In the previous article, we described the tactics of the actions of carrier-based aircraft when solving various tasks: anti-aircraft defense and air defense of a formation, as well as the destruction of a detachment of enemy ships. Accordingly, our next goal will be to try to figure out how successfully such tasks can be solved with the means at the disposal of Gerald R. Ford, Charles de Gaulle, Queen Elizabeth and Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov, whose name we traditionally we abbreviate to "Kuznetsov". And for this it is necessary to give at least a brief description of these means, and therefore in the material offered to your attention we will pay a little attention to carrier-based aircraft.
Multipurpose fighters
Oddly enough, but comparing the capabilities of the "Super Hornet", "Rafal-M" and MiG-29KR is still significantly difficult even at the level of basic characteristics, because the data of their performance characteristics, published in the open press, differ significantly. So, for example, the data on speed differ - if for the same "Super Hornet" most domestic sources report the maximum speed of 1, 8M, then some imported ones - 1, 6M. The same applies to the weight of an empty plane - "there are opinions" about 13 387 kg and 14 552 kg (and this is not counting the fact that "the Internet" also shows the weight of the "equipped" aircraft at 14 790 kg).
At the same time, you need to understand that it is impossible to make a somewhat complete comparison of combat aircraft, based only on their basic tactical and technical characteristics. For example, the same wing loading is certainly an important indicator, but its calculations are associated with a lot of features.
Of course, it is not difficult to make head-on calculations - for example, the wing areas of the Super Hornet and the MiG-29KR are 46, 45 and 45 square meters, respectively, and we know that the normal take-off weight of the Super Hornet is 21 320 kg, and the MiG-29KR - 18,290 kg. It seems that it is enough to divide one into another (having received 459 and 406 kg / sq. M., Respectively) and one can draw conclusions about the advantage of the MiG-29KR, because the lower the wing load, the more maneuverable the aircraft can be.
But if we look at the same calculation from the other side, we will see that the mass of the empty Super Hornet hardly differs from that of the MiG-29KR - 13 387 kg versus 13 700 kg. Accordingly, the normal takeoff weight of the Super Hornet is designed for a much larger payload than that of the MiG-29KR - 7,933 kg versus 4,590 kg. That is, it turns out that the normal take-off weight of the Super Hornet is full internal fuel tanks (according to various sources, 6 354 - 6 531 kg) plus a payload of 1 400 - 1580 kg. And the MiG-29KR has a normal take-off weight that does not even mean full refueling (the capacity of the internal tanks is 4,750 kg). And if we take and calculate the load on the Super Hornet wing with the same payload as the MiG-29KR (that is, for a mass of 17,977 kg), we get 387 kg / sq. m. - that is, it turns out that according to this indicator, "Super Hornet" seems to be a winner.
But this, again, if our initial data are correct - the fact is that the official website of RSK MiG does not report information about the mass of an empty aircraft, it is taken from Wikipedia (without reference to sources), and the wiki, as you know, is often mistaken. What if 13,700 kg for the MiG-29KR is the mass of the equipped aircraft, which should be compared not with the 13,387 kg of the Super Hornet, but with 14,790 kg? In addition, the equality of the mass of the payload is not at all synonymous with the equality of the opportunities that it provides.
For example, the practical flight range of the MiG-29KR is 2,000 km. At the same time, most domestic sources give the Super Hornet flight range (without specifying which range is meant) 1,280 km, which is clearly underestimated, but in addition, the "combat range" indicator is often given - 2,346 km (with usually it should be noted that we are talking about a one-way flight without the use of outboard fuel tanks, but with a load of two Sidewinder air-to-air missile systems). Can we compare these ranges - 2,000 km and 2,346 km? It is very conditional, since we do not know the methodology for calculating them (for example, the payload mass when calculating the practical range for the MiG-29KR), but in principle these figures are comparable. But then it turns out that the 1.33 times greater fuel supply of the Super Hornet provides it with only a 17% increase in the flight range - that is, taking an equal payload for the Super Hornet and the MiG-29KR, we will not equal these aircraft in capabilities, since with the same fuel supply, an American will fly less, which means that such a comparison is incorrect. If we introduce the appropriate amendment, the load on the wing of the MiG-29KR and the Super Hornet will practically be equal.
