Air combat of the XXI century
The Su-27 and its numerous heirs will not be able to fight the Raptor. You need either your own Raptor, or a new reincarnation of the undeservedly forgotten MiG-31. The Russian fifth generation fighter (more precisely, its prototype), known under the working name T-50, finally took off from the factory airfield in Komsomolsk-on-Amur on January 29, 2010
Of course, this is a huge success for the Russian aircraft industry, and for the military-industrial complex in general. Perhaps this is our first real, not PR, success in the field of modern military technologies in the entire post-Soviet history of Russia. However, it is clear that even with the most optimal (and extremely unlikely) development of events, it will not go into the series for another ten years (it is better to leave the statement that the aircraft can enter the troops in 2013 without comment). And it’s very interesting what size this series will be, even if it takes place? Will it get to at least 100 cars? And, by and large, what will air combat be like in the 21st century?
True, it should be noted that very few F-22s have been built, less than 200. They have not yet been exported abroad at all and it is not very clear whether they will be. As for the second fifth-generation American fighter, the F-35 Lightning-2, which is to replace the F-16, it is still difficult to understand what will come of it. This aircraft should simultaneously become a fighter, bomber, attack aircraft, and one of its variants should be able to take off shortly and land vertically. When they want so much from one plane at once, as a rule, nothing good comes out. The F-22 was purposefully made as an air combat fighter, and creating an aircraft for one mission is incomparably easier than for several missions that contradict each other.
F-35 Lightning II
And there are no more fifth-generation fighters in the world. The Chinese are quietly sculpting something, but we learn about the results of sculpting only when this result passes the testing stage. There is no point in doing fortune-telling. The Indians want to create such an aircraft together with Russia, the result is also completely unclear. It is not even clear whether it will be the same T-50 or some other aircraft. Europeans are not going to strain at all. Their formally newest Typhoon is far from the best aircraft, even by the standards of the fourth generation. The only purpose of its production is to prevent the death of the military component of the European aviation industry. The quality of the aircraft is not fundamental, since the Europeans will not fight with anyone anyway. In addition, some European countries will buy a little F-35, while others secretly hope that Washington will make an exception for them and sell the F-22.
F-22
So for the time being, it is mainly the fourth generation that is relevant. The most dangerous of all in it is the F-15, but it will soon be written off due to the development of a resource, and with the F-16, F-18, Typhoon, French Mirage-2000 and Rafal, Swedish Grippen and Chinese J -10 seems to be easier to cope with. Moreover, most likely, it will not be us and not the Europeans that will have to cope, but someone else in the third world will fight on all these planes.
F-15
It should be noted that if the Israeli, American and Saudi F-15s account for several dozen downed aircraft (Syrian, Iraqi, Iranian), then the Su-27 fought only two or three real air battles. In the summer of 1999, Ethiopian Su-27s shot down one to three Eritrean fighters. Ironically, they were MiG-29s. On the other hand, for example, the Mirage-2000 has only one aerial victory: in October 1996, a Greek aircraft of this type overwhelmed its sworn ally, the Turkish F-16D.
F-16s and> F-18s have not had much success, for example during Desert Storm in winter 1991. The F-18 shot down only 2 Iraqi MiG-21s (and there are no more victories on the F-18 account to this day), and the F-16 - no one at all. True, these aircraft are viewed more as strike aircraft than as fighters.
MiG-29
Alas, the MiG-29 showed absolutely nothing, although it participated not only in the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea, but also in the Iraqi wars against Iran and the United States, as well as in repelling the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia. Unfortunately, there is no reliable information about at least one victory of this aircraft (there are only hints that in the early days of Desert Storm, it may have shot down 1 or 2 Tornadoes), but quite a lot of them were lost (in total at least 20 in all the wars listed).
In general, the outcome of an air battle between aircraft of approximately equal performance characteristics is determined by many factors. The information factor took the first place. The pilot must represent the situation as best as possible, he must be the first to detect the enemy, avoid detection from his side and be the first to use the weapon (and it is very desirable that the second use of the weapon is no longer needed). It should be understood that own reconnaissance means (first of all, of course, it is a radar) can become a unmasking factor, they make it possible to detect the enemy, but at the same time inform the enemy about themselves with their radiation. Therefore, an increasingly important role is played by external reconnaissance means (for example, AWACS aircraft). The information environment in which the aircraft is "immersed" is of fundamental importance. Added to this are electronic warfare (EW), which are designed to distort information for the enemy. At the very least, to jam his radar station with interference, at the maximum, to create a completely false picture of the air situation for him. On the other hand, one must be able to effectively counteract the enemy's electronic warfare means.
Further, the factor of weapons is extremely important, especially long and medium-range air-to-air missiles, with the help of which it is possible to strike not just from out of visual range, but preferably before the enemy even detects that he is being attacked. And only then comes the factor of maneuverability, it acts in the event that it comes to close combat, in which the opponents know about each other and see each other.
And, of course, above all this is the factor of training a pilot who must be able to operate in an information environment, effectively use reconnaissance means and weapons, and evade enemy reconnaissance means and weapons. All this is done under conditions of every second change in the tactical situation and the strongest psychological and physical stress. Modern air combat is on the verge of a person's psychophysical capabilities, if not beyond it, therefore it is doubly important to create an information environment for the pilot that would make it as easy as possible for him to make adequate decisions. It is interesting, by the way, that if attack drones are already being created in practice, then the possibility of the appearance of an unmanned fighter is still a purely speculative thing. The task of striking ground targets is much easier to formalize, but air combat is so complex and ambiguous that it is impossible to do without a man. On the other hand, the pilot cannot do without the help of very powerful and smart computers.
