MiG plane and Su plane - which is better. Olympiad on the history of aviation and aeronautics How to distinguish a moment from a su

It may not be correct to compare these two outstanding cars, but no, no, and there are posts on this topic in the group, and on forums, etc. And in a real conflict, theoretically, they could meet in a duel. Some say that one of them is superior in the BVB, some that they are approximately equal, and others that there is no point in comparing them.

Have the Yankees finally admitted that their best combat aircraft, the F-35, is inferior to the MIG-29 and Su-27?

The Soviet MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters, developed in the USSR, are technically superior to the F-35 being developed in the United States, according to a report by the American organization National Security Network.

MOSCOW, August 14 – RIA Novosti. The Soviet MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters are superior in technical indicators to the new American F-35 fighter. These are the conclusions reached by American analyst Bill French, who works for the non-profit organization National Security Network. French is the author of a report entitled Thunder Without Lightning: The High Costs and Limited Benefits of the F-35 Development Program. The document says that in terms of technical indicators, the F-35 is inferior to the already deployed fourth-generation fighters MiG-29 and Su-27, developed in Russia and used by air forces around the world.

The F-35 is significantly inferior to the Su-27 and MiG-29 in terms of wing loading (with the exception of the F35C), transonic acceleration and thrust-to-weight ratio (the ratio of thrust to the weight of the aircraft), the analyst further explains. In addition, he adds, all F-35 models have significantly lower maximum speeds than Soviet-designed aircraft.

Air combat simulations paint an even bleaker picture, French notes. According to him, in 2009, analysts from the US Air Force and Lockheed Martin, which is developing a new American fighter, noted: despite the superiority of the F-35 in terms of stealth technology and on-board electronics, compared to the Su-27 and MiG -29 a loss ratio of 3:1 can be expected. That is, for every Su-27 or MiG-29 destroyed, there will be three F-35s destroyed.

French also compared the F-35 to existing American aircraft and noted that it is only slightly better than the F-16, F-18, and Harrier-2 fighters it is expected to replace.

Previously, problems associated with the F-35 were noticed in Australia. News.com.au compared it to the latest Russian fifth-generation fighter, the T-50. The author of the article, in particular, noted that the Russian aircraft is significantly superior to the American aircraft in maneuverability.

MiG-29 and Su-27. Explosive topic.

In the sky above Zhukovsky near Moscow, operational-tactical aircraft Su-27, Su-34 and MiG-29 performed group aerobatics. Su-27 is a multi-role, highly maneuverable, all-weather fighter of the 4th generation. At the moment it is one of the main aircraft of the Russian Air Force. The Su-34 is a front-line bomber and is a “4+” generation aircraft. Capable of effectively hitting ground, sea and air targets in any geographical area using the entire range of aviation ammunition, including high-precision ones. The aircraft has a developed combat survivability system and is equipped with an armored flight deck. MiG-29 is a 4th generation multi-role fighter. The aircraft can effectively conduct active maneuver combat with the use of a cannon, all-aspect missile combat at short and medium distances, and intercept attack and reconnaissance aircraft, including low-flying ones against the background of the ground.

The Su-34 was first used during the war in South Ossetia. The aircraft was used to cover the actions of strike aircraft, conducting electronic warfare against Georgian air defense systems. To suppress electronic warfare systems, the Su-34 interfered with combat formations, which did not allow air defense systems

The Mig-29 is smaller, lighter, cheaper both in cost and in operating costs, and, according to the pilots’ descriptions, it seems to be easier to maintain and seemingly more reliable. Which is not bad at all for a front-line fighter. But it will have to be specifically equipped with a PTB in order to intercept the target, since it is still designed for the defense of strategic areas. The fact that both aircraft are very successful is shown by twenty years of experience. The whole world has seen how the Mig-29s fly with swifts; they just need to bring the avionics up to the level.

Sources: vk.com, otvet.mail.ru, forums.airbase.ru, www.people.su, www.airwar.ru

Space fighter Spiral

Ghosts in ordinary houses

The effect of hypnosis on a person

The mystery of the Dogon tribe: ancient artifacts

Contacts with aliens

The first scientific project to establish contact with aliens was proposed by the German mathematician and astronomer Carl Friedrich Gauss: to cut down in the Siberian taiga...

Arthur Conan Doyle: who built the pyramids in Egypt?

Despite numerous facts indicating that the technologies for the construction of such objects as the Cheops Pyramid were beyond the reach of the ancient Egyptians,...

Coral Castle by Edward Leedskalnin

There is a mysterious place in Florida where hundreds of thousands of tourists from different parts of the world come every year. This is Coral Castle...

FEL lasers

Physicists are very interested in creating and studying X-ray lasers, i.e. such laser devices, the main energy of laser radiation of which is...

Su-25SM

New camouflage has recently been acquired by all helicopters and airplanes newly purchased by the Air Force, and now equipment undergoing...

Grown leather

One of the most intractable problems in medicine is the restoration of damaged skin. We are talking, in particular, about burns, the nature of which...

Competition always stimulates technological progress. In the Soviet Union, despite the planned economy and the state monopoly on the means of production, competition also took place, although not in all sectors. The design bureaus that developed defense systems fought mercilessly for primacy and the right to be called the best. Examples of such competition are the best interceptors that entered service with the Soviet Army at approximately the same time, in the 80s, namely the MiG-29 and Su-27. Photos of airplanes lead citizens uninitiated in the intricacies of aircraft construction to think about their similarity. In fact, they represent different classes of fighters. The Su-27 is a heavy interceptor, and the MiG-29 is a light one. And in some sense, each of them is the best.

A Tale of Two Classes of Fighter

Already in the fifties, a division of interceptors into two categories arose. In case of war, one of them had to fight in maneuverable air battles, called by pilots “dog fights” or “carousels”. In this situation, small fighters with low mass and a large wing area could count on success. The second class of interceptors was intended to destroy enemy strategic bombers and missiles. This required high speed, maximum ceiling, powerful long-range weapons and an effective on-board radar. Heavy interceptors captured the target and struck at it at long ranges. They were created and put into service in countries that have nuclear weapons and aspire to regional or global leadership.

Which is better - light or heavy?

But all this did not mean that these two classes of fighters would not have to meet in the skies. Quite the opposite. For example, two very dissimilar opponents, the light and maneuverable MiG-21 and the heavy F-4 Phantom, met in the skies of Vietnam, and the pilots of each of them sought to realize the design advantages of their aircraft, depending on the situation.

The ratio of heavy and light fighters in the arsenal of the air forces of leading countries is usually 3 to 7. It happens that it is 2 to 8, and even 1 to 9. But more expensive and technologically complex machines, that is, heavy interceptors, constitute a quantitative minority of the military aviation fleet. There is a completely logical explanation for this. First, most combat missions do not require excessive technical superiority. Secondly, it is easier to find a foreign buyer for a cheap and efficient aircraft than for an expensive and complex one. Not all countries in the world are concerned about containing the nuclear threat, but they need a military air fleet, sometimes even simply for status reasons, like Switzerland, for example. And not all countries have a defense budget that allows them to purchase expensive “toys” that also require special pilot training and expensive maintenance.

