Fifth-generation aircraft as a dead-end branch of aviation development
You don't look at the picture. It's just... just a teaser. I suspect that even the design bureaus that create these planes won't dare to say which is our most controversial plane.
Before this there was material about history creation of the F-14 (How Soviet intelligence "conned" US colleagues onto a plane). Everything was simple there: choking on disinformation, the Americans rushed to build their next aircraft with a variable-sweep wing, built crap that is now praised in films with Tom Cruise.
The history of this aircraft's creation is somewhat similar to the history of the F-14, only with the opposite sign. But let's not rush to say that this is a "minus". As they say, everything is not so clear-cut.
I honestly admit that I have long wanted to lay out my vision regarding why we do not have air divisions armed with Su-57 and 75, and it would be appropriate here, although these aircraft are participating in the arms race, but not in the way that everyone would like.
But our hero today, as you already understood, is the fifth-generation budget fighter F-22.
The story of its creation (and consequences) really does resemble the inside-out story of the F-14 Tomcat. But in terms of the destructive effect that the Raptor could have had on us, I would compare its creation project to the Star Wars program, that is, SDI-2.
I don't think that the US remembered that deception that was arranged by the Soviet special services more than half a century ago so well, rather, they acted on the beaten track with one single goal. And this goal is comparable to the goal that the smart guys in the States began to implement in the 80s of the last century. That goal was called the "Strategic Defense Initiative", the greatest scare tactic of the 20th century, which, unfortunately, our people bought into and spent a simply stunning amount of money on killer satellites, combat shuttles, space military stations, lasers and so on. Well, what all this led to against the backdrop of a simultaneous orchestrated fall in oil prices, you all understand - we live in a different country.
Yes, there were other reasons, but the SDI in the Soviet version gobbled up so much money that it could have filled three Stabilization Funds to the brim. In gold.
Okay, fine, the threat from space is clear, what does the Raptor have to do with it?
And with such: the history of the appearance of this plane is very reminiscent of the SDI. What was the calculation? Just to arrange a race aviation weapons, the outcome of which is unpredictable. But the entire history of the F-22 is a history of deception and trickery.
Let's start with the definition of the fifth generation of aircraft. Already at this point, many "experts" begin to roll their eyes and mumble meaningfully. Many have tried to cram all the world's aircraft into some kind of framework, but not everyone has succeeded. Personally, for example, I like the way Richard Hallion laid it out the most, but he did it about thirty years ago, and he ended up with the sixth generation, whose representatives were the Su-27 and F-14/15/16. It would be worth continuing his work, but we are talking about something a little different now.
What is this fifth generation?
Fifth-generation fighters, according to Avia Week, began to be developed at the end of the 20th century and differ from the fourth in the following characteristics:
- use of stealth technology and technologies to reduce visibility, placement of weapons inside the fuselage;
- flight at supersonic speed without using afterburners;
- more advanced avionics (AESA, etc.).
Everything is already vague and indefinite, isn't it? Low visibility, of course, yes. A serious component, here are materials, forms, and technologies.
Armament inside the fuselage? This "innovation" is almost a hundred years old, because by the mid-30s bombers were already carrying their cargo in bomb bays, not under their wings.
More advanced avionics – again, vague. Yes, it could be an AFAR (which has been on the MiG-31 since 1981), and various helmets with screens, and distortion field generators that will turn the fighter into a transport Hercules or (who knows) a Toucan on the radar screen.
As for supercruise, flight at supersonic speed without the use of afterburners, this is a whole other topic for discussion, so we will go over it briefly.
Supersonic long-duration cruise flight: who is it for and what is it for?
A very good option for a bomber that has to cover long distances. A bomber, you understand, is not a frontline one like the Su-24 or Su-34, they don’t really need it. But the point is to quickly cover the distance to the launch point missiles/dropping bombs without eating up a railway tank of fuel and without destroying the engine's resource, because afterburner is a stressful thing, no matter how you look at it. And not all aircraft can fly on afterburner for a long time.
For a fighter, supercruise is pretty mediocre. Why do they even use afterburner/supersonic today? It's all elementary: firstly, when you need to catch up with someone, secondly, when you need to quickly get away from someone. That's all. Well, the third option is to converge before the missile launch point so that there is a reserve of speed for the escape maneuver.
Everything else - maneuver combat (which, frankly, is becoming history), anti-missile evasive maneuvers, whatever - any active evolutions are not about supersonics. Even 100 years ago, when piloting piston-engine rattlers of the last century, a pilot could easily lose consciousness or briefly lose his sight due to overloads. And at modern speeds...
Although a few words about speeds. Today, supersonic speed is, say, Mach 1,1 – 1350 km/h. I would say – average speed. Serious supersonic is about Mach 2, that is, about 2500 km/h. This is not for everyone. But what can a modern aircraft do at such a speed? Nothing. It has a pilot inside, a very delicate structure.
Several years ago, one of our readers, with whom we had several very informative conversations on the topic of aviation, a former interceptor pilot with the MiG-31, told us very intimate details about how to fly at such speeds. And you can fly the MiG-31, it is generally the king of speed and altitude, a gorgeous (according to Alexander) aircraft, after which you can only look at anything else with a grin.
So how to fly on 2M? Calmly and beautifully.
