As you know, the first in the USSR trampoline heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser "Tbilisi" (later renamed "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov" tested three carrier-based aircraft at once - Su-27K, MiG-29K and Yak-141. In this series of articles we we will try to figure out why as many as three types of aircraft were created for carrier-based aviation, for what reasons the Su-27K was ultimately chosen and how optimal this solution was, which aircraft, in addition to the above, should have taken places on the flight deck of our first springboard Aircraft carrier and why already in our century the "second coming" of the MiG-29K took place.
We have already described the history of the design of domestic aircraft carriers and its strange dualism - while the fleet has been developing atomic ejection carriers since 1968, it was forced to build VTOL steam turbine carriers. Initially, the air group of ejection ships was supposed to be provided with a carrier-based modification of the MiG-23 fighter, (preliminary designs for the deck-based MiG-23A and MiG-23K were developed in 1972 and 1977, respectively), but later, as new fighters of the 4th generation were ready, it should was to replace the carrier-based fighter based on the Su-27. The first studies of the carrier-based Su-27 were carried out by the Sukhoi Design Bureau back in 1973. Due to the constant postponement of the construction of catapult aircraft carriers, and approximately in 1977-1978. they finally refused to "chill" the MiG-23, but in 1978 the MMZ im. A. I. Mikoyan took the initiative to include a carrier-based version of the 4th generation MiG-29 fighter in the air groups of future aircraft carriers. It was assumed that the relatively light deck MiGs would complement the heavy Su-27s in the same way as it was supposed to be done in the Air Force, and the proposal was accepted.
At the same time and in parallel to all of the above, the Yakovlev Design Bureau was developing vertical take-off and landing aircraft. This process was started on December 27, 1967, when the Resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR No.1166-413 was issued, which ordered the launch of a light attack aircraft Yak-36M, and then, in the future, a front-line VTOL fighter. As you know, the designers of Yakovlev managed to create a light attack aircraft - in 1977, the Yak-36M, under the designation Yak-38, was put into service. But with the fighter, the matter categorically did not go well - the Yak-39 fighter-attack aircraft with new lifting engines, an expanded range of equipment and weapons had a meager flight range. Even with a short takeoff and a combat load of 1 ton, its combat radius did not exceed 200 km, and this was, of course, completely insufficient. Nevertheless, the Yakovlev Design Bureau continued to work on the VTOL fighter.
Yakovlev designers tried to swing at a supersonic fighter - the first studies of such a machine were made in 1974 (Yak-41, "product 48"). Then, in 1977, the Government decided to create a supersonic fighter-VTOL aircraft and submit it for state tests by 1982. At the same time, according to a new Decree, the Yakovlev Design Bureau was required to submit a technical proposal to create a supersonic attack aircraft based on the Yak-41.
In other words, by the end of the 70s, some leaders (and especially - DF Ustinov, who advocated the development of VTOL aircraft) could have formed the opinion that the creation of supersonic vertical take-off and landing aircraft with a sufficient radius of action was not far off. Probably, this is precisely the reason for his instructions to stop the design of ejection aircraft-carrying ships and to build in the future VTOL carrier-carriers of VTOL aircraft with a displacement of no more than 45,000 tons, equipped with a springboard.
In other words, the following was obtained. The difference between the MiG-29 (not to mention the Su-27) and the Yak-38 in air defense capabilities was not just colossal, they were literally incomparable machines: the Yak-38 miserably lost to the latest 4th generation aircraft in all parameters. But the Yak-41 is another matter, although it was not equal to the MiG-29, but nevertheless, in some parameters, it was already comparable with it (for example, the installation of a MiG-29 radar was supposed to be installed on the Yak-41). In addition, it was assumed that the Yak-41 would not have to take off exclusively vertically - it was originally supposed to take off from a short takeoff run, which the Yakovlev Design Bureau diplomatically called "super-short vertical-inclined take-off." This increased the capabilities of the VTOL aircraft.
