TKR "Kuznetsov". Comparison with NATO aircraft carriers. H. 4
In a previous article, we described deck tactics aviation when solving various problems: PLO and Defense connections, as well as the destruction of a detachment of enemy ships. Accordingly, our next goal will be to try to understand how successfully such tasks can be solved by the means at the disposal of the Gerald R. Ford, Charles de Gaulle, Queen Elizabeth and Admiral fleet Soviet Union Kuznetsov ”, whose name we traditionally abbreviate to“ Kuznetsov ”. And for this it is necessary to give at least a brief description of these means, and therefore in the material offered to your attention we will pay a little attention to carrier-based aviation.
Multipurpose Fighter
Strangely enough, the comparison of the capabilities of the Super Hornet, Rafale-M and the MiG-29KR is still considerably difficult even at the level of the main characteristics, because their data of technical characteristics published in the open press differ significantly. For example, data on speed is different - if for the same “Super Hornet” most domestic sources report the maximum speed of 1,8М, then some imported ones are 1,6М. The same applies to the weight of an empty aircraft - “there are opinions” about 13 387 kg and 14 552 kg (and this not counting the fact that “on the Internet” there is also a mass of “curb” aircraft in 14 790 kg).
At the same time, it is necessary to understand that it is impossible to make any kind of full-fledged comparison of combat aircraft, based only on their main tactical and technical characteristics. For example, the same load on the wing is certainly an important indicator, but its calculations are associated with a lot of features.
Of course, it’s easy to make head-on calculations - for example, the wing areas of the Super Hornet and the MiG-29KR are 46,45 and 45 square meters, respectively, and we know that the normal take-off weight of the Super Hornet is 21 320 kg, MiG-29KR - 18 290 kg. It seems to be enough to divide one by the other (getting 459 and 406 kg / sq. M., Respectively) and it is possible to draw conclusions about the advantage of the MiG-29KR, because the lower the wing load, the more maneuverable the aircraft can be.
But if we go to the same calculation on the other hand, we will see that the mass of the empty “Super Hornet” hardly differs from that of the MiG-29KR - 13 387 kg versus 13 700 kg. Accordingly, the normal take-off mass of the Super Hornet is calculated for a much greater payload than the MiG-29KR - 7 933 kg versus 4 590 kg. That is, it turns out that the normal take-off weight of the Super Hornet is full internal fuel tanks (according to various data 6 354 - 6 531 kg) plus payload in 1 400 - 1580 kg. And the MiG-29KR normal take-off weight does not even imply full refueling (internal tank capacity - 4 750 kg). And if we take, and calculate the load on the wing of the Super Hornet with the same payload as the MiG-29KR (that is, for 17 977 kg), we get 387 kg / sq. m. - that is, it turns out that for this indicator, the “Super Hornet” seems to be the winner.
But this, again, if our initial data is correct - the fact is that the RSK MiG official website does not provide information about the mass of an empty aircraft, it is taken from Wikipedia (without reference to sources), and the wiki, as you know, is often mistaken. What if 13 700 kg for the MiG-29KR is the curb weight of the aircraft, which should not be compared with the Super Hornet 13 387 kg, but with the 14 790 kg? In addition, the equality of the mass of the payload is not at all synonymous with the equality of opportunities it provides.
For example, the practical range of the MiG-29KR is 2 000 km. At the same time, the majority of domestic sources provide the Super Hornet’s flight range (without specifying exactly which range is meant) 1 280 km, which is clearly underestimated, but in addition, the “combat range” indicator is often given - 2 346 km (while usually there should be a note that we are talking about a flight “one way” without using outboard fuel tanks, but with a load of two airborne siders, “Sidewinder”). Can we compare these ranges - 2 000 km and 2 346 km? It’s very conditional, since we don’t know how to calculate them (for example, payload mass when calculating the practical range for the MiG-29KR), but in principle these figures are comparable. But then it turns out that in 1,33 a larger supply of Super Hornet’s fuel provides him with only 17% increase in flight range — that is, taking equal payloads for Super Hornet and MiG-29KR, we do not equalize these planes in capabilities, so as with the same fuel supply, the American will fly less, which means such a comparison is incorrect. If we introduce the corresponding amendment, then the load on the wing of the MiG-29KR and the Super Hornet is almost equal.
But the fact is that, as you know, the architecture of our fighters, starting with the MiG-29 and Su-27, implied the carrier fuselage - that is, the fuselage of these aircraft participated in the creation of lift along with the wing, while the American designers did not. Accordingly, when comparing the MiG-29KR, it is necessary to take into account not only the area of the wing, but also the area of the “participating in the work” fuselage, which we, naturally, cannot do if there is a shortage of data. As a result, in our calculation, the wing load for the MiG-29KR is unreasonably overestimated, but it’s impossible to say how much - unfortunately - nevertheless, we again come to the conclusion that according to this indicator, the MiG-29KR is still ahead of the “Super Hornet” . However, maybe there are some other factors that we did not take into account?
Based on the information available to the author, we can draw the following conclusions. The Americans, creating the "Super Hornet", sought in the first place to get a strike aircraft, which, in addition, would also have the ability to conduct air combat. In the USSR / Russia, designing MiG-29 and its latest modifications, the MiG-29М / М2, sought to create, first of all, a fighter that, in addition to fighting in the air, would also be able to strike land and sea targets. And, probably, only the French tried to create an “honest” station wagon, which is equally well capable of doing both.
Therefore, apparently, of the three aforementioned aircraft, the most maneuverable should be considered the MiG-29KR, and the F / A-18 E / F Super Hornet, while Rafale-M in both Cases is intermediate between them.