Considering that not all states need a heavy interceptor, and knowing the general statistics, we can conclude that out of every hundred interceptors currently flying in the earth’s atmosphere, ninety-three are light.

Even a quick comparison of the MiG-29 and Su-27 leads to the conclusion that the Mikoyan fighter has a higher export potential than the Sukhoi.

Our eternal struggle between good and even better

At the end of the 70s, two Soviet aviation design bureaus fought to ensure that their fighters received a defense order. Each of them had their advantages and, of course, disadvantages. The Su-27 was favored by its better flight characteristics, powerful on-board radar and large payload. The MiG-29 was distinguished by its lower cost, unpretentiousness, ability to take off and land at poorly prepared airfields, while also having very good performance characteristics. It would be logical to launch both aircraft into production, giving the quantitative advantage to the Mikoyans, but the Soviet Ministry of Defense decided to build more Sukhoi. The comparison of the MiG-29 and Su-27 was made on formal grounds, without taking into account the practical experience of using machines of various classes. General designer Mikhail Petrovich Simonov managed to convince the leadership of the USSR Ministry of Defense of the unconditional superiority of his aircraft.

Then a general restructuring happened, and there was less money in the state treasury, which forced the government to significantly cut defense spending. The MiG faded into the background; in the 90s, the program received half as much funding as the Su. The Mikoyanites had to do something to save their brainchild from complete oblivion.

Battle over Lipetsk

The leadership of the Mig design bureau, represented by General Designer R. A. Belyakov, insisted on a demonstration training battle. M.P. Simonov objected, arguing that everything was clear, “Sukhoi” was better, and that’s all. But the Mikoyanites were supported by S. Askanov, who led the combat use of aviation, and the battles took place. To Simonov’s chagrin, a comparison of the MiG-29 and Su-27 showed in practice a clear underestimation of the competing vehicle. In eight out of ten fights, the 29th won, and at all distances. The powerful Sukhoi radar did not provide any advantages due to the smaller geometric dimensions of the MiG. Simonov managed to convince the management to introduce unilateral restrictive conditions for the opponent, reducing the permissible angle of attack for him. The results for the Su-27 were the best, but it was not always possible to escape persistent and successful attempts to catch its tail. The comparison of the Su-27 and MiG-29 was declared not entirely correct due to the better flight training of the former pilot. So this experiment did not lead to any fundamental decisions.

War in Africa

As expected, the MiG-29 found foreign buyers. He ended up in the ranks of the Air Forces of Iraq, India, Ethiopia, Yugoslavia and many other countries that had a chance to try him out in action. in the world was changing rapidly, and sometimes the same type of aircraft ended up in service with opposing sides. After the separation of Eritrea from Ethiopia, a conflict arose between the two countries on territorial grounds. Then, in 1999, the Su-27 had to fight against the MiG-29. It is known about three air battles that took place on February 21, 25 and 26 and ended in victory for Ethiopian pilots who shot down three Eritrean MiGs (one was not counted, but, having received damage, did not return to base, according to intelligence data).

Reasons for the defeat of Eritrean pilots

One could conclude that the Su-27 is completely superior if not for two significant circumstances. In two cases, the wingmen of the Eritrean pairs turned around after missile launches by Ethiopian planes and chose to flee. And in all three episodes, the winners were separated from death by a matter of seconds. The Ethiopians, trained in Soviet flight schools and better qualified, were able to realize the design advantages of their interceptors to a greater extent than the Eritrean pilots. In addition, they turned out to be more courageous. It is difficult to judge how objective the practical combat comparison of the MiG-29 and Su-27 turned out to be. The characteristics of aircraft do not always directly affect the result; there are often cases in history when a well-armed enemy is defeated by a brave enemy.

Germans

German Air Force pilots had the opportunity to verify the high quality of Soviet aircraft not only during the Great Patriotic War, but also after 1989. They are accustomed to piloting very good vehicles in service with NATO countries (F/A-18A, F-16A, Tornado, etc.), with characteristics corresponding to the level of the Su-27. After the unification of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic, the MiG-29 was adopted by the Luftwaffe. German pilots were completely delighted with its controllability, maneuverability, cabin ergonomics and other qualities that made the aircraft a pilot's favorite. They are still part of the Air Force of the Bundesrepublic. It is quite possible that other types of our interceptors would have been highly appreciated by NATO experts, but historical realities did not give them the opportunity to compare the MiG-29 and Su-27. Photos on the planes and fuselage personify the curious inconsistency of modernity.

Objective parameters

Large-scale clashes between armies armed exclusively with Soviet and Russian equipment have not yet occurred, and this is good. Consequently, there are no objective statistics to judge the superiority of a particular aircraft model. Nothing, a comparison of the Su-27 and MiG-29 can be made using the available flight characteristics of the two interceptors. The main parameters of the two aircraft are shown in the table.

In terms of mass speed, combat radius and ceiling, the Su-27 has the advantage. Comparing the MiG-29 with this aircraft in terms of climb rate reveals the superiority of the lighter interceptor in close maneuver combat. Both samples are built using a twin-engine design, which indicates their high survivability and reliability.

Cabins

There is another important point on which the MiG-29 and Su-27 should be compared. A photo of the cockpits reveals almost their complete identity. Despite the fierce competition between design bureaus, development engineers were able to find a common language in the interests of domestic combat aviation. Pilot training can be carried out more successfully, and retraining will be reduced to mastering the characteristics of the behavior of the aircraft in critical conditions. The similarity in the location of controls and controls also has a positive effect on the export attractiveness of both types of aircraft.

Further development

Currently, comparing the MiG-29 and Su-27 no longer makes much sense. These aircraft are being replaced by their modifications, including deeply redesigned versions that have their own designations. The next step in improving the MiG-29 platform was the MiG-33 (or MiG-29M), featuring updated aerodynamics, a larger fuel tank and a HOTAS control system. An even more modern modification is the MiG-35.

The Sukhoi Design Bureau is also not standing still. The Su-34 and Su-35 represented the further development of the T-10 platform, the ancestor of which was the Su-27. The results of these large-scale works will have to be compared.

Age: 16 years

Place of study: Student of grade 11 "a" MBOU secondary school No. 34 with UIOP

City: Stary Oskol, Belgorod region.

Historical research work "What is the difference between fighters of five generations?" .

Plan:

1. Introduction to this topic.
2. 1st generation fighters.
3. 2nd generation fighters.
4. 3rd generation fighters.
5. 4th generation fighters.
6. 5th generation fighters.
7. Summarizing.

Introduction

Mig 17 (first generation of fighters).

Mig 21 (second generation fighters).

Mig 23 (third generation of fighters).

Su 27 (fourth generation of fighters).

PAK FA (fifth generation of fighters).

Goal of the work: During the work, study the history of fighters of five generations, the main characteristics inherent in each generation, the difference between fighters of five generations and their participation in local conflicts.

What is commonly called “generations” of military equipment reflects turning points in the views of military theories of the use and effectiveness of the use of weapons systems associated with scientific and technological development, the emergence and development of new technologies, and the emergence of fundamentally new capabilities. Generations should not be confused with fighter types.