But the fact is that, as you know, the architecture of our fighters, starting with the MiG-29 and Su-27, implied a load-bearing fuselage - that is, the fuselage of these aircraft participated in the creation of lift along with the wing, while American designers did not do this. Accordingly, when comparing the MiG-29KR, it is necessary to take into account not only the wing area, but also the area of the "participating in the work" of the fuselage, which, of course, we cannot do with a lack of data. As a result, in our calculation, the wing loading for the MiG-29KR turns out to be unreasonably overestimated, but to what extent - alas, it is impossible to say - nevertheless, we again come to the conclusion that according to this indicator the MiG-29KR is still ahead of the Super Hornet … However, perhaps there are some other factors that we did not take into account?
Based on the information available to the author, the following conclusions can be drawn. The Americans, creating the "Super Hornet", strove to get, first of all, a strike aircraft, which, at the same time, would also have the ability to conduct air combat. In the USSR / Russia, designing the MiG-29 and its later modifications, the MiG-29M / M2, they strove to create, first of all, a fighter that, in addition to fighting in the air, would also be capable of striking land and sea targets. And, probably, only the French tried to create an "honest" wagon, which is equally good at doing both.
Therefore, most likely, of the three above-mentioned aircraft, the MiG-29KR should be considered the most maneuverable, and the F / A-18 E / F Super Hornet is the most suitable for performing strike missions, while the Rafal-M in both cases occupies an intermediate position between them.
If we experience such difficulties even with the basic characteristics of aircraft, then the comparison of their avionics seems to be extremely difficult at all. The most modern radars installed on the Rafal-M and Super Hornet - RBE-2AA and APG-79 - allow detecting a fighter-type target at a distance of 110-130 km. The MiG-29KR, equipped with one of the numerous modifications of the Zhuk radar, seems to be able to do the same - for it, the fighter's detection range in the front hemisphere is also 110-130 km. But what is meant by "fighter-type target"? According to foreign airborne radars, there are opinions that we are talking about a target with a RCS of 1 sq.m., or maybe 3 sq.m., or even an F-15C with an RCS of 5 sq.m. The most interesting thing is that there is no way to find out where the numbers were taken from, because the same Raytheon, the permanent manufacturer of airborne radars for American combat aircraft, does not officially disclose the performance characteristics of its "instruments". As a rule, data on the range of American radars are given with reference to specialized magazines devoted to aviation mathematics, and which, in turn, refer to advertising data from Raytheon, but this data is completely impossible to find. At the same time, for domestic radars, the detection range is usually indicated for targets with an RCS of 3 sq. m., but earlier, in the good old days, it happened that 5 sq.m., and sometimes for some reason 2 sq.m. So it turns out that there seem to be a lot of numbers, but there is little sense in this, because depending on the EPR, which we substitute for the ranges sounded above, or the MiG-29K radar is much worse than what is installed on the Super Hornet and "Rafale M", either approximately equivalent, or even surpasses the potential enemy by a head. But that's not all, because the methods for calculating the range can be very different: for example, a radar with an active phased array can increase the target detection range by narrowing the search sector, and it is not known for which mode the detection ranges are given, etc. In addition, starting from some distances, closer to the maximum ranges of the radar operation, there is no guarantee, but the probability that the beam reflected from the target will be received by the radar and the position of the target can be identified (detection quality). That is, with an increase in the range, the probability decreases, and playing with this parameter, you can also achieve a "paper" increase in the target detection range.
Most of the data allow us to assume (but not reliably assert) that in terms of its capabilities, the Zhuk-ME installed on the MiG-23KR is inferior to both the French RBE-2AA and the American APG-79 - most likely that the domestic radar can detect on range up to 130 km target with EPR 3 sq. m, while foreign - 1 sq. m, and target detection range of 3 sq. m. they reach 158 km.