If we experience such difficulties even with the basic characteristics of the aircraft, then comparing their avionics seems altogether prohibitively complex. The most modern radars installed on Rafale-M and Super Hornet, RBE-2AA and APG-79, allow detecting a fighter-type target at a distance of 110-130 km. MiG-29KR, equipped with one of the many modifications of the radar "Beetle", as if it could be the same - for him the detection range of the fighter into the forward hemisphere is also 110-130 km. But what is meant by “fighter target”? On foreign radar, there are opinions that it is a goal with an EPR 1 sq. M., Or maybe 3 sq. M., Or even F-15C with an EPR 5 sq. M. The most interesting thing is that there is no way to find out where the numbers come from, because the same Raytheon, the permanent radar manufacturer for American combat aircraft, does not officially disclose the performance characteristics of its “instruments”. As a rule, data on the range of American radar systems are given with reference to specialized magazines devoted to aviation mathematics and which, in turn, refer to advertising data of the Raytheon company, but it is absolutely impossible to find these data. At the same time, for domestic radar stations, the detection range is usually indicated for targets with 3 square-wave EPR. m., but earlier, in the good old days, it happened that 5 sq.m. and sometimes for some reason 2 sq.m. So it turns out that there seems to be a lot of numbers, but a bit of sense from this, because depending on the EPR, which we substitute to the ranges sounded above, or the BGS of the MiG-29K is much worse than what is installed on the “Super Hornet” and "Rafale M", or approximately equivalent, and either completely surpasses the potential enemy in the head. But this is not all, because the methods of calculating the range can vary greatly: for example, radar with an active phased array can increase the target detection range, narrowing the search sector, and it is not known for which mode the detection ranges are given, etc. In addition, starting from some distances, closer to the extreme range of the radar, there is no guarantee, but the probability that the radar reflected from the target will be accepted by the radar and the target position can be identified (detection quality). That is, with an increase in the range, the probability decreases, and by playing with this parameter, it is also possible to achieve a “paper” increase in the target detection range.
Most of the data suggest (but not asserting reliably) that, in terms of its capabilities, the Zhuk-ME, installed on the MiG-23KR, is inferior to both the French RBE-2AA and the American APG-79 — most likely that the domestic radar can detect the distance to 130 km is the target with the EPR 3 sq.m., while the foreign ones is 1 sq.m., and the target detection range in 3 sq.m. they reach 158 km.
For a long time, the unconditional advantage of domestic aircraft was the optical-location stations (OLS), which made it possible to detect enemy aircraft and provide target designation rockets without turning on the radar. The Rafale-M also has an OLS, but its performance characteristics, alas, are unknown, but the Super Hornets did not have an OLS (if you do not count as such the suspended containers that provide guidance weapons against ground or surface targets, but, as far as the author knows, are useless in aerial combat). By systems EW, today we should probably consider parity, although it is possible that domestic electronic warfare systems are superior to their imported counterparts.
As for the newest F-35C, which will come into service in the future with US carrier-based aviation, it seems that, like the Super Hornet, it is primarily a strike aircraft, and only the second is a fighter. Many of its performance characteristics overlap to a large extent with those of the Super Hornet. Of all of the above, the F-35C is the heaviest - the mass of an empty aircraft reaches 15 785 kg. It must be said that the F-35C wing has the largest area, among its fellow F-35А and F-35В, but nevertheless, the wing with a normal take-off mass is significantly higher than that of the MiG-29КР and approaches the “Super Hornet” . The engine power of the F-35C is lower than that of the twin-engine Super Hornet, and the mass is larger, so it is not surprising that the F-35C loses both the Super Hornet and the MiG-29KR in terms of thrust ratio. All of the above indicates that the F-35C has few chances to "twist" the aforementioned planes in close combat. At the same time, the F-35C payload was lower than that of the Super Hornet record holder - 14 535 kg versus 16 550 kg.
True, the F-35C's internal fuel tanks significantly outperform all other packers - it holds 8 960 kg of fuel, which is 40% more than the Super Hornet following it - and Rafale M and MiG2-9KR are generally content 4 500 - 4 750 kg. However, the F-35C is not too superior to their range, which is 2 220 (according to other data - 2 520) km. Perhaps the reason for this lies in not the best aerodynamics of the F-35C, caused by the desire of Americans to make stealth stealth, and even unify it with the F-35B short take-off and vertical landing, which required a specific shape of the fuselage, due to which the aircraft Russian-language Internet has received the unpleasant nickname "penguin".
The speed of the F-35C is a separate mystery - usually in Russian-speaking sources it is indicated that it is 1,6М or 1 930 km / h. It would be ok if the same sources didn’t indicate the speed of 1,8М or 1 900 km / h for Super Hornet and Rafale M - that is, the old fighters are faster in the mach numbers, but in kilometers per hour they are why slower.
How could this happen? Most likely, the matter is this: as you know, the Mach number is a variable, depending also on the height of the flight. Other things being equal, the Mach number at ground level is 1 224 km / h, but at a height of about 11 km - 1 062 km / h. At the same time, it is also well known that modern aircraft develop maximum speed exactly at altitude - for example, Rafale M develops 1 912 km / h at high altitude, and only 1 390 km / h on small. Thus, the speed of the Rafal M at high altitude is exactly the same as 1,8M (1 912 km / h / 1 062 km / h = 1,8M), but the speed F-35C is obviously obtained by multiplying the number M, which the aircraft reached by the value of the M number of the earth (1,6М * 1 224 km / h = 1 958 km / h). However, such a calculation is obviously erroneous, because airplanes do not develop 1,6М near the surface of the earth, and if they had developed, the F-35C would have developed much more than 1,6M at an altitude and then the entire American press would have blown about it. Thus, it can be assumed that the real speed of the F-35C at high altitude is 1,6М * 1 062 km / h = something around 1 700 km / h, that is, it is significantly inferior to both the "Super Hornet" and the MiG-29КР.