The 1st generation, as a rule, includes jet aircraft with subsonic speed, which appeared after World War II and were mainly armed with cannons. The most memorable models of domestic aircraft are the MiG-15 and MiG-17.
First generation jet fighters were not fundamentally different from fighters of the pre-jet era. The only difference was the use of a jet engine instead of a piston engine.

The first jet fighters to be mass-produced were the German Messerschmitt-262, Messerschmitt-163 and the English Gloster Meteor, all three entered service at approximately the same time - in 1944. The increase in the power of jet engines and, as a consequence, the speed and altitude of fighters, led to the emergence of supersonic fighters. The appearance of fairly compact radars, radar sights, and guided missiles of the class also dates back to this time. "air-to-air", which created the preconditions for changing the tactical methods of air combat.

2nd generation - supersonic fighters with missile weapons: MiG-19, MiG-21 aircraft. The concept of second-generation fighters is to increase the speed and distance of combat contact, up to the complete abandonment of close-in maneuverable air combat. Thus, many second-generation jet fighters were not initially equipped with cannon armament. It was believed that with air-to-air missiles available, there was no need to get close to the enemy within cannon fire range. The experience of air combat in the skies over Vietnam and the Middle East showed that a complete abandonment of maneuverable air combat did not occur, which led to the return of cannon weapons. The preservation of close-in maneuverable combat forced designers to think about expanding the range of combat speeds of fighters, which led to the creation of aircraft with variable wing sweep, allowing aircraft to effectively maneuver and fight from low speeds to speeds exceeding 2. The first combat aircraft with such a wing was the American heavy fighter-bomber F-111.

3rd generation - aircraft that had more powerful engines, improved radars, and often variable wing geometry. In the USSR these are the MiG-23 and MiG-27 fighters, and in the USA - the F-4 Phantom.
Along with the advent of variable-sweep wing aircraft, higher-power radars and longer-range missiles appeared. These aircraft began to be considered the third generation of fighters, which arose in the second half of the 60s - the first half of the 70s of the XX century. Simultaneously with the advent of aircraft with variable wing geometry, work began in the USA and USSR to create the concept of fourth generation fighters. Military theorists, together with designers, developed a program that collected experience in air combat and, as a result, created the appearance for the future fighter. The advent of powerful on-board computers and the development of computer modeling have made it possible to dramatically improve the dynamic and maneuverable characteristics of fighter aircraft.

4th generation - vehicles with new on-board equipment, powerful radars, a wide range of weapons - from 30-mm cannons to guided missiles and adjustable bombs. In the USSR these are MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters, in the West - F-15, F-16, Mirage 2000, and Grippen aircraft. The concept of fourth-generation fighters was based on the assumption that fighters with higher dynamic and maneuverable characteristics would have an advantage in battle. New air combat maneuvers were practiced on these machines; the “Cobra” maneuver was performed for the first time on the Su-27 fighter, in which the aircraft sharply lifts its nose, but at the same time maintains the same flight direction. Thus, the aircraft reaches angles of attack greater than 90° degrees; the Su-27 is capable of angles of attack up to 120°. Then the plane returns to normal flight mode with virtually no loss of altitude.

The development of the 4th generation proceeded by leaps and bounds; based on the “old” MiGs and Su, fighters appeared that were very close to the 5th generation: MiG-29SMT, MiG-35, Su-35. Their differences are super-maneuverability due to the installation of engines with a deflectable thrust vector, radars with phased antenna arrays, multifunctionality, replacement of analog instruments with computer displays and other innovations. Projects for fifth-generation fighters appeared in both the USSR and the USA in the 80s of the 20th century. Fifth-generation fighters should have a significantly higher combat potential than fighters of previous generations; their creation should widely use technologies to reduce visibility in various radiation ranges. Basically, the requirements for fifth-generation fighters from Russian and American designers are identical, the main difference is the abandonment of super-maneuverability in favor of stealth on the part of the Americans. Modern melee missiles and helmet-mounted target designation systems make it possible to attack an air target located at any point in the front hemisphere and, partially, in the rear hemisphere, i.e. the presence of such a missile and the corresponding target designation systems makes it possible to refuse to enter supercritical flight modes, which, as a rule, lead to a rapid loss of speed, which in close air combat is fraught with loss of initiative and defeat.

MiG-35.

The first generation of fighters.

The 1st generation of jet fighters consists of wartime aircraft and the first post-war aircraft, which often differ from previous piston aircraft only in the presence of a jet engine. With the advent of new developments in aerodynamics and lightweight, powerful engines in the 1950s, fighter aircraft were able to break the magical “sound barrier.” By the beginning of the next decade, the first jet aircraft capable of reaching speeds of up to 2M entered service in Europe, the USA and the USSR. The most famous Soviet fighter of the first generation is the MiG-15, which became famous during the Korean War, where it was opposed by the American F-86 Saber and the British Hunter. The first post-war generation was considered modern until the mid-60s, but was used in combat even in the early 70s.

Flash 15.

Aircraft of this generation are characterized by the following features:

1. Lack of radars.
2. The radar is partially replaced by a radio sight.
3. Subsonic flight speed, but for some models, for example F-100

Super Saber, a slight excess of the speed of sound is possible.

1. Aircraft guns as the main weapon.
2. It is possible to use unguided missiles, but in auxiliary roles.

The first generation includes the following machines:

In German aviation.

1. Messerschmitt Me.262 - the world's first production jet aircraft
2. Messerschmitt Me.163
3. Heinkel He 162

In USSR aviation.

1. Yak-25

In US aviation.

1. McDonnell F-3 Demon
2. McDonnell F2H Banshee
3. Lockheed F-80 Shooting Star
4. North American F-86 Saber
5. North American F-100 Super Saber

McDonnell F2H Banshee.

North American F-100 Super Saber.

By the mid-1960s, due to the advent and mass commissioning of supersonic fighters, the first generation became obsolete, but continued to be used in the first half of the 1970s. The cannon armament is also outdated. Cannon armament as the main one limited the combat range to several hundred meters, and the development of jet engines meant that the projectile often did not have enough speed to hit the target.

Second generation of fighters.

Second generation fighters entered service in the late 1950s. The main features of 2nd generation fighters are increased flight speeds and long combat contact distances achieved through the use of compact radars, up to the complete abandonment of close-in maneuverable air combat. With the advent of new developments in aerodynamics and lightweight, powerful engines in the 1950s, fighter aircraft were able to break the magical “sound barrier.” By the beginning of the next decade, the first jet aircraft capable of reaching speeds of up to 2M entered service in Europe, the USA and the USSR.

The most famous:

Soviet: MiG-21, Su-7, Su-9, Su-11;

American: F-104, F-4, F-5A, F-8, F-105, F-106;

French:"Mirage"-III, "Mirage"-5;

Su-11.

Mirage"-III.

The maximum speed of Mach 2 means that the aircraft's speed matches the speed of sound at a certain altitude. All aircraft were armed with air-to-air guided missiles. On some, the small arms and cannon weapons were removed. The mass of the combat load exceeded 2 tons. The most common type of wing was delta. The F-8 was the first to use a variable-sweep wing. The radar has become an integral part of the avionics equipment (avionics) on multi-role fighters and fighter-interceptors.