For a long time, an unconditional advantage of domestic aircraft were optical location stations (OLS), which made it possible to detect enemy aircraft and issue target designations to missiles without turning on the radar. "Rafal-M" also has an OLS, but its performance characteristics, alas, are unknown, but the Super Hornets did not have OLS (except for those suspended containers that provide weapon guidance at ground or surface targets, but, as far as the author knows are useless in aerial combat). In terms of electronic warfare systems, parity should probably be counted today, although it is possible that domestic electronic warfare systems are superior to their imported counterparts.
As for the newest F-35C, which in the future will enter service with the US carrier-based aviation, it, most likely, just like the Super Hornet, is primarily a strike aircraft, and only in the second - a fighter. Many of his performance characteristics largely overlap with those of the Super Hornet. Of all the above-mentioned decks, the F-35C is the heaviest - the empty weight of the aircraft reaches 15 785 kg. It must be said that the wing of the F-35C has the largest area among its counterparts F-35A and F-35B, but nevertheless, the wing load with a normal take-off weight is much higher than that of the MiG-29KR and is close to the Super Hornet … The engine power of the F-35C is lower than that of the twin-engine "Super Hornet", and the mass is greater, so it is not surprising that the F-35C is far behind both the "Super Hornet" and the MiG-29KR in thrust-to-weight ratio. All of the above suggests that the F-35C has little chance of "twisting" the aforementioned aircraft in close air combat. At the same time, the payload of the F-35C was lower than that of the Super Hornet record holder - 14,535 kg versus 16,550 kg.
True, in terms of the capacity of the internal fuel tanks, the F-35C significantly surpasses all other deck ships - it holds 8,960 kg of fuel, which is 40% more than that of the next Super Hornet - and the Rafal M and MiG2-9KR are generally content 4,500 - 4,750 kg. However, the F-35C is not too far superior to them in flight range, which is 2,220 (according to other sources - 2,520) km. Perhaps the reason here lies in the poor aerodynamics of the F-35C, caused by the desire of the Americans to make stealth invisible, and even unify it with the F-35B short takeoff and vertical landing aircraft, which required a specific shape of the fuselage, due to which the aircraft The Russian-speaking Internet got the unpleasant nickname "penguin".
The speed of the F-35C is a separate mystery - usually Russian-language sources indicate that it is 1, 6M or 1,930 km / h. Everything would be fine if the same sources did not indicate the speed of 1, 8M or about 1,900 km / h for the Super Hornet and Rafal M - that is, in Mach numbers, old fighters are faster, but in kilometers per hour they are somehow slower.
How could this have happened? Most likely, the point is this - as you know, the Mach number is a variable that depends, among other things, on the flight altitude. All other things being equal, the Mach number at ground level is 1,224 km / h, but at an altitude of about 11 km - 1,062 km / h. At the same time, it is also well known that modern aircraft develop their maximum speed precisely at altitude - for example, Rafal M develops 1,912 km / h at high altitudes, and only 1,390 km / h at low altitudes. Thus, the speed of "Raphael M" at high altitude just corresponds to 1, 8M (1,912 km / h / 1,062 km / h = 1, 8M), but the speed of the F-35C, obviously, is obtained by multiplying the number M, which the plane reached by the value of the number M near the ground (1, 6M * 1 224 km / h = 1 958 km / h). However, such a calculation is obviously erroneous, because the planes do not develop 1.6M at the surface of the earth, and if they did, the F-35C would develop much more than 1.6M at an altitude, and then the entire American press would trumpet about it. Thus, it can be assumed that the real speed of the F-35C at high altitude is 1.6M * 1,062 km / h = something about 1,700 km / h, that is, it is significantly inferior to both the Super Hornet and the MiG-29KR …
But the F-35C is a full-fledged stealth fighter - there is no exact data on its RCS, but it is clearly much lower (most likely by an order of magnitude or more) than that of Rafal M, Super Hornet and MiG-29KR. The aircraft has such an important innovation as an internal armament compartment, which, by the way, perfectly accommodates 4 missiles (for example, 2 AMRAAM medium-range missiles and 2 Sidewinder missiles, that is, a "gentleman's set" of a fighter performing air defense missions). In addition, there is no doubt that the F-35C's avionics are superior to those of any of the above aircraft. So, the APG-81 radar station installed on it, according to some reports, is capable of detecting a target with an EPR of 3 sq.m. at a range of up to 176 km, that is, 11% farther than the Super Hornet radar and 35% farther than the MiG-29KR. Aircraft of the F-35 family received an optical-location station - it is difficult to say how its capabilities relate to the one installed on the MiG-29KR, but, most likely, our aircraft has no superiority in this parameter. As for the capabilities of electronic warfare, information about it is too fragmentary to make a final opinion.