But the F-35C is a full-fledged stealth fighter - there are no exact data on its ESR, but it is clearly much lower (most likely an order of magnitude or more) than the Rafale M, Super Hornet and MiG-29KR. The aircraft has such an important innovation as the internal armament compartment, which, by the way, perfectly fits 4 missiles (for example, AMRAAM 2 URVV medium range and 2 UVVV "Sidevinder", that is, "gentleman's set" of a fighter performing air defense tasks). In addition, there is no doubt that the F-35C avionics is superior to that of any of the above aircraft. Thus, the APG-81 radar installed on it, according to some data, is capable of detecting a target with an 3 square meter EPR. at a distance of up to 176 km, that is, on 11% further than the radar "Super Hornet" and on 35% further MiG-29KR. Aircraft of the F-35 family received an optical-location station for armament - it's hard to say how its capabilities compare with the one installed on the MiG-29KR, but, most likely, our aircraft have no superiority in this parameter. As for the capabilities of the EW, the information about it is too fragmentary to be able to form a final opinion.
In general, the F-35C seems to have the impression that this aircraft, in terms of its maneuverability, is somewhere at the F / A-18 E / F Super Hornet and F-16 latest versions, perhaps - to some extent inferior. Not that the last two have the same maneuverability, they are significantly different. But, judging by the opinion of the pilots who joined them in training battles, each of them has its drawbacks and advantages, and in general the planes are equivalent (freely quoting the American pilot: “I would prefer to go into battle on the F / A-18 E / F, but I know guys who say the same thing about F-16 ”).
At the same time, the F-35C avionics is, of course, more advanced than the one that existing deck-based aircraft have, but it is hardly possible to speak of the presence of global breakthroughs - rather, it’s about the fact that each of the F-35C systems exceeds 15 -20% similar systems of the same "Rafale-M". In addition, one should also recall such an indicator as convenience - it can be assumed that the F-35C is more comfortable for a pilot, who is easier to control the aircraft and use onboard armament, and this is an important component of success in air combat. Although it is known that in some respects the F-35 family aircraft are inferior to the previous types - for example, the view from the cockpit of any F-35 is worse than that of the same F-16, there were also complaints about the overly massive helmet and the small space in the cabin.
Probably, there is no reason why the avionics with characteristics similar to those used by the F-35C cannot be installed on the next modification of the same “Super Hornet”, and the piloting characteristics of the F-35C do not exceed the latter. Thus, the main “trick” of the F-35 is still invisibility and unification with the VTOL aircraft.
As for the F-35B, this aircraft has a slightly degraded performance characteristics of the F-35C in exchange for its ability to take off from a short run-up without the aid of a catapult and carry out a vertical landing.
Interestingly, the F-35B is lighter than its ejector “fellow” (14 588 kg versus 15 785 kg) - apparently, the need for a stronger body, as well as “hook” mechanisms for the catapult and the aero-finisher. Nevertheless, the need to place a huge “fan”, replacing lifting engines with F-35B, could not but affect the aircraft's load - if the F-35C carries kg of fuel in 8 960 internal tanks, then the F-35B has just 6 352 kg or 1,41 times less. But what is interesting is that if we take the most common data on the flight range of these aircraft - 2 520 km from F-35С and 1 670 km from F-35B, then we get the difference not in 1,41 but in 1,5 times. Why is that? It is probably a matter of increased fuel consumption during the take-off and landing operations of the F-35B, because with a short take-off and vertical landing, it is necessary to turn on the afterburner. If the F-35B took off and landed like an ordinary horizontal take-off and landing aircraft, then one would expect the F-35B to fly significantly more than the 1 670 km, because it is lighter than the F-35C and its fuel consumption will be less.
Thus, the fact that the F-35B and F-35С ranges correspond as 1: 1,5 has a logical explanation. But if so, then we should expect that the combat radii of these planes correspond in the same proportion. But what is interesting is that if we compare the common numbers of combat radii F-35B and F-35С - 865 km for the first, and 1 140 km for the second, we will see that the radius of F-35B is only 1,32 times smaller than the F- 35C! Obviously, this is simply physically impossible. The author of this article has an assumption that the radius of 865 km for F-35B is specified on the basis of the usual (not shortened) take-off and the same normal (not vertical) landing. If the F-35B is used in full accordance with its name “short takeoff and vertical landing aircraft”, then its combat radius probably does not exceed 760 km.
EW aircraft
The only type of deck aircraft of this class is the aircraft wings of American aircraft carriers - this is the EA-18G “Growler”. This aircraft is designed to conduct electronic reconnaissance, jamming radar (up to five EW suspension containers) and enemy communication systems, as well as destroying radar anti-radar missiles. The on-board equipment EA-18G allows identifying and bearing sources of electromagnetic radiation. At the same time, the “Growler” can carry also strike armament - one of the variants of combat loading provides for the suspension of three containers of electronic warfare, two AMRAAM air defense missiles and two Harm anti-radar missiles. The crew of the aircraft consists of two people - a pilot and an operator of electronic systems.
Without a doubt, the basing of the EW aircraft on the Gerald R. Forde gives the aircraft wing of this ship a gigantic advantage over the rest of the aircraft carriers and domestic aircraft carrier aircraft. Today, passive radio intelligence is almost more important than the active work of early warning airplanes, and complementing each other they give a synergistic effect. Thus, it is possible to say that the Gerald R. Ford air wing has almost multiple times better control of the airspace than the other groups of ships we compare.
Airplanes and ARLO helicopters
The famous E-2С "Hokai" is based on American and French aircraft carriers. No matter how sad it is to admit, but this aircraft is a real gem of the US Navy and has no analogues in the world.
This aircraft is the "flying headquarters" of the air group - its crew includes two pilots and three operators. The E-2C does not simply control the aircraft based on its radar data — it receives information from each aircraft under its control in real time — its position, speed, altitude, and the remaining fuel and ammunition. Its radar is capable of detecting and escorting ground, sea, and air targets to or from the 300, on the background of the underlying surface or outside it. In addition, the aircraft is provided with passive reconnaissance, allowing to "lead" as many targets as the radar. The only limitation of its use in the fleet is the need for catapults, so the British Queen Elizabeth and the domestic Kuznetsov are forced to be content with DRLO helicopters (they are not part of the regular air group, but at least theoretically can be placed there).
The advantages of the DRLO aircraft are clearly visible on the example of comparing the capabilities of the E-2С “Hokai” and the domestic Ka-31.