There is no clear boundary between the second and third generations. Generational change occurred more as a result of the natural evolution of technology than due to the need for change. For this reason, the classification of some aircraft is controversial.

Third generation of fighters.

They entered service from the late 1960s to the early 1980s. 3rd generation fighters have higher power radars and longer range guided missiles. At the same time, thanks to the variable wing geometry, fighters of this generation can fight and maneuver effectively over a wide range of speeds. The development of science and technology, primarily analog computers, led to the development of 3rd generation fighters, which were significantly superior to their predecessors in maneuverability and combat effectiveness. More complex avionics reduced the load on the pilot, due to which fighters could also be used to strike ground targets. Reconnaissance remains one of the priority tasks of fighters. The star of 3rd generation fighters in the West is considered to be the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II, which was created for the US Navy, but over time became a truly multifunctional combat vehicle, capable of effectively operating against air and ground targets.

The 3rd generation of supersonic fighters include:

1. Soviet: MiG-23, MiG-25, MiG-27, Su-15, Su-17, Su-20, Su-22;
2. American: F-111, F-4E, F-5E;
3. French:"Mirage" - F.1 and "Mirage" -50,
4. Franco-British:"Jaguar",
5. Swedish: JA-37,
6. Israeli:"Kfir".

Flash 27.

Compared to the previous generation, the speed of fighters has been increased to 3M. More advanced radar equipment was installed on 3rd generation fighters. Variable sweep wings have become widespread. The 3rd generation of fighters in the history of aircraft manufacturing remained in a state of search, various trials and errors. France, when developing its Mirage F1, followed a completely traditional path; the Americans did not have a 3rd generation fighter at all (there were attempts to create it even earlier than the MiG-23). The plane was called F-111 and was intended to be multifunctional, which is why the car turned out to be large and heavy, taking into account the Vietnam experience that emerged a little later, it was not a fighter at all, but a front-line bomber. But despite the “failure,” the Americans filled it with the latest modifications of Phantoms and immediately announced a competition for the next 4th generation. The reason for the change of generations was the opportunity to build more power-armed and maneuverable aircraft, which made up the fourth generation.

Fourth generation of fighters.

By the time of its emergence, the USSR and the USA had switched to a two-component air force configuration, which meant dividing fighters into light and heavy. The development of 4th generation fighter concepts began almost simultaneously with the advent of fighters with variable wing geometry. This concept is based on the assumption that fighters with higher dynamic and maneuverability characteristics will have an advantage in combat. Achieving such characteristics was made possible through the use of powerful computers, computer modeling and improvement of aerodynamics. In the 1960s, aviation was widely used in the wars in Vietnam and the Middle East, during which the priority of maneuverability over speed was revealed - this had a direct impact on the ideology of fighter aircraft 4 -th generation. Maneuverability is largely determined by the thrust-to-weight ratio of the aircraft - the development of new engines, combined with advances in aerodynamics, has made it possible to create aircraft that lose a minimum of energy during maneuvering. The first new generation fighters in the United States were the F-14 Tomcat and F-15 Eagle, both large, heavy, equipped with powerful radars. However, their task at that time was to gain air superiority. However, the full benefits of high thrust-to-weight ratio could only be realized on a small aircraft. As a result, F-16 fighters began to arrive in the US Army. If you compare the F-16 with the F-15, the F-16 looked like a dwarf, but in the air it was a powerful opponent. Thanks to the EMDS, the aircraft had a static stability margin that could be changed in flight, which dramatically improved its maneuverability. The F-16 became an excellent fighter and attack aircraft, and the presence of a suspension of specialized containers made it a multifunctional aircraft, which in terms of versatility had no equal in the world. And then came the McDonnel Douglas F/A-18 Hornet. The cockpit instrumentation was designed on completely new principles - based on multifunctional indicators that have become mandatory for all modern aircraft. The main controls for weapons and on-board systems were placed on the control stick and throttles - now the pilot could fly the aircraft without removing his hands from the main controls. The Mig-29 and Su-27 are designed according to a similar aerodynamic design, but the smaller MiG-29 is an analogue of the F-16, while the Su-27 was created as a counterweight to the F-15. Although we note that neither the MiG-29 nor the Su-27 were multifunctional complexes.

McDonnel Douglas F/A-18 Hornet.

In Russian aviation:

• Su-27
• MiG-29
• MiG-31

In US aviation:

• Grumman F-14 Tomcat
• McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle
• General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon
• McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet

In aviation of other countries:

• Eurofighter Typhoon
• Dassault Rafale
• Saab JAS 39 Gripen
• Dassault Mirage 2000

Su 27.

Flash 29.

4th generation aircraft are characterized by the following features:

• Improved maneuverability (unstable aerodynamic design).
• Double-circuit turbojet engines with reduced fuel consumption.
• Integrated circuit.(If you pay attention, only the F-16 is an aircraft with an integrated circuit, but the F-15 is made according to the classic one.)
• Application of composite materials.(multicomponent materials consisting of a matrix reinforced with fillers that have high strength, rigidity, etc. The use of composites usually makes it possible to reduce the weight of the structure while maintaining or improving its mechanical characteristics.)

Double-circuit turbojet engine.

Principle of operation.

Generation 4+ and 4++.

This is what is commonly called 4th generation aircraft, the modernization or further development of which brings their characteristics and efficiency closer to fifth generation fighters:

• In Russian aviation:
  • Su-30
  • Su-33UB
  • Su-34
  • Su-27SM2
  • Su-35
  • Su-35S (according to some experts, based on the totality of its characteristics, the aircraft can be classified as a 5th generation fighter)
  • Su-37
  • MiG-35
• In US aviation:
  • Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
  • Boeing F-15SE Silent Eagle
  • Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II (classified by the developer as a 5th generation fighter, but does not meet a large number of requirements for 5th generation fighters, therefore, according to some experts, it is a 4+ generation fighter)

These aircraft are characterized by:

• High maneuverability or super maneuverability (only MiG-29OVT, MiG-35, Su-35, Su-35S and Su-37)
• Slotted, passive phased array, or active phased array radars
• Reduced operating costs
• Multifunctionality
• Glass cabin
• Reduced ESR due to the use of radio-absorbing materials and coatings
• Possibility of flying at supersonic speed without using afterburner (Su-35S only).

Airplanes of this generation had deflectable nozzles. Variable thrust vectoring allows modern fighters to do things in the air that ordinary fighters cannot do.

Su-35S.

Mig-35.

Fifth generation of fighters.

The first projects of 5th generation fighters appeared in the USSR and the USA back in the 1980s. These aircraft implement a concept that provides for the abandonment of super-maneuverability in favor of stealth, achieved through the use of technologies to reduce visibility in various radiation ranges. Development of a modern Russian fighter of the 5th generation by the Design Bureau named after. P.P. Sukhoi began in the late 1990s. The aircraft project took part in the competition of the Russian Ministry of Defense under the program “Advanced Aviation Complex of Front-line Aviation.” There are many requirements for the 5th generation. The aircraft must have supersonic cruising speed, stealth, a powerful radar system providing all-round visibility, and a computer “brain” that controls flight and combat operations.