In general, the F-35C gives the impression that this aircraft, in terms of its maneuverability, is somewhere on the level of the F / A-18 E / F "Super Hornet" and F-16 of the latest modifications, perhaps to some extent by them inferior. Not that the latter two have the same maneuverability, they differ significantly. But, judging by the opinion of the pilots who joined them in training battles, each of them has its pluses and minuses, and in general the planes are equivalent (freely quoting the American pilot: “I would prefer to go into battle on F / A-18 E / F, but I know guys who will say the same about the F-16”).
At the same time, the avionics of the F-35C is, of course, more perfect than that of the existing carrier-based aircraft, but here we can hardly speak of the presence of global breakthroughs - rather, we are talking about the fact that each of the F-35C systems exceeds by 15 -20% similar systems of the same "Rafal-M". In addition, we should also remember about such an indicator as convenience - it can be assumed that the F-35C is more comfortable for the pilot, who is easier to control the aircraft and use airborne weapons, and this is an important component of success in air combat. Although it is known that in some parameters the aircraft of the F-35 family are inferior to the previous types - for example, the view from the cockpit of any F-35 is worse than that of the same F-16, there were also complaints about an excessively massive helmet and a small space in the cockpit.
There is probably no reason why avionics with characteristics similar to those used by the F-35C cannot be installed on the next modification of the same Super Hornet, and the aerobatic characteristics of the F-35C do not exceed the latter. Thus, the main "feature" of the F-35C still lies in the invisibility and unification with the VTOL aircraft.
As for the F-35B, this aircraft has slightly deteriorated performance characteristics of the F-35C in exchange for the ability to take off from a short takeoff run without the aid of a catapult and carry out a vertical landing.
Interestingly, the F-35B is lighter than its catapult "brother" (14 588 kg versus 15 785 kg) - apparently, this is due to the need for a more durable hull, as well as mechanisms for "catching" the catapult and aerofinisher. Nevertheless, the need to place a huge "fan", replacing lifting engines on the F-35B, could not but affect the load of the aircraft - if the F-35C carries 8 960 kg of fuel in its internal tanks, then the F-35B is only 6 352 kg or 1.41 times smaller. But here's what's interesting - if we take the most common data on the flight range of these aircraft - 2,520 km for the F-35C and 1,670 km for the F-35B, then we get a difference not by 1.41, but by 1.5 times. Why is that? Probably, the matter here is in the increased fuel consumption during the takeoff and landing operations of the F-35B, because it has to turn on the afterburner during a short takeoff and vertical landing. If the F-35B took off and landed like a conventional horizontal take-off and landing aircraft, then one would expect the F-35B to fly significantly more than 1,670 km, because it is lighter than the F-35C and will have less fuel consumption.
Thus, the fact that the flight ranges of the F-35B and F-35C are in a 1: 1, 5 ratio has a completely logical explanation. But if this is so, then we should have expected that the combat radii of these aircraft are related in the same proportion. But here's what is interesting - if we compare the common figures for the combat radii of the F-35B and F-35C - 865 km for the first, and 1,140 km for the second, we will see that the radius of the F-35B is only 1.32 times smaller than that of F-35C! Obviously, this is simply physically impossible. The author of this article has the assumption that the radius of 865 km for the F-35B is indicated based on the calculation of a normal (not shortened) take-off and an equally ordinary (non-vertical) landing. If the F-35B is used in full accordance with its name "short take-off and vertical landing aircraft", then its combat radius probably does not exceed 760 km.