The first thing that catches your eye is, of course, the difference in the detection range of aerial and surface targets. Ka-31 detects a fighter-type target at a distance of 100-150 km (probably it is a plane with a square meter 3-5 square meter, but this is not certain). E-2 will notice such a target with km 200-270, and maybe more. The Ka-31 warship will detect approximately from 250-285 km, while the E-2C is capable of rising to a much greater height, and its detection range of ground and surface targets is almost twice as long - to 450 km, and bomber targets - to 680 (according to other data - 720 km). The Hokaya radar is capable of tracking 300 targets (not counting those that can be controlled by passive means), according to other data, the latest E-2C modifications, this figure increased to 2 000. Ka-31 can simultaneously track all 20 targets.
As we said earlier, the E-2С has the capabilities of conducting passive radio-technical intelligence - if such opportunities exist for Ka-31, then, alas, they have not been declared in the open press. E-2С are able to perform the role of a “flying headquarters”, and the Ka-31 does not have such an opportunity, although this is to a certain extent leveled by the ability of the Ka-31 to transmit the data it received to the ship.
Many sources indicate the ability of the E-2C to conduct patrols at a distance of 320 km from an aircraft carrier for 3-4 hours, that is, be in the air for up to 4,5-5,5 hours. In fact, these data are more likely even understated - during the “Storm in the Desert” E-2С were often in the air for 7 hours. The Ka-31 is able to be in the air for the entire 2,5 hour, while its cruising speed is 220 km per hour, more than twice inferior to that of the Hokai (575 km / h), that is, if the E-2C is a means of reconnaissance, then Ka-31 - control of air and surface situation in the immediate vicinity of the ships warrant. If the E-2C is able to patrol at its cruising speed, using all the onboard reconnaissance tools that it has, then the speed of the Ka-31 when operating its radar drops, if not to zero, then to several tens of kilometers per hour.
The fact is that the Ka-31 is equipped with a huge (square 6 sq. M., Length - 5,75 m) rotating antenna, which, of course, significantly increases the helicopter’s windage and requires considerable efforts to stabilize the latter in flight, which causes a huge loss speed of movement.
British ARLO helicopters, created on the basis of the Sea King multi-purpose helicopter, appear to have similar capabilities to the Ka-31 in detecting surface and aerial targets, but somewhat superior to other parameters.
So, placing the antenna in the fairing probably allows these helicopters to move faster than the Ka-31 during reconnaissance. The number of targets that the helicopter is able to control reaches (with the latest modifications) 230. On the other hand, it is not known how “network-centric” British helicopters are - their first modifications did not have data exchange equipment, information about the targets they discovered were transmitted by radio (Soviet helicopters have had such equipment since the Ka-25C). Subsequently, the “Sea King” received the necessary automation, but its author’s technical characteristics are unknown to the author of this article. Currently, the UK has placed an order for ARLO helicopters of the new type Crowsnest
However, very little is known about them, except that they were not as good as they could be. The fact is that initially it was supposed to install on them the radar, created on the basis of the American AN / APG-81 (installed on the F-35 family of fighters). This did not, of course, make the new helicopters equal to Hokayam, but ... still, at least something. However, budgetary restrictions did not allow to implement this project, and as a result, the newest Crowsnest received the outdated Thales Searchwater 2000AEW radar.
In any case, DRLO helicopters are nothing more than a palliative and are unable to compete with DRLO aircraft. The E-2 “Hokai”, of course, is inferior in its capabilities to such “monsters” of radar reconnaissance as the E-3А “Sentry” and A-50U, but these are significantly larger and more expensive aircraft. At the same time, the E-2C was so good in terms of the price / quality ratio that many countries (such as Israel and Japan) preferred to acquire them - in order to use them as AWACs and flying headquarters for their air forces.
As for the Americans, having created a magnificent “Hokai”, they did not stop at what had been achieved, but started rearming their squadrons with the new E-2D aircraft “Edwanst Hokai”, which represents, in fact, a profound modernization of the E-2С.
Accurate data on the E-2D is not available, but it is known that their new APY-9 radar complex was developed with a focus on enhancing noise immunity, increasing the range of target detection, with particular attention paid to the detection and tracking of cruise missiles. These, and many other innovations allow the newest American aircraft to control the air, sea and land space much better than it did E-2С.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
To date, there are no UAVs in the regular composition of the US air wings, although their ability to be based on aircraft carriers has been confirmed by tests of the Kh-47V - drone, being developed under the auspices of the US Navy. It is a large strike Drone, with a maximum takeoff weight of up to 20 kg (empty weight - 215 kg). Its payload capacity allows it to carry up to 6 tons of ammunition (typical load - two JDAM guided air bombs). The cruising speed of the X-350B is 2 km / h, the maximum - 47 km / h.
However, the impressive characteristics of these UAVs achieved a very high price - in the truest sense of the word. The program was so expensive that the US Navy was forced to roll it.
Also, UAVs are not observed in the aircraft groups of the aircraft carriers of Britain and France, but at the “Kuznetsov” TAKR they ... at least were in the design and in the first stages of operation. This, of course, is about Granit anti-ship P-700 missiles.
Information about this rocket, given in various sources, is still different, so we will give the minimum (in parentheses - the maximum values):
Flight range - 550 (625) km along the combined trajectory, 145 (200) km - at low altitude;
The mass of the warhead is 518 (750) kg or a special warhead with a power of 500 kt .;
Flight altitude - 14 000 (17 000-20 000) m at high altitude and 25 m at attack site.
At the same time, the rocket is equipped with the 3B47 "Quartz" radio jamming station and possesses the beginnings of artificial intelligence - there are different opinions on what the Granit can make, but the fact that it can perform anti-missile maneuvers, select targets and exchange data between missiles (in the group salvo), distributing the goal, no one questioned.
The attentive reader has already noticed that we have not said a word about anti-submarine aircraft. However, this topic is so complex that it requires a separate material and we will not “touch” it yet.