The springboard increased the takeoff weight of the Yak-41, which means that its combat load or flight range was even greater. This brought the capabilities of the Yak-41 even closer to the MiG-29, the springboard made it possible to count on the fact that the Yak-41 would be able to perform not only the air defense functions of the formation, but also to deliver missile and bomb strikes against surface and coastal targets. All this allowed D. F. Ustinov re-consider VTOL aircraft as an alternative to carrier-based aircraft horizontal take-off and landing.
I must say that this point in the debate "which is better - a springboard or a catapult" is usually not taken into account at all. The fact is that supporters of the catapult and its opponents usually consider the springboard as an alternative to the catapult as a means of taking off for horizontal take-off and landing aircraft. But initially the catapult was not proposed for this. In essence, D. F. Ustinov proposed abandoning horizontal take-off and landing aircraft in favor of VTOL aircraft, and considered the springboard only as a means of increasing the capabilities of VTOL aircraft. In other words, at that moment no one asked the question: "Which is better - a catapult or a springboard for horizontal take-off aircraft?" The order of D. F. Ustinov boiled down to: "Let's remove horizontal take-off and landing aircraft from the ship altogether, leave only VTOL aircraft, and in order for them to fly better, we will make a springboard for them."
In response to this, the heads of the MMZ im. A. I. Mikoyan and the M. H. ON. Sukhoi, with the support of the Air Force command, made a proposal to continue work on the Su-27K and MiG-29K - due to the high thrust-to-weight ratio, these aircraft could be adapted for takeoff from a springboard. D. F. Ustinov (perhaps taking into account the rather modest practical results of the VTOL program, and maybe due to some other reasons) still did not put eggs in one basket. Yes, he believed that the air group of the future aircraft carrier would consist of VTOL aircraft, but at the same time he did not forbid the development of deck versions of the MiG-29 and Su-27. As a matter of fact, his position regarding these planes boiled down to the following: “Do you want horizontal take-off planes to be on the decks of ships? Well, then you have to teach them to take off from the springboard!.
So, in fact, in 1980, the "race of three fighters" began for the right to take a seat on the flight deck and in the hangars of the Soviet aircraft carrier. But each design bureau, of course, moved towards the goal in its own way. 1982-1983 The preliminary projects of the MiG-29K and Su-27K were presented and defended, while the MiG was intended for air defense in the near zone and had secondary tasks: the destruction of enemy ships with a displacement of up to 5,000 tons and support for the landing forces. The Su-27K was supposed to be a long-range fighter that would provide air defense connections in the far zone. The Yak-141 was supposed to be the world's first supersonic multipurpose VTOL aircraft.
Su-33
The Sukhov Design Bureau decided to create the Su-27K as a carrier-based modification of the combatant Su-27, that is, if possible, retain the equipment of the "original" aircraft on it. This, of course, did not mean that the Su-27K would not undergo any changes at all compared to its prototype, but the point was that the overwhelming majority of the changes concerned the adaptation of the aircraft to the specifics of naval carrier-based aviation, but its combat capabilities were to remain on the level of the Su-27. The preliminary design of the Su-27K was presented in September 1984, but this position did not meet with understanding by the commission of the customer.
The fact is that in 1982 the development of an improved model of the Su-27 - the Su-27M fighter - started. In the context of this, the members of the commission did not understand why to continue the development of a promising carrier-based aircraft based on the original Su-27, because this would lead to the appearance of an aircraft with performance characteristics below possible. Accordingly, according to the results of the consideration of the preliminary design of the Su-27K, the representatives of the customer's commission demanded an increase in the combat potential of the aircraft. But the leadership of the Sukhoi Design Bureau was able to explain and defend their position.
The fact is that the Sukhovites proposed to split the work on the carrier-based fighter into two stages. At the first stage, it was necessary to "accustom" the aircraft to the deck, keeping its capabilities at the level of the Su-27: such a solution would allow, in the opinion of the designers, to ensure the supply of the first serial Su-27K by the end of the 80s. At the same time, the development of a carrier-based aircraft based on the Su-27M is a long matter, the timing of which could easily have been "shifted to the right" by the difficulties of fine-tuning the latest equipment, in which case the serial deliveries of the Su-27K could be greatly delayed. But after all the new weapons have been tested on the Su-27M, nothing will prevent them from being introduced into modifications of the carrier-based Su-27K - this can be done quickly enough. The commission agreed with this reasoning and a compromise solution was reached - the Su-27K are created on the basis of the Su-27, but at the same time they get the ability to use unguided weapons - free-fall bombs and NURS.
