt. So, for example, the maximum non-afterburner thrust of the Su-33 engine was 7 670 kgf., The maximum afterburner thrust was 12 500 kgf, and the special mode was 12 800 kgf. For the MiG-29K engine, this difference was even greater - the maximum afterburner thrust was 8,800 kgf, and in a special mode - up to 9,400 kgf.
Without a doubt, the special regime was intended precisely to support takeoff and landing operations. But couldn't the pilot of the Su-33 or MiG-29K use the "special" mode at the key moment of the battle? As far as the author knows, there were no technical restrictions on this. Nevertheless, in the table presented above, the author calculated the thrust-to-weight ratio of aircraft precisely from the maximum afterburner mode, and not from the "special" one. Even in this case, we see the superiority of domestic fighters over foreign ones in this parameter, and taking into account the "special" regime, this advantage would be even higher.
The second assumption is that the author calculated the specific load on the wing independently according to the formula “normal (maximum) takeoff weight of the aircraft divided by the wing area”. This is correct for foreign fighters, but not for domestic ones. One of the numerous design features of the Su-27 and MiG-29 (and all aircraft of their families) was that the lift in it was generated not only by the wing, but also by the fuselage itself. And this means that the calculation should include not all, but only a part of the mass of the aircraft on the wing (or the area of the "bearing" fuselage should be added to the wing area). In other words, the load on the wing of domestic fighters is less than in the table - although how much less, the author cannot say.
Thus, the MiG-29K as an air defense aircraft, of course, was inferior to the Su-33 in terms of its flight technical data. But at the same time it was quite at the level of the French "Raphael-M" and surpassed the main US carrier-based fighter - "Super Hornet". The smaller combat radius of the MiG-29K was fully compensated by the ability to carry PTB. Thus, the MiG-29K was quite capable of solving air defense missions, although with slightly less efficiency than the Su-33.
Here, the truth may arise a question - what are these American and French designers so "dark" and create knowingly uncompetitive aircraft? In fact, of course, this is not the case. You just need to remember that MiG-29K and Super Hornet and Rafal-M are still not pure fighters, but fighter-bombers. And if we carefully look at the table, we will see that the American and French aircraft are noticeably superior to the MiG as strike vehicles. That is, the MiG-29K is more of a fighter than a bomber, while the Super Hornet is more of a bomber than a fighter. The French and American aircraft are not that much worse, but the emphasis on them is placed in a different way, and this gave our aircraft, created "with a bias in air defense", an advantage in air combat.
But back to our planes. The fact is that all our conclusions about the advantage of the Su-33 over the MiG-29K were made only on the basis of their flight technical data, but not on-board equipment, and here the MiG-29K had a noticeable advantage. On the one hand, the dimensions and dimensions of the MiG-29K, of course, imposed great restrictions on the capabilities of the equipment installed on it. For example, the Su-33 housed the N001K radar, a shipborne version of the N001, installed on land-based Su-27s. This radar was capable of detecting a fighter-type target with an RCS of 3 m2 at a distance of 100 km to the front and 40 km to the rear hemispheres, while the azimuth field of view was 60 degrees. The radar of the ground MiG-29 of the first series could detect a similar target at a distance of 70 km, having a viewing sector in azimuth of 70 degrees, i.e. somewhat larger than the Su-27 radar. However, the MiG-29K was created on the basis of the MiG-29M, that is, the modernized one, and a new N010 radar was to be installed on it, in which the fighter's detection range in the PPS was 80 km. This is still less than the N001K provided, but the field of view in the N010 azimuth was increased to 90 degrees, that is, the MiG-29K pilot could scan a much larger sector of space.
Thus, the on-board radio-electronic equipment of the MiG-29K was more advanced, and, although in some parameters it still did not reach the level of the Su-33 avionics, it “recouped” in other, perhaps not so noticeable, but important areas. But the MiG-29K also had extremely tangible advantages, such as the ability to use the latest at that time R-77 air-to-air missiles, the export version of which was called RVV-AE.
As you know, the Americans used the Sparrow as medium-range missiles for a long time, but its effectiveness caused a lot of criticism. As a result, the "gloomy American genius" created an extremely successful AMRAAM rocket, significantly superior to its predecessor. The analogue of the Sparrow in the USSR was the R-27 family of missiles, which, alas, with the advent of AMRAAM turned out to be obsolete. In response, the designers of the USSR created the P-77 and there is no doubt that at the time of its appearance it was quite comparable to AMRAAM in its combat capabilities. So, the MiG-29K sighting complex was capable of using the R-77, while the Su-33 was not, and had to be content with the old R-27. Of course, the ability to use the latest air combat ammunition significantly reduced the gap in the combat qualities of the Su-33 and MiG-29K.
It is well known that the MiG-29K, unlike the Su-33, was a "universal soldier" and could use a fairly wide range of air-to-surface weapons, while the capabilities of the Su-33 were limited to free-fall bombs and NUR. But there is some suspicion that the ability of the MiG-29K radar to see potential targets well against the background of the underlying surface allowed the MiG-29K to identify and monitor targets such as, for example, anti-ship missiles low-flying over the sea better than the Su-33 radar could do. However, the last statement is only guesses of the author.
As for the deck specifics, everything is quite interesting here. So, for example, in the "Su-33. The Ship Epic "A. V. Fomin, who was reviewed not only by the general designer of the Sukhoi Design Bureau V. P. Simonov, but also Colonel General V. G. Deineka, the following is indicated - that the creators of the Su-33, when reworking the airframe of the aircraft, took into account the deck specifics, while the creators of the MiG-29K were forced to pay all their attention to the latest equipment and engines of their aircraft, and left the glider almost the same as that of the land MiG-a. As a result, the Su-33, despite its size, had a lower landing speed and was, according to A. V. Fomin, it is more convenient for pilots when performing takeoff and landing operations.