Electronic warfare aircraft
The only type of carrier-based aircraft of this class is the air wings of American aircraft carriers - we are talking about the EA-18G "Growler". This aircraft is designed to conduct electronic reconnaissance, jamming radar (up to five suspended containers of electronic warfare) and enemy communication systems, as well as destroying the radar with anti-radar missiles. Onboard equipment EA-18G allows identification and direction finding of sources of electromagnetic radiation. At the same time, the "Growler" can also carry strike weapons - one of the options for combat loading provides for the suspension of three containers of electronic warfare, two AMRAAM missiles and two anti-radar missiles "Harm". The aircraft's crew consists of two people - a pilot and an operator of electronic systems.
Without a doubt, the basing of electronic warfare aircraft on Gerald R. Ford gives the aircraft wing of this ship a gigantic advantage over the rest of the aircraft carriers and the domestic aircraft carrier. Today, passive electronic intelligence is almost more important than the active work of AWACS aircraft, and complementing each other they give a synergistic effect. Thus, we can say that the air wing of the Gerald R. Ford has almost several times better airspace control capabilities than the air groups of the other ships we compare.
Aircraft and helicopters AWACS
The famous E-2C Hawkeye is based on American and French aircraft carriers. It is sad to admit it, but this aircraft is a real gem of the US Navy and has no analogues in the world.
This aircraft is the "flying headquarters" of the air group - its crew includes two pilots and three operators. E-2C not only controls aircraft based on the data of its radar - it receives information in real time from each aircraft under its control - its position, speed, altitude, fuel and ammunition remaining. Its radar is capable of detecting and tracking up to 300 land, sea and air targets, against the background of the underlying surface or beyond. In addition, the aircraft is equipped with passive reconnaissance means that allow it to “track” as many targets as the radar. The only limitation of its use in the fleet is the need for catapults, so the British Queen Elizabeth and the domestic Kuznetsov are forced to be content with AWACS helicopters (in the latter they are not part of the regular air group, but at least theoretically they can be deployed there).
The advantages of the AWACS aircraft are clearly seen on the example of comparing the capabilities of the E-2C Hawkeye and the domestic Ka-31.
The first thing that catches your eye is, of course, the difference in the detection range of air and surface targets. The Ka-31 detects a fighter-type target at a distance of 100-150 km (probably we are talking about an aircraft with an RCS of 3-5 square meters, but this is not accurate). E-2C will notice such a target from 200-270 km, and maybe more. The Ka-31 combat ship will detect from about 250-285 km, at the same time, the E-2S is capable of climbing to a much higher altitude, and its detection range for ground and surface targets is almost twice as large - up to 450 km, and bomber-type targets - up to 680 (according to other sources - 720 km). The Hokaya radar is capable of tracking 300 targets (not counting those that can be controlled by passive means), according to other sources, the latest modifications of the E-2C, this figure has grown to 2,000. The Ka-31 can simultaneously track only 20 targets.
As we said earlier, the E-2S has the ability to conduct passive electronic reconnaissance - if such capabilities exist in the Ka-31, then, alas, they were not declared in the open press. E-2S are capable of performing the role of a "flying headquarters", and the Ka-31 is deprived of such an opportunity, although this is to some extent offset by the ability of the Ka-31 to transmit the data it receives to the ship.
Many sources indicate the ability of the E-2C to patrol at a distance of 320 km from the aircraft carrier for 3-4 hours, that is, stay in the air up to 4.5-5.5 hours. In fact, these data are rather even underestimated - during the "Desert Storm" E-2C were often in the air for 7 hours. The Ka-31 is able to stay in the air for only 2.5 hours, while its cruising speed is 220 km per hour, more than half that of the Hokai (575 km / h), that is, if the E-2C is a reconnaissance tool, the Ka-31 - control of the air and surface situation in the immediate vicinity of the warrant of ships. If the E-2C is capable of patrolling at its cruising speed, using all the onboard reconnaissance means that it has, then the speed of the Ka-31 when its radar is operating drops, if not to zero, then to several tens of kilometers per hour.
The thing is that the Ka-31 is equipped with a huge (area 6 sq. M., Length - 5.75 m) rotating antenna, which, of course, significantly increases the windage of the helicopter and requires significant efforts to stabilize the latter in flight, which causes huge loss of travel speed.