In the next article of the cycle, we will try, using the materials of this and the previous article, to determine the effectiveness of aircraft carriers compared by us in carrying out their inherent tasks.
Продолжение следует ...
Multipurpose Fighter
Strangely enough, the comparison of the capabilities of the Super Hornet, Rafale-M and the MiG-29KR is still considerably difficult even at the level of the main characteristics, because their data of technical characteristics published in the open press differ significantly. For example, data on speed is different - if for the same “Super Hornet” most domestic sources report the maximum speed of 1,8М, then some imported ones are 1,6М. The same applies to the weight of an empty aircraft - “there are opinions” about 13 387 kg and 14 552 kg (and this not counting the fact that “on the Internet” there is also a mass of “curb” aircraft in 14 790 kg).
At the same time, it is necessary to understand that it is impossible to make any kind of full-fledged comparison of combat aircraft, based only on their main tactical and technical characteristics. For example, the same load on the wing is certainly an important indicator, but its calculations are associated with a lot of features.
Of course, it’s easy to make head-on calculations - for example, the wing areas of the Super Hornet and the MiG-29KR are 46,45 and 45 square meters, respectively, and we know that the normal take-off weight of the Super Hornet is 21 320 kg, MiG-29KR - 18 290 kg. It seems to be enough to divide one by the other (getting 459 and 406 kg / sq. M., Respectively) and it is possible to draw conclusions about the advantage of the MiG-29KR, because the lower the wing load, the more maneuverable the aircraft can be.
MiG-29CUB
But if we go to the same calculation on the other hand, we will see that the mass of the empty “Super Hornet” hardly differs from that of the MiG-29KR - 13 387 kg versus 13 700 kg. Accordingly, the normal take-off mass of the Super Hornet is calculated for a much greater payload than the MiG-29KR - 7 933 kg versus 4 590 kg. That is, it turns out that the normal take-off weight of the Super Hornet is full internal fuel tanks (according to various data 6 354 - 6 531 kg) plus payload in 1 400 - 1580 kg. And the MiG-29KR normal take-off weight does not even imply full refueling (internal tank capacity - 4 750 kg). And if we take, and calculate the load on the wing of the Super Hornet with the same payload as the MiG-29KR (that is, for 17 977 kg), we get 387 kg / sq. m. - that is, it turns out that for this indicator, the “Super Hornet” seems to be the winner.
But this, again, if our initial data is correct - the fact is that the RSK MiG official website does not provide information about the mass of an empty aircraft, it is taken from Wikipedia (without reference to sources), and the wiki, as you know, is often mistaken. What if 13 700 kg for the MiG-29KR is the curb weight of the aircraft, which should not be compared with the Super Hornet 13 387 kg, but with the 14 790 kg? In addition, the equality of the mass of the payload is not at all synonymous with the equality of opportunities it provides.
For example, the practical range of the MiG-29KR is 2 000 km. At the same time, the majority of domestic sources provide the Super Hornet’s flight range (without specifying exactly which range is meant) 1 280 km, which is clearly underestimated, but in addition, the “combat range” indicator is often given - 2 346 km (while usually there should be a note that we are talking about a flight “one way” without using outboard fuel tanks, but with a load of two airborne siders, “Sidewinder”). Can we compare these ranges - 2 000 km and 2 346 km? It’s very conditional, since we don’t know how to calculate them (for example, payload mass when calculating the practical range for the MiG-29KR), but in principle these figures are comparable. But then it turns out that in 1,33 a larger supply of Super Hornet’s fuel provides him with only 17% increase in flight range — that is, taking equal payloads for Super Hornet and MiG-29KR, we do not equalize these planes in capabilities, so as with the same fuel supply, the American will fly less, which means such a comparison is incorrect. If we introduce the corresponding amendment, then the load on the wing of the MiG-29KR and the Super Hornet is almost equal.
But the fact is that, as you know, the architecture of our fighters, starting with the MiG-29 and Su-27, implied the carrier fuselage - that is, the fuselage of these aircraft participated in the creation of lift along with the wing, while the American designers did not. Accordingly, when comparing the MiG-29KR, it is necessary to take into account not only the area of the wing, but also the area of the “participating in the work” fuselage, which we, naturally, cannot do if there is a shortage of data. As a result, in our calculation, the wing load for the MiG-29KR is unreasonably overestimated, but it’s impossible to say how much - unfortunately - nevertheless, we again come to the conclusion that according to this indicator, the MiG-29KR is still ahead of the “Super Hornet” . However, maybe there are some other factors that we did not take into account?
Based on the information available to the author, we can draw the following conclusions. The Americans, creating the "Super Hornet", sought in the first place to get a strike aircraft, which, in addition, would also have the ability to conduct air combat. In the USSR / Russia, designing MiG-29 and its latest modifications, the MiG-29М / М2, sought to create, first of all, a fighter that, in addition to fighting in the air, would also be able to strike land and sea targets. And, probably, only the French tried to create an “honest” station wagon, which is equally well capable of doing both.
Therefore, apparently, of the three aforementioned aircraft, the most maneuverable should be considered the MiG-29KR, and the F / A-18 E / F Super Hornet, while Rafale-M in both Cases is intermediate between them.