Main characteristics of fifth generation aircraft:

• multifunctionality, that is, high efficiency in hitting air, ground, surface and underwater targets;
• availability of a circular information system;
• the ability to fly at supersonic speeds without using afterburner;
• super maneuverability
• American designers, while working on the F-22, abandoned super-maneuverability in favor of stealth (no anti-aircraft propulsion, thrust vector deviation only in the vertical plane, diamond-shaped wing);
• Russian designers pay the same attention to super-maneuverability as they do to the other characteristics of the aircraft (there is a low speed control unit, all-angle engine thrust vector control, a delta wing);
• a radical reduction in the radar and infrared signature of the aircraft (by changing the geometry of the aircraft and engine nozzles, using composite materials and radar-absorbing coatings, as well as the transition of on-board sensors to passive methods of obtaining information and enhanced stealth modes);
• the ability to carry out all-aspect fire at targets in close air combat, as well as conduct multi-channel missile fire during long-range combat;
• automation of control of on-board information and jamming systems;
• increased combat autonomy due to the installation of a tactical situation indicator in the cockpit of a single-seat aircraft with the ability to mix information (that is, simultaneous output and mutual overlay on a single scale of “pictures” from various sensors), as well as the use of telecode information exchange systems with external sources;
• aerodynamics and on-board systems must provide the ability to change the angular orientation and trajectory of the aircraft without any noticeable delays, without requiring strict coordination and coordination of the movements of the control elements;
• the aircraft must “forgive” gross piloting errors in a wide range of flight conditions;
• the aircraft must be equipped with an automated control system at the level of solving tactical problems, which has an expert mode “to help the pilot.”

Fifth generation fighters:

• In Russian aviation:
  • A promising aviation complex for front-line aviation (PAK FA, undergoing flight tests; adoption into service by the Russian Air Force is planned for 2016, procurement will begin in 2013);
  • Su-47 and MiG 1.44 (both cancelled, are flight prototypes of fifth generation aircraft)
  • Yak-201 (cancelled, lost to the PAK FA aircraft project)
  • Su-35BM (is a 4++ generation fighter, as it does not meet some of the requirements for 5th generation fighters, however, according to some experts, based on the totality of its characteristics it can be considered a 5th generation fighter)
• In US aviation:
  • Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 (cancelled, lost to the F-22 aircraft project)
  • Lockheed/Boeing F-22 Raptor (as of 2011, the only fifth-generation fighter in service in the world)
  • Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II (undergoing flight tests; according to some experts, it is a 4+ generation fighter, as it does not meet a large number of requirements for fifth-generation fighters).

The idea to create a fighter of the 21st century was born in the USSR and the USA at the same time. Work began in the late 80s. For well-known reasons, the United States got a head start and managed to be the first to put into service a fighter called the F-22 Raptor.

First of all, it should be noted that the F-22A incorporates the most advanced features of fourth-generation fighters:

Firstly, this is an integral aerodynamic layout - a smooth coupling of the wing and fuselage, increasing the load-bearing properties and allowing maximum use of internal volumes (F-16, Su-27, MiG-29).

Secondly, the use of radar with a phased antenna array, which makes it possible to fire missiles at several targets simultaneously (MiG-31).

Thirdly, increasing the range and duration of flight on the internal fuel supply without refueling (Su-27).

Fourthly, increasing maneuverability characteristics by reducing the load on the wing, increasing the thrust-to-weight ratio and using a fly-by-wire control system (F-15, F-16, Su-27 and others). At the same time, a number of characteristics of the F-22 are qualitatively different from those of the vehicles just listed. First of all, this is a supersonic cruising flight speed, achieved in non-afterburning modes of operation of the control system, and a significantly reduced visibility for enemy radars. Next - high maneuverability not only at subsonic, but also at supersonic speeds. Finally, there is a high probability of hitting a target without entering the combat contact zone.

The combination of these differences gives grounds to consider the F-22A a fifth-generation aircraft. During its creation, the desire to achieve just such characteristics became decisive in the development of technical requirements and set the boundary conditions for making decisions on the layout of both the aircraft as a whole and its individual systems.

Therefore, even despite the use of a special twist, the Raptor wing cannot have the same high load-bearing properties as, for example, the wing of the Su-27 aircraft and the promising Russian 5th generation fighter T-50. In addition, the use of internal weapon compartments leads to a heavier and more complex aircraft design, because leads to the need to use a multi-spar type wing instead of a caisson type and to a corresponding increase in the number of power frames. The design of the latter also deviates from the optimal one due to the need to transmit the flow of forces along a curved, open contour. Achieving supersonic cruising speed is an increase in engine thrust in non-afterburning mode, since turning on the afterburner leads to a radical increase in fuel consumption.

Stealth, which is a mandatory quality of a fifth-generation aircraft, is only partially realized in the T-50. It is worth noting that of all military aircraft developed in the Russian Federation, it is the most protected from radar detection. However, for example, when creating the 5th generation fighter F-22 Raptor, the Americans had to abandon additional maneuverability in favor of greater stealth. According to experts, Russian specialists are more likely to prefer maneuverability over these two qualities. The PAK FA is equipped with the latest active phased array radar system produced by the Research Institute of Instrument Engineering. This radar allows for comprehensive and multi-channel bombardment of targets, which is also a requirement for a fifth-generation aircraft.

T-50 (PAK FA).

The T-50 uses long and fairly deep central weapons compartments located between the engine nacelles. This is the most optimal solution from the point of view of aerodynamics and design, but requires the organization of additional compartments for accommodating close-in air-to-air missiles, which need to be able to maneuver immediately after launch, which conflicts with the need to bring the ammunition to a safe distance from the carrier, before turning on the rocket engine when used from the central compartments. It is assumed that similar compartments are implemented in fairings under the wing.

Despite the fact that for quite a long time China lagged significantly behind in the development of modern aviation systems, to date 2 samples have been presented that claim to be included in the 5th generation. These are J-20 and F-60 fighters.

One of the most important requirements for the Russian fifth-generation fighter is super-maneuverability - the ability of the aircraft to maintain stability and controllability at supercritical angles of attack with high overloads, ensuring the safety of combat maneuvering, as well as the ability of the aircraft to change position relative to the flow, allowing the weapon to be aimed at a target outside the vector current trajectory. It should be noted that super-maneuverability was initially included in the requirements for the American fifth-generation fighter. However, later, after a series of experimental studies, the Americans preferred to focus on the overall dynamism of the fighter's combat system. The refusal of the US Air Force to achieve super-maneuverability was absolutely motivated, among other things, by the rapid improvement of aviation weapons: the emergence of highly maneuverable all-aspect missiles, helmet-mounted target designation systems and new homing heads made it possible to abandon the mandatory entry into the rear hemisphere of the enemy. It was assumed that air combat would now be conducted at medium ranges with a transition to the maneuvering stage only as a last resort, “if something was done wrong.” Reduced radar signature makes it possible to realize the intended goal - “first to see, first to shoot down,” which also makes the abandonment of super-maneuverability completely justified. On the other hand, the gradual disappearance of the American “monopoly” on fifth-generation fighters indicates the importance of super-maneuverability for fifth-generation fighters, since when two stealth fighters meet, combat tactics will revert to previous generations.