British AWACS helicopters, created on the basis of the Sea King multipurpose helicopter, have, most likely, capabilities similar to the Ka-31 in the detection range of surface and air targets, but somewhat surpass it in other parameters.
For example, the placement of the antenna in the radome probably allows these helicopters to move faster than the Ka-31 during reconnaissance. The number of targets that the helicopter is capable of controlling reaches 230 (in the latest modifications). On the other hand, it is not known how "network-centric" British helicopters are - their first modifications did not have data exchange equipment at all, information about the targets they detected was transmitted by radio (Soviet helicopters possessed such equipment since the time of the Ka-25Ts). Subsequently, the Sea Kings received the necessary automation, but the author of this article does not know its performance characteristics. Currently, the UK has placed an order for a new type of AWACS helicopters Crowsnest
However, very little is known about them, except that they turned out to be not as good as they could be. The fact is that it was originally supposed to install a radar on them, created on the basis of the American AN / APG-81 (installed on fighters of the F-35 family). This did not, of course, make the new helicopters equal to the Hawaiians, but … still at least something. However, budgetary restrictions did not allow the implementation of this project, and as a result, the newest Crowsnest received the obsolete Thales Searchwater 2000AEW radar.
In any case, AWACS helicopters are nothing more than a palliative and are unable to compete with AWACS aircraft. The E-2C Hawkeye is, of course, inferior in its capabilities to such "monsters" of radar reconnaissance as the E-3A Sentry and A-50U, but these are much larger and more expensive aircraft. At the same time, in terms of price / quality ratio, the E-2S turned out to be so good that many countries (such as Israel and Japan) preferred to purchase them in order to use them as AWACS and flying headquarters for their air forces.
As for the Americans, having created the magnificent Hawkeye, they did not stop there, but proceeded to re-equip their squadrons with the new E-2D Edvanst Hawkeye aircraft, which is, in fact, a deep modernization of the E-2C.
There are no exact data on the E-2D, but it is known that their new APY-9 radar system was developed with an emphasis on enhancing noise immunity, increasing the target detection range, with special attention paid to the detection and tracking of cruise missiles. These and many other innovations allow the newest American aircraft to control the air, sea and land space much better than the E-2C did.
Unmanned aerial vehicles
To date, there are no UAVs in the staff of the US air wings, although their ability to be based on aircraft carriers has been confirmed by tests of the Kh-47B, a drone being developed under the auspices of the US Navy. This is a large attack drone with a maximum take-off weight of up to 20,215 kg (empty weight - 6,350 kg). Its carrying capacity allows it to carry up to 2 tons of ammunition (typical load - two guided JDAM bombs). The cruising speed of the Kh-47V is 535 km / h, the maximum speed is 990 km / h.
However, the impressive characteristics of these UAVs are achieved at a very high price - in the truest sense of the word. The program turned out to be so expensive that the US Navy was forced to curtail it.
Also, UAVs are not observed in the air groups of aircraft carriers of England and France, but at the aircraft carrier "Kuznetsov" they … at least were according to the project and at the beginning of operation. Of course, we are talking about the P-700 Granit anti-ship missiles.
The information about this rocket, given in various sources, is still different, so we will give the minimum (in brackets - the maximum values):
Flight range - 550 (625) km along a combined trajectory, 145 (200) km - along a low-altitude;
Warhead weight - 518 (750) kg or a special warhead with a capacity of 500 kt.;
Flight altitude - 14,000 (17,000-20,000) m in the high-altitude section and 25 m in the attack section.
At the same time, the rocket is equipped with a 3B47 Quartz radio jamming station and has the rudiments of artificial intelligence - there are different opinions about what the Granit anti-ship missile system is capable of, but the fact that it is capable of performing anti-missile maneuvers, selecting targets and exchanging data between missiles (in a group salvo), distributing targets, is not questioned by anyone.
The attentive reader has already noticed that we did not say a word about anti-submarine aviation. However, this topic is so complex that it requires a separate material and we will not "touch" it for now.