If we experience such difficulties even with the basic characteristics of the aircraft, then comparing their avionics seems altogether prohibitively complex. The most modern radars installed on Rafale-M and Super Hornet, RBE-2AA and APG-79, allow detecting a fighter-type target at a distance of 110-130 km. MiG-29KR, equipped with one of the many modifications of the radar "Beetle", as if it could be the same - for him the detection range of the fighter into the forward hemisphere is also 110-130 km. But what is meant by “fighter target”? On foreign radar, there are opinions that it is a goal with an EPR 1 sq. M., Or maybe 3 sq. M., Or even F-15C with an EPR 5 sq. M. The most interesting thing is that there is no way to find out where the numbers come from, because the same Raytheon, the permanent radar manufacturer for American combat aircraft, does not officially disclose the performance characteristics of its “instruments”. As a rule, data on the range of American radar systems are given with reference to specialized magazines devoted to aviation mathematics and which, in turn, refer to advertising data of the Raytheon company, but it is absolutely impossible to find these data. At the same time, for domestic radar stations, the detection range is usually indicated for targets with 3 square-wave EPR. m., but earlier, in the good old days, it happened that 5 sq.m. and sometimes for some reason 2 sq.m. So it turns out that there seems to be a lot of numbers, but a bit of sense from this, because depending on the EPR, which we substitute to the ranges sounded above, or the BGS of the MiG-29K is much worse than what is installed on the “Super Hornet” and "Rafale M", or approximately equivalent, and either completely surpasses the potential enemy in the head. But this is not all, because the methods of calculating the range can vary greatly: for example, radar with an active phased array can increase the target detection range, narrowing the search sector, and it is not known for which mode the detection ranges are given, etc. In addition, starting from some distances, closer to the extreme range of the radar, there is no guarantee, but the probability that the radar reflected from the target will be accepted by the radar and the target position can be identified (detection quality). That is, with an increase in the range, the probability decreases, and by playing with this parameter, it is also possible to achieve a “paper” increase in the target detection range.
Most of the data suggest (but not asserting reliably) that, in terms of its capabilities, the Zhuk-ME, installed on the MiG-23KR, is inferior to both the French RBE-2AA and the American APG-79 — most likely that the domestic radar can detect the distance to 130 km is the target with the EPR 3 sq.m., while the foreign ones is 1 sq.m., and the target detection range in 3 sq.m. they reach 158 km.
Fighters "Rafale M" on board the aircraft carrier "Harry Truman"
For a long time, the unconditional advantage of domestic aircraft was the optical-location stations (OLS), which made it possible to detect enemy aircraft and provide target designation rockets without turning on the radar. The Rafale-M also has an OLS, but its performance characteristics, alas, are unknown, but the Super Hornets did not have an OLS (if you do not count as such the suspended containers that provide guidance weapons against ground or surface targets, but, as far as the author knows, are useless in aerial combat). By systems EW, today we should probably consider parity, although it is possible that domestic electronic warfare systems are superior to their imported counterparts.
As for the newest F-35C, which will come into service in the future with US carrier-based aviation, it seems that, like the Super Hornet, it is primarily a strike aircraft, and only the second is a fighter. Many of its performance characteristics overlap to a large extent with those of the Super Hornet. Of all of the above, the F-35C is the heaviest - the mass of an empty aircraft reaches 15 785 kg. It must be said that the F-35C wing has the largest area, among its fellow F-35А and F-35В, but nevertheless, the wing with a normal take-off mass is significantly higher than that of the MiG-29КР and approaches the “Super Hornet” . The engine power of the F-35C is lower than that of the twin-engine Super Hornet, and the mass is larger, so it is not surprising that the F-35C loses both the Super Hornet and the MiG-29KR in terms of thrust ratio. All of the above indicates that the F-35C has few chances to "twist" the aforementioned planes in close combat. At the same time, the F-35C payload was lower than that of the Super Hornet record holder - 14 535 kg versus 16 550 kg.
True, the F-35C's internal fuel tanks significantly outperform all other packers - it holds 8 960 kg of fuel, which is 40% more than the Super Hornet following it - and Rafale M and MiG2-9KR are generally content 4 500 - 4 750 kg. However, the F-35C is not too superior to their range, which is 2 220 (according to other data - 2 520) km. Perhaps the reason for this lies in not the best aerodynamics of the F-35C, caused by the desire of Americans to make stealth stealth, and even unify it with the F-35B short take-off and vertical landing, which required a specific shape of the fuselage, due to which the aircraft Russian-language Internet has received the unpleasant nickname "penguin".
F-35C
The speed of the F-35C is a separate mystery - usually in Russian-speaking sources it is indicated that it is 1,6М or 1 930 km / h. It would be ok if the same sources didn’t indicate the speed of 1,8М or 1 900 km / h for Super Hornet and Rafale M - that is, the old fighters are faster in the mach numbers, but in kilometers per hour they are why slower.
How could this happen? Most likely, the matter is this: as you know, the Mach number is a variable, depending also on the height of the flight. Other things being equal, the Mach number at ground level is 1 224 km / h, but at a height of about 11 km - 1 062 km / h. At the same time, it is also well known that modern aircraft develop maximum speed exactly at altitude - for example, Rafale M develops 1 912 km / h at high altitude, and only 1 390 km / h on small. Thus, the speed of the Rafal M at high altitude is exactly the same as 1,8M (1 912 km / h / 1 062 km / h = 1,8M), but the speed F-35C is obviously obtained by multiplying the number M, which the aircraft reached by the value of the M number of the earth (1,6М * 1 224 km / h = 1 958 km / h). However, such a calculation is obviously erroneous, because airplanes do not develop 1,6М near the surface of the earth, and if they had developed, the F-35C would have developed much more than 1,6M at an altitude and then the entire American press would have blown about it. Thus, it can be assumed that the real speed of the F-35C at high altitude is 1,6М * 1 062 km / h = something around 1 700 km / h, that is, it is significantly inferior to both the "Super Hornet" and the MiG-29КР.
But the F-35C is a full-fledged stealth fighter - there are no exact data on its ESR, but it is clearly much lower (most likely an order of magnitude or more) than the Rafale M, Super Hornet and MiG-29KR. The aircraft has such an important innovation as the internal armament compartment, which, by the way, perfectly fits 4 missiles (for example, AMRAAM 2 URVV medium range and 2 UVVV "Sidevinder", that is, "gentleman's set" of a fighter performing air defense tasks). In addition, there is no doubt that the F-35C avionics is superior to that of any of the above aircraft. Thus, the APG-81 radar installed on it, according to some data, is capable of detecting a target with an 3 square meter EPR. at a distance of up to 176 km, that is, on 11% further than the radar "Super Hornet" and on 35% further MiG-29KR. Aircraft of the F-35 family received an optical-location station for armament - it's hard to say how its capabilities compare with the one installed on the MiG-29KR, but, most likely, our aircraft have no superiority in this parameter. As for the capabilities of the EW, the information about it is too fragmentary to be able to form a final opinion.