Conclusion

Military aviation is an important part of any army in the world. Air forces are needed to strike at enemy sea, air and ground forces. But the basis of the combat power of military aviation remains supersonic all-weather aircraft equipped with missiles, small arms and cannon weapons.

Russia still lags behind the United States in creating a 5th generation fighter. The American F-22 Raptor has been in service for a long time. Nevertheless, it is the Su-35, the previous generation “4++” fighter, that today shows how much more advanced the Russian T-50 can be. Throughout the 1990s and into the current decade, Russia continues to modernize aircraft created in the 1970-1980s. The T-50 (Advanced Aviation Complex of Frontline Aviation - PAK FA) has become for Russia a fighter that, compared to others, looks like an aircraft of the 21st century. However, the required level of investment and mature technology required to complete the development of the PAK FA suggests that its future is unclear. Sukhoi developed the Su-35S (formerly designated Su-35BM) to bridge the gap between the retirement of its aging fleet of Su-27 air superiority fighters and the entry into service of the new generation T-50 aircraft. The Su-35 is equipped with a more powerful version of the AL-31F turbofan engine, known as the 117S. The aircraft is equipped with a passive phased array radar "Irbis-E" developed by NIIP named after. Tikhomirov. The first Su-35S prototype took off in February 2008.

In conclusion, I would like to conclude that throughout the development of combat aviation, the largest aviation powers are constantly fighting each other for air supremacy. Generations of fighters change, new concepts are developed, experience is gained, but the struggle is always present. The 5th generation of fighters was no exception. Looking at such a modernization of combat aviation, we can say with confidence that fighter aviation has enormous potential in the future, which means that 6th generation aircraft will soon be seen. But we can only guess what they will look like and what characteristics they will have.

Bibliography:

1) Complete encyclopedia "World Aviation", 2011.

2) Nikolai Yakubovich “Unknown MiG” 2012.

3) Shunkov V.N. "Modern Russian Army" 2012.

4)wikipedia.org - Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia.

5)militaryrussia.ru - Domestic military equipment.

In the Soviet Union there has always been competition between companies developing weapons systems. And it manifested itself in aviation competitions. The work on creating fourth-generation aircraft was no exception. Despite the fact that the development of the famous Su-27 and MiG-29 was ultimately divided into two programs - a heavy and a light fighter, the likelihood that only one type of aircraft would be adopted remained until the very start of mass production. We should not forget that even after production launch, the order volume, depending on the current views of the military, could change significantly. Well, with the advent of Gorbachev and the destruction of the USSR, economic and political factors began to influence. As a result, the Su-27 became the clear favorite, and the MiG-29 has practically faded into oblivion over the past two decades. But was the Su-27 really so superior to the MiG-29 and is it really possible to get by with only heavy fighters? This question is still relevant now, since, unlike the United States, Russia today is developing only a heavy vehicle, continuing to move along a path adopted solely on a subjective basis.

Complex and expensive machines often have redundant data for the main range of combat missions, as a result of which their implementation resembles hammering nails with a microscope. That is why at one time the United States adopted the concept of two fighters: a heavy one and a light one. And the distribution of the fighter fleet was structured in such a way that 80% should be light aircraft, and 20% should be heavy. This ratio, of course, may fluctuate slightly: 90 to 10 or 30 to 70 percent, but in any case, the fleet of light fighters should be at least 70 percent. And this ratio was arrived at in the USA and the USSR after lengthy research and analysis of the combat use of fighters in various conflicts and during exercises. An aircraft fleet of two types of aircraft is the basis of the power of the air force of any large country. It should be noted that only those states that claim a leading role at least in their region have a fleet of heavy vehicles. These are the USA, Russia, China, India, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Japan. The world fleet of heavy vehicles is about 1000 vehicles. At the same time, the fleet of light fighters is about 14,000 aircraft. Those. The share of heavy vehicles in the world is only 7%.

Of course, the construction of heavy fighters is justified, but making the main bet on them is fundamentally wrong. An optimal balance is required. And it would be wrong to bias towards heavy fighters - this is a deep mistake both in economic terms and in terms of efficiency. But this is exactly what was done in our country in the 90s of the last century. With this proposal, the MiG-29 became the official stepson in our country.

The creator of the Su-27 was Mikhail Petrovich Simonov, it was he who created the legendary aircraft from the first T-10, losing to the F-15. A designer from God, he was also an energetic and talented organizer. And unfortunately, his organizational activities were focused precisely on turning the concept of the ratio of heavy and light fighters upside down. The concept was then brought under the Su-27, and not a fighter under the concept. Simonov was not at a loss in the 90s and continued to lobby for his car when R.A., who had never had such energy. Belyakov (general designer of the A.I. Mikoyan Design Bureau), apparently, was completely lost in the new economic and political realities. Thus, during the period of active lobbying for the Su-27, Rostislav Apollosovich did not oppose anything to this lobby. And this was the general’s first mistake. Naturally, the MiGs were pushed into the shadow of the “dry” ones.

Honored Test Pilot of the USSR, Chief Pilot of the Design Bureau named after. Mikoyan Valery Evgenievich Menitsky recalled: “Once I came to Oleg Nikolaevich Soskovets, who was then first deputy prime minister. The beginning of our conversation was interesting. He says: “What exactly is this - a MiG? I don’t even know such an aircraft, there are Sy, but there are no MiGs.” And smiles. It is clear that he said this as a joke, but there was some truth in this joke, because both in the government and in the Ministry of Defense everyone was talking only about the Sy aircraft. Needless to say, approximately two-thirds of the budget was allocated to Sukhoi's company.

Did a light fighter even have the right to exist in an era of widespread savings on defense? Could it solve problems and was it not inferior to the Su-27 at times? Representatives of the Mikoyan Design Bureau had no doubt that the MiG-29 was the best in its class; moreover, they were confident that in many respects it was even superior to the heavy Su-27. The question of which aircraft has the advantage - the MiG-29 or the Sy-27 - could be resolved very simply: in a training air battle. In addition, such a battle would allow us to simulate the actions of our mixed aircraft fleet against a mock enemy. Develop tactics of action both against a single heavy fighter and against a “combination” of F-15 - F-16. It was the Mikoyanites who initiated such a training battle. And many military and civilian institutes TsNII-30, GNIKI, LII, TsAGI, NIAS supported this idea. The only opponent was Mikhail Petrovich Simonov. In his opinion, such air battles did not make sense, because supposedly even without them it was clear that the Su-27 was much better than the MiG-29. In particular, the Sukhovites claimed that their aircraft had higher flight qualities. Indeed, at lower speeds (500-550 km/h) the Sy-27 had a slight advantage, but at speeds above 550 km/h - and this is the main real combat range - our aircraft looked much stronger. Another advantage of the Sy-27 was its powerful radar. But only an amateur can evaluate a locator based on its power. Power itself does not mean very much in battle, since the detection range and target acquisition range and its tracking depend not so much on the power of the locator, but on the size of the target, that is, its reflective surface. And the Sy-27, by the way, is 1.5 times larger than the MiG-29.