Accordingly, the main changes in the Su-27K in comparison with the prototype consisted in the implementation of the "aircraft carrier" specifics:
1. The AL-31F3 engines were developed and installed on the aircraft - they differed from the serial Su-27 engines with an increased thrust of 12,800 kgf (for the AL-31F - 12,500 kgf), which the new engines developed in a short-term, special mode, during the takeoff of the aircraft or in case of emergency go-around;
2. The bearing properties of the wing were improved by increasing its area (by about 10%) and its mechanization - the new remote control system was fully electrified. In the Su-27, it was partially built on rigid wiring and hydraulic boosters;
3. Improved and reinforced landing gear for deck landings, provided a landing hook, with the help of which the hook on the aerofinisher is made;
4. To reduce the size of the aircraft during its storage in the hangar or on the flight deck, a folding wing was developed, as well as a folding tail, because otherwise it would protrude beyond the dimensions of the folded wings;
5. Introduced a special anti-corrosion coating for the operation of the aircraft in a salt sea climate;
6. Special aerobatic equipment was installed for the drive and landing of the aircraft on the deck, and the observation and sighting system was modernized to interact with the ship's radio-electronic systems;
Of course, the list of innovations did not end there, and the aircraft received, perhaps, not obligatory for a naval aviation aircraft, but very useful innovations, such as an air refueling system and PGO (forward horizontal tail). I must say that the PGO was planned to be used on the Su-27, but it did not work out, but on the Su-27K everything was successful. As a result of the use of the PGO (and the new remote control system), the Su-27K has greatly won in aerodynamic quality, i.e. - in maneuverability, and besides (and this turned out to be a pleasant surprise) received an increase in the maximum lift of the aircraft.
At the same time, the armament is airborne radar equipment, an aiming system, an optical-location station, etc.remained the same as on the Su-27, only underwent a small adaptation to work at sea. Perhaps the only significant innovation was the increase in suspension points from 10 to 12, which made it possible to increase the ammunition load, but this, in general, was all.
The first flight of the Su-27K was carried out on August 17, 1987.
MiG-29
Originally MMZ im. A. I. Mikoyan followed a path similar to the Sukhoi Design Bureau and planned to create a carrier-based aircraft based on the serial MiG-29. But, just like the Sukhoi Design Bureau, in 1982 the Mikoyanites began work on the design of an improved version of the MiG-29 - the MiG-29M. It must be said that the differences between the MiG-29M and the original MiG-29 were so great that it was just right to talk about the creation of a new aircraft. The MiG-29M was supposed to receive:
1. Modified glider. At the same time, the MiG-29M airframe was supposed to use a new aluminum-lithium alloy and composite materials, as well as to abandon riveted joints in favor of welded ones. All this not only reduced the weight of the structure, but also made it possible to use the internal volume to accommodate the fuel completely (previously it was impossible to do this, due to the impossibility of sealing all riveted seams). The fuel supply of the new aircraft was to be increased by 1,500 liters;
2. Analog-digital fly-by-wire control system, allowing to implement the concept of longitudinal static instability of the aircraft - contrary to popular belief, the original production MiG-29 (and Su-27) did not have such a quality;
3. New RD-33K engine equipped with a digital electronic hydromechanical automatic control system. On the RD-33, installed on the MiG-29, a hydroelectronic control system with an analog regulator-limiter was used;
4. The new S-29M (SUV-29M) weapons control system, the basis of which was to be a new pulse-Doppler radar N010 and a new optical-location station OLS-M;
5. Significantly increased range of used ammunition, while the maximum payload mass increased from 2,000 kg for the MiG-29 (9-12) to 4,500 kg, the number of suspension points increased from 6 to 9.