In general, the F-35C seems to have the impression that this aircraft, in terms of its maneuverability, is somewhere at the F / A-18 E / F Super Hornet and F-16 latest versions, perhaps - to some extent inferior. Not that the last two have the same maneuverability, they are significantly different. But, judging by the opinion of the pilots who joined them in training battles, each of them has its drawbacks and advantages, and in general the planes are equivalent (freely quoting the American pilot: “I would prefer to go into battle on the F / A-18 E / F, but I know guys who say the same thing about F-16 ”).
At the same time, the F-35C avionics is, of course, more advanced than the one that existing deck-based aircraft have, but it is hardly possible to speak of the presence of global breakthroughs - rather, it’s about the fact that each of the F-35C systems exceeds 15 -20% similar systems of the same "Rafale-M". In addition, one should also recall such an indicator as convenience - it can be assumed that the F-35C is more comfortable for a pilot, who is easier to control the aircraft and use onboard armament, and this is an important component of success in air combat. Although it is known that in some respects the F-35 family aircraft are inferior to the previous types - for example, the view from the cockpit of any F-35 is worse than that of the same F-16, there were also complaints about the overly massive helmet and the small space in the cabin.
Probably, there is no reason why the avionics with characteristics similar to those used by the F-35C cannot be installed on the next modification of the same “Super Hornet”, and the piloting characteristics of the F-35C do not exceed the latter. Thus, the main “trick” of the F-35 is still invisibility and unification with the VTOL aircraft.
As for the F-35B, this aircraft has a slightly degraded performance characteristics of the F-35C in exchange for its ability to take off from a short run-up without the aid of a catapult and carry out a vertical landing.
F-35B
Interestingly, the F-35B is lighter than its ejector “fellow” (14 588 kg versus 15 785 kg) - apparently, the need for a stronger body, as well as “hook” mechanisms for the catapult and the aero-finisher. Nevertheless, the need to place a huge “fan”, replacing lifting engines with F-35B, could not but affect the aircraft's load - if the F-35C carries kg of fuel in 8 960 internal tanks, then the F-35B has just 6 352 kg or 1,41 times less. But what is interesting is that if we take the most common data on the flight range of these aircraft - 2 520 km from F-35С and 1 670 km from F-35B, then we get the difference not in 1,41 but in 1,5 times. Why is that? It is probably a matter of increased fuel consumption during the take-off and landing operations of the F-35B, because with a short take-off and vertical landing, it is necessary to turn on the afterburner. If the F-35B took off and landed like an ordinary horizontal take-off and landing aircraft, then one would expect the F-35B to fly significantly more than the 1 670 km, because it is lighter than the F-35C and its fuel consumption will be less.
Thus, the fact that the F-35B and F-35С ranges correspond as 1: 1,5 has a logical explanation. But if so, then we should expect that the combat radii of these planes correspond in the same proportion. But what is interesting is that if we compare the common numbers of combat radii F-35B and F-35С - 865 km for the first, and 1 140 km for the second, we will see that the radius of F-35B is only 1,32 times smaller than the F- 35C! Obviously, this is simply physically impossible. The author of this article has an assumption that the radius of 865 km for F-35B is specified on the basis of the usual (not shortened) take-off and the same normal (not vertical) landing. If the F-35B is used in full accordance with its name “short takeoff and vertical landing aircraft”, then its combat radius probably does not exceed 760 km.
EW aircraft
The only type of deck aircraft of this class is the aircraft wings of American aircraft carriers - this is the EA-18G “Growler”. This aircraft is designed to conduct electronic reconnaissance, jamming radar (up to five EW suspension containers) and enemy communication systems, as well as destroying radar anti-radar missiles. The on-board equipment EA-18G allows identifying and bearing sources of electromagnetic radiation. At the same time, the “Growler” can carry also strike armament - one of the variants of combat loading provides for the suspension of three containers of electronic warfare, two AMRAAM air defense missiles and two Harm anti-radar missiles. The crew of the aircraft consists of two people - a pilot and an operator of electronic systems.
Without a doubt, the basing of the EW aircraft on the Gerald R. Forde gives the aircraft wing of this ship a gigantic advantage over the rest of the aircraft carriers and domestic aircraft carrier aircraft. Today, passive radio intelligence is almost more important than the active work of early warning airplanes, and complementing each other they give a synergistic effect. Thus, it is possible to say that the Gerald R. Ford air wing has almost multiple times better control of the airspace than the other groups of ships we compare.
Airplanes and ARLO helicopters
The famous E-2С "Hokai" is based on American and French aircraft carriers. No matter how sad it is to admit, but this aircraft is a real gem of the US Navy and has no analogues in the world.
This aircraft is the "flying headquarters" of the air group - its crew includes two pilots and three operators. The E-2C does not simply control the aircraft based on its radar data — it receives information from each aircraft under its control in real time — its position, speed, altitude, and the remaining fuel and ammunition. Its radar is capable of detecting and escorting ground, sea, and air targets to or from the 300, on the background of the underlying surface or outside it. In addition, the aircraft is provided with passive reconnaissance, allowing to "lead" as many targets as the radar. The only limitation of its use in the fleet is the need for catapults, so the British Queen Elizabeth and the domestic Kuznetsov are forced to be content with DRLO helicopters (they are not part of the regular air group, but at least theoretically can be placed there).
The advantages of the DRLO aircraft are clearly visible on the example of comparing the capabilities of the E-2С “Hokai” and the domestic Ka-31.