No one wanted to go against Simonov’s opinion, so it seemed that the idea of ​​these air battles was never destined to come true. However, there was a person who was able to come to an agreement with Simonov, this was the head of the Combat Use Center in Lipetsk, Sulambek Askanov. And the battles were fought. More than a hundred battles showed that in 80 percent the advantage was on the side of the MiG-29. Moreover, the MiG won close, medium, and even long-range maneuvering battles, which were obviously considered the Sy-27’s strong point. As the Mikoyanites expected, it was not the power of his locator that came to the fore, but the size of our “twenty-ninth”. This result was deafening for many, and they preferred not to advertise it. From a scientific and methodological point of view, these experiments were carried out quite correctly, and there was no reason to doubt the reliability of their results.

However, Simonov could not be satisfied with such a result. Mikhail Petrovich urgently flew to Lipetsk. Thanks to his activities, certain restrictions were created for the MiG-29. These restrictions did not allow him to reach the acceptable angles, which were deliberately reduced, justifying this by insufficient lateral controllability. Naturally, these restrictions were incorrect and far-fetched. All aircraft of that time did not have the required level of lateral control for such angles of attack. But, be that as it may, these restrictions for the MiG-29 were accepted. New battles have already been fought with them. What kind of purity of the experiment could we talk about when the MiG pilots were placed in obviously unequal conditions? Firstly, restrictions were imposed on only one aircraft, and secondly, the pilot had to monitor the prohibited angle of attack, any excess of which was punishable as a precondition for stalling, visually, “by eye,” which is generally unacceptable in combat. In this situation, the Su-27 already had an advantage. Center pilot A. Kharchevsky commented on the results of the battle: “Now the picture is a little better. Finally, the advantage of the Sy-27 began to appear.”

Next, a pair of MiG-29 and Su-27 conducted an air battle. The twin was controlled by the chief pilot of the OKB named after. Mikoyan Valery Evgenievich Menitsky. This is how he describes the battle: “For the first minute and a half of the battle, we moved along the trajectory, reaching the place necessary for the attack in all possible ways. We quite quickly managed to create an advantage for ourselves to attack the target; we sat on the “tail” of the Sy-27 and spent the rest of the battle without getting off it. We must pay tribute to the Sy-27 pilot, he piloted well, but we still won the battle. True, Kharchevsky tried to convince me that the pilot was chosen poorly and that if he carried out the battle himself, the result would be different. But the fact of the matter is that the result of the experiment should not depend on the pilot’s qualifications.”

The second mistake of Rostislav Apollosovich Belyakov in those years was that he did not want to implement the next modification in metal - the MiG-29MZ. It was a machine of the size of a MiG-29, but at the same time capable of performing missions with a range greater than that of the Cy-27 with a range of about 4000 km, equipped with in-flight refueling. In addition, it was a full-fledged multifunctional fighter, capable of “operating on the ground” in difficult weather conditions day and night. Belyakov feared that this device would “cut off the oxygen” to his main development - the MFI fighter. The MiG-29MZ was a modernization of the MiG-29M - the welded structure made of aluminum-lithium alloy was 10 percent larger in area than the MiG-29, plus a front controlled horizontal tail was added. This multi-role fighter was designed to gain superiority in the air and to work against ground targets.

Belyakov’s third mistake is human; he did not know how to build relationships with the leadership of the Air Force and the ministries of defense and aviation industry. With his knowledge, he stood out noticeably among general designers, but he lacked flexibility in relationships with people. He could, for example, openly, in front of a large crowd of people, make very unflattering critical remarks to the military, which, of course, they could not like, since these remarks did not add to the authority of the critic.

All this affected the MiG-29 program. That is why and only why it did not gain fame equal to that of the Su-27. And that is why the MiG-29 development program stalled for many years. But the results of the outgoing year give hope that the MiG-29 in its latest incarnation (MiG-35) will take its rightful place in the Russian Air Force and the air forces of friendly countries. In addition, I would like to hope that the development of a single fifth-generation fighter has a reasonable basis, or there is the prospect of developing, like the Americans, a light fighter.

Sources:
Menitsky V.E. My heavenly life.
Gordon E., Fomin A., Mikheev A. MiG-29.
Levin M. The same MiG.
Belosvet A., Polushkin Yu. MiG-29? No, MiG-33.

On January 26, 2017, a presentation of the newest Russian multirole fighter-bomber of the 4++ generation MiG-35 took place on the territory of the MiG Corporation production complex in Lukhovitsy. A little later it was announced that this aircraft would be purchased by the Russian Ministry of Defense. Meanwhile, the Russian Aerospace Forces already have the Su-35S, which also belongs to the 4++ generation. Why does our country need a second fighter of this class?

Historical duet

The MiG-35 is called a light fighter. He is really very easy to climb. In terms of rate of climb, it has no equal. For the MiG-35 this parameter is 330 m/s. The main competitors do not reach this figure: F-16 - 250 m/s, Dassault Rafale - 305 m/s, Su-35S - 280 m/s. And the light American fighter of the 5th generation F-35A has only 240 m/s. But as for weight, even comparison with “drying” does not “make it easier” to perceive the newest MiG. After all, its maximum take-off weight is 29.7 tons - not much less than that of the Su-35S with its 34.5 tons. For comparison: the maximum weight of the Dassault Rafale is 24.5 tons, the F-16E Block 60 is 22.6 tons True, the “light” American “stealth” F-35A has a maximum weight of up to 31.8 tons. And this once again emphasizes the fundamentally different meaning that is attached to the concept of “light fighter” today.

The MiG-35 and Su-35C are the latest modifications of the Soviet classics MiG-29 and Su-27. However, the difference between the new MiG and Su in comparison with their “ancestors” is fundamental. In the system of the USSR Armed Forces there was a clear distribution of functions between the two air “fighters”. The MiG-29 was in service with elite regiments based in the GDR. The Su-27 was not allowed onto the line of contact with NATO. It would seem that a clear preference was given to the MiG, which was lighter and more dexterous in maneuverable air battles (remember the rate of climb, which still remains its signature feature). But in fact, the advanced units in Germany were considered as a kind of expendable material for the initial period of the great European war. The MiG-29s were supposed to take (or deliver) the first blow and die heroically in a heated battle. In part, this is precisely the meaning that was put into the concept of “light front-line fighter”, which was assigned to the MiG-29.

The Su-27 was supplied to the air defense forces, and to the air force it was based mainly at airfields in Poland and Ukraine. This plane was supposed to cover the sky over the second, main wave of attacking (or defending) Soviet troops, which was supposed to decide the outcome of the war. The Su-27 began to be called a heavy air superiority fighter. In comparison, the MiG-29 took less weapons (combat load 2180 kg versus 6000 kg for the Su-27), and flew not so far (combat radius 700 km versus 1680 km). At the same time, the cost of the light MiG-29 was only 25% less than that of the heavy Su-27, although it was initially thought that their price would generally be 1:1.9.