And these are just the main differences between the MiG-29M and the main version. To list everything else, including a new radiation warning station, a more modern HUD, CRT monitors in the cockpit, etc., etc. there is simply not enough space in this article.
Without a doubt, the MiG-29M was a machine whose combat potential was almost several times higher than that of the MiG-29 of the first series. If the Su-27, Su-27K, MiG-29 were machines of the 4th generation, then the MiG-29M actually became the "4+" generation. But the development of such a machine posed a much more difficult task for the Mikoyan designers than that solved by their colleagues and rivals from the Sukhoi Design Bureau. While the latter simply adapted the Su-27, which is in a very high degree of readiness (it began to operate in 1985), to the deck, the MMZ im. A. I. Mikoyan had, in fact, to create a new plane, a bit reminiscent of the old silhouette, and at the same time make on its basis a naval version of such an aircraft.
The first flight of the MiG-29K (tail number 311) took place on June 23, 1988.
Yak-141
The creation of the Yak-141, alas, turned into one of the saddest stories of Russian military aviation. As we said above, VTOL aircraft were seriously engaged in our country in 1967, and since then D. F. Ustinov did not give up hope for the emergence of a competitive vertical take-off and landing fighter. But the years passed, and the efforts of the Yakovlev Design Bureau did not lead to success: at the same time, the views on the use of VTOL aircraft changed, therefore the TTT (tactical and technical requirements) for the aircraft was periodically adjusted. A number of supporters of the Yakovlev Design Bureau call such changes the reason for the delays in the creation of the Yak-141, but here, obviously, the cart is placed in front of the horse: in no case at the time of the change in TTT, the Yakovlev Design Bureau could not demonstrate a prototype at least somewhat corresponding to the previous TTT. So it was in the period we are describing - in 1977. The government once again instructs the Yakovlevites to create a supersonic VTOL fighter, but until 1980 it was barely possible to decide on the type of its power plant. The choice was between a single, with one lift-sustainer engine similar to the "Harrier" or combined, like the Yak-38. In 1979, a draft design with a single power plant was developed, presented to the commission and … based on the results of consideration, it was decided to create a draft design with a combined power plant. Therefore, yes, in 1980 the TTT was once again adjusted, but you need to understand that the work on the aircraft at that time was at a stage that completely ruled out the delivery of the car according to the original TTT for state tests in 1982.
In accordance with the new TTT (adjustments were made to it in subsequent years), the aircraft was supposed to become multipurpose, that is, a "vertical takeoff" similarity to the MiG-29, while it was necessary to provide a shortened takeoff with a takeoff run of 120-130 m, takeoff from a springboard and landing from short mileage, and the use of outboard fuel tanks. In 1984, two more important events took place for the Yak-41. Died D. F. Ustinov, Minister of Defense, a powerful supporter of VTOL aircraft, and retired A. S. Yakovlev - G. A. was appointed the lead designer for the Yak-141. Matveev.
In 1985, the first prototype of the aircraft appeared, and in the next, in 1986, its bench tests began. At the same time, another government decree was issued with an instruction to develop a supersonic VTOL fighter, now it should be submitted for state tests by 1988. But these terms (traditionally) were also disrupted. It has been 21 years since the VTOL fighter was mentioned in a government decree for the first time, but it was never presented at the GSE. It was at this time that the Yak-141 received its designation (before that it was called the Yak-41).
The work, nevertheless, nevertheless moved forward - on March 9, 1987, the Yak-141 made its first flight (with horizontal take-off and landing), in 1990 - for the first time carried out vertical take-off and landing.
TAKR tests
By the time the technical condition of the ship made it possible to start flying from its deck, strictly speaking, not a single aircraft had officially started flight design tests. However, on the initiative of M. P. Simonov, in 1988 it was decided to test the Su-27K on the deck of the ship. A similar proposal came out and the OKB im. A. M. Mikoyan, and a similar permit was obtained for the MiG-29K. There is no doubt that if the Yakovlev Design Bureau could have done the same, they would have done so, but the problem was that as of 1988-1989. the Yakovlevites simply did not have an aircraft that could be landed on the deck - the Yak-141 was simply not ready for this. However, it must be said that at least in 1988 the choice in favor of the Su, MiG or Yak had not yet been made, while the MiG-29K should probably be considered the "favorite" at that time - the MAP board was inclined towards him, due to its smaller size and, accordingly, the ability to equip the aircraft group with a large number of aircraft.