All of the above applies to combat between "traditional" fighters. If the "invisible" enters the battle, the situation changes. Invisibility gives the aircraft a decisive advantage over the enemy, since he is deprived of information about "invisibility" and the ability to use weapons on him, turning out to be blind and deaf.
True, the paradox is that the "invisible" radar, on the one hand, provides him with the ability to beat the enemy from a great distance, at which he is, in principle, unable to detect him. On the other hand, a working radar station informs the enemy that he is being attacked by stealth. And it allows him, if not to hit the "invisibility", then at least take a maneuver to evade the attack. Here, for "invisibility" it becomes fundamentally important to obtain information about the enemy from external sources (from AWACS aircraft, ground-based radars and space satellites).
It turns out quite interesting if "invisibles" from both sides converge in battle. As mentioned in the article "Invisible flying object", the RCS of such aircraft is the same as that of a large bird. At the same time, the planes themselves are larger than the bird. Thus, they are easier to detect visually than with a locator. Because of this, the radar station for the "invisible" going into battle against another "invisible" turns out to be not only useless (since it does not provide detection of the enemy), but harmful (since it unmasks itself). As a result, long-range combat becomes impossible again, it all comes down to close combat with the help of cannons, short-range missiles and high maneuverability. Like in Vietnam. And if it happens at night, then close combat is hardly possible, invisibility becomes complete.
Of course, Russia can continue to develop the main line of the Su-27 and the secondary MiG-29, hoping that we ourselves will never fight with anyone, and these machines will be enough for export to third world countries for a long time. If the Russian Air Force is nevertheless created to reflect possible aggression against its country, and not as a permanent exhibition for potential buyers, then the further development of the Su-27 line is futile. It does not have a fundamental qualitative superiority over the fourth generation fighters (at best, quantitative in some parameters) and is not capable of fighting the fifth generation.
Accordingly, you need to make your own "Raptor", combining invisibility, electronics, weapons and maneuverability. A very interesting question: to what extent is Russia capable of this today? While nothing is known about the performance characteristics of our new fighter, there are only various rumors (more precisely, dreams). Judging by its appearance, the T-50 will be as close as possible to the Raptor. Then an interesting thing will turn out: the F-22 will become the most maneuverable of the American aircraft, and the T-50 - the most invisible of the Russian ones. So we and the Americans will finally come to a "common denominator."
True, even if we manage to do something close to the F-22, our aircraft will still not be part of the giant information network that the US Armed Forces are turning into as part of the concept of network-centric warfare, which puts it at a disadvantage compared to the Raptor. Another thing is that the fourth generation will be beaten by them in any case.
However, there is another option - to create a heavy fighter as the successor to the MiG-31, a wonderful and clearly underestimated aircraft. That is, to make not so much a fighter as an interceptor with a very powerful radar, at the same time capable of carrying many long-range air-to-air missiles. The main requirements for this aircraft (let's call it conditionally MiG-31bis) should be a long flight range (taking into account the size of the country's territory), a large number of missiles on board (more than the current MiG-31), the highest possible flight range of these missiles and, of course, a radar that ensures their use at this range and is able to see even "invisible" people at least a hundred kilometers away.
Of course, it will be impossible to demand neither invisibility nor maneuverability from such a machine; it should benefit from the range and power of missiles and radars. Beat even the Raptor. And the fourth-generation aircraft and cruise missiles of such a MiG-31bis should simply "blast in batches", remaining out of their reach. Since such an aircraft will certainly be large and heavy, it can be hung with powerful electronic warfare equipment, which increases the combat capabilities of the vehicle.
MiG-31
However, you can make both the T-50 and the MiG-31bis at the same time, they would complement each other very well. Perhaps this would be the best option. But the easiest way is to continue multiplying the advantages of the Su-27. Which will inevitably lead to the complete degradation of its own aviation.
In the meantime, we continue to develop the Su-27, drawing more and more new advantages to its new incarnations ("generation 4+", "generation 4 ++" …). At the same time, alas, it is clear that even with the F-15, which does not have any hints of invisibility and is sometimes falling apart in the air from old age, it will be difficult for our "plus pluses" to fight. A series of Indian-American exercises, in which the Indian Su-30s utterly defeated the F-15s, should not be misleading: on the part of the Americans there was a purposeful give-away game, the F-15s were put in deliberately losing tactical conditions. The goal of the game was obvious - to knock out funds from the country's leadership for additional F-22s. And "Raptor" beats "Eagle" really outright.
In the same way, the F-22 will smash all our wonderful "plus pluses", they have no chance at all in battle with it. Alas, Russian fourth-generation aircraft have no advantage over the Raptor in any way. Even in maneuverability, the Yankees caught up with us. And in terms of electronics and invisibility, the American's advantage is so absolute that there will be no fight, there will be a beating. Even if we do not take into account the order of magnitude higher level of combat training of American pilots in comparison with ours. It must be remembered that the Raptor was originally built for the concept of network-centric warfare, so its pilot has "all the information in the world." In a battle with this aircraft, the Su-27 and its derivatives will be simply blind and deaf.