The MiG-35 and Su-35S are a different matter. There is no qualitative difference in functionality between them: unlike the “basic models” (and this is the main difference), both of them are multi-role fighter-bombers, capable of both gaining superiority in the sky and delivering missile and bomb strikes against ground or sea targets. Even their combat load has almost leveled off (7 and 8 tons). These are versatile air warfare tools that can do similar combat work in the skies. And the question arises: why does the Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) need a second aircraft with the same functionality and almost the same capabilities? For example, the “range” of the MiG-35 and Su-35S radars differs twofold - 200 and 400 km, and the combat radius of the aircraft is different - 1000 and 1800 km. The cost of the new version of the MiG-35 has not been announced, but one can easily assume that although it is less, it is not two times less (such a difference in price could not be achieved even for the MiG-29 and Su-27). The acquisition of the MiG-35 will give additional tactical flexibility to the Russian Aerospace Forces, but to perform the same tasks, more MiGs will be needed and it is unlikely that it will be possible to save on this. Not to mention that maintaining a fleet of two types of aircraft is more difficult and expensive. And yet, the MiG-35 was presented to the public with pomp and has already been included in the Russian Federation’s arms procurement program. For what?

MiG-35 again

It’s worth starting with the fact that the aircraft for which the name MiG-35 was applied have already taken to the skies more than once and served as an adornment of the flight program of the MAKS air show.

This is exactly what the 5th generation multifunctional fighter, whose development began in the USSR in 1981, should have been called. The prototype of the future MiG-35, which was created in response to the development of the first American 5th generation fighter F-22, was designated MiG 1.44. Due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the development of this program slowed down. And although the MiG 1.44 managed to take off on February 29, 2000, soon after this takeoff the final fall occurred: the project was closed in favor of the development of the Design Bureau named after. BY. Sukhoi, now known as the T-50. The MiG-35 index has been released for further use.

Since the MiG 1.44 project was stalled, since the second half of the 1990s the designation MiG-35 began to be applied to all modifications of the MiG-29, the main front-line fighter of the Russian Air Force. MiG-29M (flyed for the first time back in 1984), MiG-29M2, MiG-29M3, MiG-29M4 - sooner or later the designation MiG-35 began to loom next to all of them (though most often in parentheses).

Finally, the marketing designation MiG-35, without any brackets, was assigned to the aircraft that participated in the Indian Air Force tender for the purchase of 126 medium multi-role fighters worth more than $9 billion. This MiG-35 debuted at the Aero India air show in Bangalore in 2007 and was, in fact, a land-based version of the MiG-29K carrier-based fighter, developed on the basis of the MiG-29M for the Indian aircraft carrier Vikramaditya, which was transformed into a Soviet heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser. Admiral Gorshkov." The MiG-35 differed from the MiG-29K, essentially speaking, only by replacing the brake hook with a brake parachute and the folding wing with a regular one.

The MiG-29K returned to its home airfield after completing a mission in the Mediterranean Sea on the Admiral Kuznetsov TAVKR off the coast of Syria

Unfortunately, the MiG-35 lost the tender in India (the Indians preferred the French Dassault Rafale), but this happened more likely for political reasons. After massive purchases of the Su-30MKI and MiG-29K, the leadership of the Indian Armed Forces did not want their fighter fleet to consist entirely of Russian aircraft.

The MiG-35 of the 2007 model was not useful to the Indians, but the groundwork for this project was such that it was unwise to lose it. Moreover, a significant part of this reserve appeared thanks to Indian funding for the development of the MiG-29K. And so on January 26, 2017, in Lukhovitsy, the “real” MiG-35 was revealed to the world, although most of its advantages in comparison with the MiG-29, which all media outlets wrote about as incredible news after the presentation, generally repeat the lists from ten years ago. Fly-by-wire control system instead of a hydraulic one, Zhuk-A radar with an active phased array antenna, increased combat load and fuel reserves, anti-corrosion protection and reinforced landing gear, smokeless RD-33MK engines with increased thrust, 2.5-fold reduction in flight hour cost (replacing an engine in the field takes only 58 minutes), a “glass” cockpit with large displays, and so on.

There are, of course, some additions. Still, our designers did not sit idly by for 10 years. The new MiG-35 provides for the installation of new Russian weapons that are not exported. The maximum detection range of air targets with the new modification of the Zhuk-AME radar has been increased to 260 km, and its weight has decreased from 240 to 100 kg! A very powerful multispectral defense system has been introduced, which makes it possible to detect the launch of an enemy missile and track its trajectory from any direction. At the same time, the creators of the real MiG-35 claim that they have brought its quality “to the point of excellence.”

Most of these systems will also be useful for the future 5th generation light fighter, if the decision to create it is made. After testing on board the MiG-35, all that remains is to manufacture a new “shell” with radio invisibility technology (although new engines will also be needed). This project, if it comes to fruition, will be led, as expected, by the MiG Corporation, which will preserve the legendary company, which has enormous potential. And this is also one of the important aspects of the MiG-35 project.

And yet, the creators of the MiG-35 concept should be given an A+ primarily for marketing: it is not without reason that the presentation format was more reminiscent of a show of a new luxury car model and representatives of more than 30 foreign countries were invited to the event.

Export potential

The moment for the next “debut” of the MiG-35 was not chosen by chance. This is an offer for countries that need a 4++ generation fighter, but not as expensive as the Western Rafale, F-16 or even our heavy Su-35S. The cost of the MiG-35, we repeat, has not been announced, but it is obvious that it will become the most affordable 4++ level fighter on the market. Actually, this is where its “lightness” lies. The argument that the share of light and heavy fighters in the Air Force fleet of a self-respecting country should be 30 and 70%, respectively, is cunning or rather the “sauce” under which the new “dish” in the form of the MiG-35 is served. This thesis is true for countries such as the USA and the USSR. But most traditional Russian arms buyers just want a fighter. And the cheaper, the better.

The Su-27 family of aircraft had been selling very successfully on the international market for decades, but there came a point when almost everyone who could buy one did so. The MiG-35 is an excellent attempt to “stir up” buyers and create a new sales segment for domestic aircraft. The MiG-35 offers the same multi-role capabilities as the Su-35S, but at a more affordable price. There is a chance that in the context of a recession in the global economy, when already poor countries are becoming very stingy with the purchase of military “toys,” this calculation will work.

China, of course, will not buy the MiG-35, nor will Poland and Bulgaria, which still operate the MiG-29. But among the customers there may be not only Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, Malaysia, Algeria, Cuba and Peru, but also India, which is not very happy with the choice of Rafale, whose purchases had to be reduced from 126 to 36 due to high cost. But India needs something to replace about 450 obsolete MiG-21s, which are still in service with this country.

The export value of the Rafale was estimated at $100 million. This is more than the price of the American 5th generation light fighter F-35A, whose cost the manufacturer promises to reduce to $83.4 million by the start of mass production in 2019. The MiG-35, presented as part of an Indian tender (that is, more than 5 years ago) cost about $45 million. The price of the 2017 MiG-35 will probably be higher (although this will depend on the configuration), but it is unlikely to exceed $83 million, for which China bought the Su-35S in 2015.