It is difficult for the author to judge how fair this is, but in any case, if the MiG-29K was worse, it was not so much as to make it unsuitable for basing on the aircraft carrier.
Su-33 is often reproached for its inability to take off at maximum load from the TAKR deck. This is not entirely true. In total, the "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov" has three take-off positions: the first, the second (with a run length of 105 m, according to other sources - 90 m) and the "long" third - 195 (180) m. According to calculations, from the third position of the Su -33 could be launched with a full supply of fuel and air-to-air missiles on all 12 suspensions (it was assumed that its mass would be 32 tons) and with a maximum take-off weight (33 tons), and from the first two - with a take-off weight of 25 to 28 tons. Recall that the normal takeoff weight of the Su-33 is 22.5 tons.
At the same time, tests showed that at a aircraft carrier speed of 7 knots and an excitement of 4-5 balls, the Su-33 confidently starts from 1st and 2nd positions with a full supply of fuel and 4 air-to-air missiles, that is … with a takeoff weight of about 30 tons. At the same time, from the third position at a speed of 15 knots, the Su-33 took off with a full supply of fuel and 12 air-to-air missiles, the takeoff weight was 32,200 kg. On the other hand, you need to understand that takeoff from "short" positions with a Su-33 weight of about 30 tons was carried out by real aces, highly qualified test pilots: A. Yu. Semkin and world-famous V. G. Pugachev. Without a doubt, deck pilots are a real elite, but the author does not know if they are allowed to take off with such a mass of Su-33s from 1st and 2nd positions.
As for the MiG-29K, everything is quite simple here - aircraft of this type can take off with maximum takeoff weight from 3rd position and in normal takeoff weight - from 1st and 2nd. It is possible that the MiG-29K is capable of more, but it seems that such tests were not carried out, or the author does not know anything about them.
On the other hand, there were reports that the Su-33 turned out to be too heavy for our aircraft carrier, and during long-term operation, the flight deck underwent deformation. It is very difficult to say how correct this information is. The author did not find official confirmation of this. Perhaps the flight deck of the aircraft carrier was indeed deformed, but was this the fault of the Su-33? Nevertheless, the ship experiences a lot of loads on the hull even with slight waves, and the deformation of the deck could be the result of some errors in the design of the ship. With all due respect to the Soviet school of shipbuilding - such a "monster" with a continuous flight deck was built by the USSR for the first time and mistakes are quite possible here. In any case, it is impossible to say that the Su-33 was too heavy for a carrier-based aircraft - after all, the American F-14 Tomcat had an even greater mass, but was based on American aircraft carriers without any problems.
Summing up, we see the following. All other things being equal, a larger number of MiG-29Ks can be based on the same aircraft carrier than the Su-33. Of course, the Su-33 surpassed the MiG-29K in combat radius and as an air fighter, but this superiority was largely leveled by the MiG-29K's ability to use PTBs, the latest ammunition for air combat, as well as more modern (although not always more powerful) Avionics. At the same time, the MiG-29K was a multipurpose aircraft, while the Su-33 was not.
Was it possible to correct those annoying shortcomings of the Su-33, which prevented it from gaining unconditional superiority over the MiG in terms of performing air defense missions, and at the same time making it possible to use air-to-surface weapons? Without a doubt, you can. For example, the modernized Su-27SM are capable of using RVV-SD. In fact, no one interfered with the transformation of the Su-33 from the 4th generation aircraft into the "4 ++" generation over time, the Sukhoi Design Bureau was going to do just that: the 4th generation carrier-based aircraft at the first stage and its improvement at the subsequent ones.
And if we were now talking about the air group of a certain promising aircraft carrier, then it would be most correct to build it on a modification of the Su-33, or on a mixed air group of their Su-33 and MiG-29K. However, we are talking about a very specific situation in the early 90s - the USSR collapsed, and it was quite clear that "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov" for a long time will remain our only aircraft carrier capable of receiving horizontal takeoff and landing aircraft.
In the context of the coming landslide reduction in the number of the Navy and naval missile-carrying aviation, the issue of the versatility of Kuznetsov's aircraft was extremely important. In the USSR, the enemy AUS could be attacked by Tu-22M3 regiments, a submarine detachment, surface missile cruisers, etc. With so many weapons available, it really was right to "sharpen" the air group of the aircraft carrier in the air defense in order to provide air cover for the strike forces. But literally a decade passed, and the naval power of the USSR remained only in the memory of those who were not indifferent. Under these conditions, the ability of the MiG-29K to strike at surface targets could qualitatively improve the capabilities of the Northern Fleet of the Russian Federation. And besides, since the collapse of the USSR, we (fortunately!) Have not entered the world "hot" war (although the times of the "cold" war have already returned). The conflicts have taken on a different, creeping, form - Russia is defending its interests, rebuffing the numerous "barmaley" striving to turn a whole conglomerate of Arab countries into a mad and cave-like "caliphate". For use in local conflicts, for "power projection", a multipurpose aircraft carrier is more useful, whose air group is capable of destroying air, ground and surface targets, and not just air targets.
Thus, in the specific conditions of the 1991 MiG-29K was preferable to the Su-33. But there was simply not enough money to fine-tune the plane. And if there were money, could the Mikoyan Design Bureau within a reasonable time frame bring the MiG-29K into serial production?
Without a doubt, they could. In fact, they demonstrated this by creating the MiG-29K for the Indian Navy.
P. S. The author of the article expresses special gratitude to Alexei "Taoist" for his indications of the mistakes made in the previous article.