The first thing that catches your eye is, of course, the difference in the detection range of aerial and surface targets. Ka-31 detects a fighter-type target at a distance of 100-150 km (probably it is a plane with a square meter 3-5 square meter, but this is not certain). E-2 will notice such a target with km 200-270, and maybe more. The Ka-31 warship will detect approximately from 250-285 km, while the E-2C is capable of rising to a much greater height, and its detection range of ground and surface targets is almost twice as long - to 450 km, and bomber targets - to 680 (according to other data - 720 km). The Hokaya radar is capable of tracking 300 targets (not counting those that can be controlled by passive means), according to other data, the latest E-2C modifications, this figure increased to 2 000. Ka-31 can simultaneously track all 20 targets.
As we said earlier, the E-2С has the capabilities of conducting passive radio-technical intelligence - if such opportunities exist for Ka-31, then, alas, they have not been declared in the open press. E-2С are able to perform the role of a “flying headquarters”, and the Ka-31 does not have such an opportunity, although this is to a certain extent leveled by the ability of the Ka-31 to transmit the data it received to the ship.
Many sources indicate the ability of the E-2C to conduct patrols at a distance of 320 km from an aircraft carrier for 3-4 hours, that is, be in the air for up to 4,5-5,5 hours. In fact, these data are more likely even understated - during the “Storm in the Desert” E-2С were often in the air for 7 hours. The Ka-31 is able to be in the air for the entire 2,5 hour, while its cruising speed is 220 km per hour, more than twice inferior to that of the Hokai (575 km / h), that is, if the E-2C is a means of reconnaissance, then Ka-31 - control of air and surface situation in the immediate vicinity of the ships warrant. If the E-2C is able to patrol at its cruising speed, using all the onboard reconnaissance tools that it has, then the speed of the Ka-31 when operating its radar drops, if not to zero, then to several tens of kilometers per hour.
The fact is that the Ka-31 is equipped with a huge (square 6 sq. M., Length - 5,75 m) rotating antenna, which, of course, significantly increases the helicopter’s windage and requires considerable efforts to stabilize the latter in flight, which causes a huge loss speed of movement.
British ARLO helicopters, created on the basis of the Sea King multi-purpose helicopter, appear to have similar capabilities to the Ka-31 in detecting surface and aerial targets, but somewhat superior to other parameters.
Sea King AEW.Mk2
So, placing the antenna in the fairing probably allows these helicopters to move faster than the Ka-31 during reconnaissance. The number of targets that the helicopter is able to control reaches (with the latest modifications) 230. On the other hand, it is not known how “network-centric” British helicopters are - their first modifications did not have data exchange equipment, information about the targets they discovered were transmitted by radio (Soviet helicopters have had such equipment since the Ka-25C). Subsequently, the “Sea King” received the necessary automation, but its author’s technical characteristics are unknown to the author of this article. Currently, the UK has placed an order for ARLO helicopters of the new type Crowsnest
However, very little is known about them, except that they were not as good as they could be. The fact is that initially it was supposed to install on them the radar, created on the basis of the American AN / APG-81 (installed on the F-35 family of fighters). This did not, of course, make the new helicopters equal to Hokayam, but ... still, at least something. However, budgetary restrictions did not allow to implement this project, and as a result, the newest Crowsnest received the outdated Thales Searchwater 2000AEW radar.
In any case, DRLO helicopters are nothing more than a palliative and are unable to compete with DRLO aircraft. The E-2 “Hokai”, of course, is inferior in its capabilities to such “monsters” of radar reconnaissance as the E-3А “Sentry” and A-50U, but these are significantly larger and more expensive aircraft. At the same time, the E-2C was so good in terms of the price / quality ratio that many countries (such as Israel and Japan) preferred to acquire them - in order to use them as AWACs and flying headquarters for their air forces.
As for the Americans, having created a magnificent “Hokai”, they did not stop at what had been achieved, but started rearming their squadrons with the new E-2D aircraft “Edwanst Hokai”, which represents, in fact, a profound modernization of the E-2С.
Accurate data on the E-2D is not available, but it is known that their new APY-9 radar complex was developed with a focus on enhancing noise immunity, increasing the range of target detection, with particular attention paid to the detection and tracking of cruise missiles. These, and many other innovations allow the newest American aircraft to control the air, sea and land space much better than it did E-2С.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
To date, there are no UAVs in the regular composition of the US air wings, although their ability to be based on aircraft carriers has been confirmed by tests of the Kh-47V - drone, being developed under the auspices of the US Navy. It is a large strike Drone, with a maximum takeoff weight of up to 20 kg (empty weight - 215 kg). Its payload capacity allows it to carry up to 6 tons of ammunition (typical load - two JDAM guided air bombs). The cruising speed of the X-350B is 2 km / h, the maximum - 47 km / h.
X-47 In person
However, the impressive characteristics of these UAVs achieved a very high price - in the truest sense of the word. The program was so expensive that the US Navy was forced to roll it.
Takeoff X-47B from the deck of the aircraft carrier "George Bush" in the Atlantic (2013 g.)
Also, UAVs are not observed in the aircraft groups of the aircraft carriers of Britain and France, but at the “Kuznetsov” TAKR they ... at least were in the design and in the first stages of operation. This, of course, is about Granit anti-ship P-700 missiles.
Information about this rocket, given in various sources, is still different, so we will give the minimum (in parentheses - the maximum values):
Flight range - 550 (625) km along the combined trajectory, 145 (200) km - at low altitude;
The mass of the warhead is 518 (750) kg or a special warhead with a power of 500 kt .;
Flight altitude - 14 000 (17 000-20 000) m at high altitude and 25 m at attack site.
At the same time, the rocket is equipped with the 3B47 "Quartz" radio jamming station and possesses the beginnings of artificial intelligence - there are different opinions on what the Granit can make, but the fact that it can perform anti-missile maneuvers, select targets and exchange data between missiles (in the group salvo), distributing the goal, no one questioned.
The attentive reader has already noticed that we have not said a word about anti-submarine aircraft. However, this topic is so complex that it requires a separate material and we will not “touch” it yet.
In the next article of the cycle, we will try, using the materials of this and the previous article, to determine the effectiveness of aircraft carriers compared by us in carrying out their inherent tasks.
Продолжение следует ...
Information