TAKR "Tbilisi" for the first time departed from the factory berth on October 21, 1989, and did it without the obligatory preliminary demagnetization and docking, as well as without a number of systems in which in another case no one would have allowed the ship to leave the wall. But the tests of the aircraft were extremely important and the high authorities gave their "go-ahead" to the exit.
And so, at 13.46 on November 1, 1989, for the first time in the history of the Russian Navy, a horizontal take-off and landing aircraft Su-27K (side No. 39), piloted by test pilot V. G. Pugachev.
Behind him, at 15.11, he successfully landed a MiG-29 (side number 311) under the control of T. O. Aubakirov. And a little later, at 4:48 pm, T. O. Aubakirov carried out the first-ever trampoline takeoff from the TAKR deck - the MiG-29K did not disappoint, everything worked normally.
The flight-design test cycle of the MiG-29K and Su-27K was carried out over 20 days - during this time the aircraft made 227 flights and made 35 landings (of course, some of the flights were carried out from land airfields). At the same time, the Su-27K landed on the TAKR deck 20 times, the MiG-29K - 13, and the Su-25UTG - 2 times. And then the aircraft carrier returned to the plant.
Flights from the deck resumed with the beginning of the state tests of the ship, which TAKR "Tbilisi" entered on August 1, 1990 and which lasted until October 4, when the huge ship returned to the plant to eliminate the comments and revise the mechanisms. At the same time, the aircraft carrier received the next, fourth in a row, the name "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov" (before that the ship was consistently called "Riga", "Leonid Brezhnev" and "Tbilisi"). During the state tests, 454 flights of various aircraft were performed, including the Su-27K, MiG-29K, Su-25UTG, Ka-27, Ka-29 and Ka-31 helicopters. During this period, the first night takeoff and landing on the aircraft carrier (MiG-29 under the control of A. N. Kvochur) were performed.
In 1991, flights resumed: at this time, the aircraft carrier was still in the Black Sea, it went north only on December 1, 1991. And finally, on September 26, 1991, the Yak-141 landed on the ship.
So on the deck of the "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov" there were three fighters of various classes - a heavy fighter, a multipurpose light fighter and a VTOL fighter. Surprisingly, but true: at that time, each of them could claim the title of the best in the world - in its class, of course, but not only among the naval, but also among the "land" aircraft of the Air Force. At the same time, each of them was created in a special way - the Sukhoi Design Bureau adapted the serial Su-27 to the deck with minimal design additions by creating an excellent 4th generation aircraft; generation "4+", and the Yakovlev Design Bureau generally created "a wonderful, marvelous miracle", nothing like which existed in the world.
It must be said that the creation of a carrier-based aircraft is a very difficult matter, and it is not surprising that serious accidents fell to the aircraft of all three design bureaus. So, on July 11, 1991, the remote control system on the serial Su-27K (T-10K-8) failed, as a result of which the plane crashed, fortunately, T. Apakidze, who piloted it, managed to eject and there were no casualties. In September (inaccurately) an oversight of the MiG-29K pilot led to a serious damage to the aircraft - having already landed the aircraft on the deck, with the engines running, the pilot tried to remove the landing gear. And although he immediately corrected his mistake, the hydraulic cylinders and landing gear tubes turned out to be out of order - the plane had to be "handed over for repair." And on October 5 of the same year, 1991, the Yak-141 crashed - due to an error in piloting, the plane landed "roughly", with a high vertical speed. From this landing gear pierced the fuel tank and started a fire, which, however, was extinguished quickly and without consequences for the ship.
As you know, in the end it was decided to adopt the Su-27K, which by that time had been renamed the Su-33. In various publications, the reasons for this decision are covered in different ways - someone claims that the Su-33 won "in a fair battle" because of the best performance characteristics, someone, on the contrary, believes that the excellent MiG-29K and / or Yak-141 turned out to be victims of the undercover intrigues of the Sukhoi Design Bureau leadership. We often read that the Yak-141 accident was a pretext for curtailing the VTOL program as a whole, sometimes the same is said about the MiG-29K.
However, most likely, the reasons of those who made the final decision were much more prosaic. In 1991, the greatest tragedy of our time took place - the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Despite the fact that the Russian Federation remained the largest and strongest among the "wreckage" of the USSR, its economy was in a completely deplorable state. In other words, at that time, not the most effective from a military point of view, but the cheapest solutions were required, and here the Su-33 was out of competition.
Most likely, the Su-33, being a heavy fighter, cost more than the MiG-29K, but the fact is that the ultra-modern MiG-29M at that time, on the basis of which the MiG-29K was made, almost entirely consisted of new equipment, which had to be brought up to condition, and then organize its serial production. At the same time, the equipment of the Su-33 was almost a copy of the serial units mastered by the industry and their production could not cause any difficulties. As of 1991, the plant in Komsomolsk-on-Amur had already started serial construction of the Su-33, while the MiG-29K existed in only two copies, and the third was only 60% ready. At the same time, the overwhelming part of the tests was carried out by the firstborn of this type, the MiG-29K with tail number 311, on which a significant part of the standard equipment and armament of the aircraft was not installed. Only the second copy of the MiG-29K, side No. 312, received a complete set, but it has just begun to be tested. If board # 311 made 313 flights before the accident (and seven - after), then board # 312 - only 35.
The rejection of the MiG-29M / MiG-29K program undoubtedly caused enormous damage to the domestic air force - the Air Force and the Navy lost an excellent "light" fighter. But, in fairness, it should be said that under the conditions of severe financial restrictions of the Russian Federation, it was more correct to rely on heavy fighters, and they were dealt with by the Sukhoi Design Bureau. As a matter of fact, our country did not find funds for them either - although in parallel with the Su-33, the Su-30 entered service with the Air Force, but in extremely limited quantities. That is, in fact, the country did not have the money even to ensure the normal functioning of one design bureau and purchase its products - there was no point in "smearing" these completely insufficient funds on the MiG-29M / MiG-29K.
Against this background, any arguments about the Yak-141 simply lose their meaning. This aircraft was at an even earlier stage of development than the MiG-29M / MiG-29K. And although in its class it was definitely ahead of the rest of the planet (mostly due to the fact that almost no one on the planet except us was involved in VTOL aircraft), of course, it could not become a full-fledged replacement for the country's heavy and light fighter aircraft. At the same time, it was possible to develop it further only by “letting it go around the world” both Sukhov's design bureau and Mikoyan's design bureau.
It is impossible to say that the accidents caused the termination of work on the MiG-29K and Yak-141 - if the Sukhoi leadership tried to do this, they would immediately be pointed at the just lost Su-33, here all three design bureaus were in approximately the same position. As for the undercover struggle, it was undoubtedly present, but how could it be otherwise? After all, the three listed design bureaus competed with each other. And there is no doubt that the Yakovlev Design Bureau and MiG were to a certain extent weakened by 1991 - Yakovlev himself had retired by that time, and his followers simply did not have projects on which they could make a name for themselves. At the same time, at the very beginning of the deck tests, the chief designer of the MiG-29K M. R. Waldenberg came down with a heart attack, and the health of General Designer R. A. Belyakov also did not allow him to come to Crimea, but high representatives of the Sukhov Design Bureau were there, and this, of course, could not but play its role. Nevertheless, according to the author of this article, the fate of the Su-33, MiG-29K and Yak-141 was determined not by a thorough analysis of their performance characteristics or the intrigue of the designers, but by the forced economy on the country's armed forces.
But what would happen if the Russian Federation was not so limited in financial resources? Which fighter best suited the tasks assigned to the air groups of the Soviet aircraft carrier?