At high altitude, enjoying the views, in a straight line. Maneuvers at such a speed? Unrealistic, maximum - left-right, as if along the bottom of a pipe, gently and smoothly. True, this may be enough, because although the missiles fly at a high speed, up to 6M, you can deceive them with such "swinging". It is very problematic for the most advanced missile to catch up with the MiG-31 at such a speed. Ejection? Yes. Once. On any aircraft you can eject twice, the third time only after a very serious commission, but with the MiG-31 at supersonic speed - once and that's it. To be written off.
In general, that's how it is. At supersonic speeds, they cross huge distances (Russia, the Pacific Ocean, the Atlantic from north to south, etc.), but maneuverable combat at supersonic speeds is not for humans. It breaks down quickly. Fights at a distance - as many as you like, the main thing is not to "break" the plane in supersonic turns, otherwise someone will definitely break down.
That's basically the whole supercruise. But we'll come back to it when we start putting everything together in one box.
nearly invisible
I would compare this to the "ozone hole" story in terms of its sophistication. Remember how they brainwashed us into thinking that if the world didn't stop using refrigerators and air conditioners, it would be finished? It would probably be worse than SDI, because SDI only upset the USSR, while "OD" upset the entire world. Well, except for those who didn't know what a refrigerator was and didn't care.
Thank goodness for time, all these "invisible fighters" have gone down in history, leaving only low-visibility aircraft. Today, any normal person "in the know" knows clearly and understandably that no one and nothing can ensure complete invisibility of an aircraft from radar. Of course, such a thing as a wooden-fabric glider with powder rocket engines will be completely invisible to radar, but that's not what we're talking about.
What we are talking about is that reducing the radar cross-section, that is, the amount of radio waves needed to create a radar picture of an object in order to determine its size, type, direction of movement, degree of danger, and so on, is a very useful thing, but, alas, not a panacea for radars. Of course, if an F-22 looks like a Cessna on a radar screen, that will be just fine for the F-22, which is not the case for those it is flying to.
Many, by the way, have noticed the "patchwork" structure of the Raptor's surface. And many, I'm sure, remember how pompously the Americans explained to all these simple-minded people that these strange panels are a product of technologies that are not yet available to the rest of the world, and that they are the ones that scatter radar beams and reflect them where they need to, making the device not exactly invisible, but completely unnoticeable.
Yes, right now there is no better time to remember how an aircraft from the "invisible" class was clearly seen and shot down by Yugoslav (at that time) anti-aircraft gunners. March 1999. In general, the event shook the military world, because no one expected such a turn of events: the Yugoslavs, armed with God knows what, shot down the newest bomber.
If there is anything to say in defense of the F-117, it is that today such a stealth scheme, practically based on the aircraft architecture and coatings, is quite viable. In the F-117, the architecture generally took on 90% of the reduction in the RCS, the rest is "on the conscience" of the coatings. It is due to such strange shapes that the F-117 reflects radio waves not towards the radar, but up or down from the aircraft.
That is why most of the F-117 surfaces are inclined at an angle of more than 30° from the vertical, because the angles of the plane and the beam of waves from the radar are quite flat, this meeting does not occur "point-blank", but at a decent distance. If you take and irradiate the F-117 from different angles and distances, and then use this data to create a general picture, it turns out that the plane is visible, but ... The "invisible" "glows" in individual sectors, which are quite narrow and cannot provide a complete picture. That is, the radar will not be able to extract enough information from the reflected signals to answer the most important question: who is flying and why?
Almost all components of the airframe are oriented in such a way that reflection from them occurs strictly in the main sectors. All the gaps along the contour of the inspection hatches and optical windows, the joints of the canopy and the fuselage have overlays with a sawtooth edge, the doors of the chassis, engines and weapons compartments also have sawtooth edges, and the sides of the teeth are oriented in the direction of the desired sector. Complex and serious work, but...
But there is a nuance. It is simple and straightforward. This is the frequency range in which a particular radar operates. And this is what determines what will happen when a wave and an invisible aircraft collide: whether the reflected signal will go somewhere into the sky or return to the receiving antenna. Radar ranges are carefully calculated for effective reflection and range, and, naturally, are kept secret as much as possible.
It is possible that the F-117 was invisible/barely noticeable to modern radars, which has been said a lot. Who in the US is to blame for the fact that the Yugoslavs had SAMs in their arsenal that were also dropping Phantoms on the ground in Vietnam?
In general, even today you will be tortured to look for the frequency range in which the SNR-125, the S-125 air defense missile guidance station, operates. What can we say about more modern systems? Yes, of course, when the F-117 and F-22 were created, the developers racked their brains over how the aircraft would look in this or that radio range. Of course, they irradiated them, based on the data that their intelligence had dug up and dragged on the tail of electronic reconnaissance aircraft, which are hanging around the world for this very purpose, collecting signals from various radars. Processing them and then transmitting them to those who need this data.
Something like that was averaged out with this particular F-117. Planes, angles, edges, coatings – everything was designed for one thing, but in reality it turned out to be something else.
It would be very interesting to see how the F-22 would fare in a similar situation. It is clear that its shapes, calculated on supercomputers, would disperse some of the radiation from enemy aircraft radars, some of the radiation from ground radars Defense, ship radars, but: who can guarantee that this will happen with all radars? And what if some "Sarych" comes out with its not very modernized "Frigate-710"? Will it see? I do not rule out. And S-75 and S-125 are scattered around the world... Especially among those who do not have money for normal air defense.
Well, with modern radars, too, not everything is so simple and straightforward. Everything depends on the range, angle, signal power, frequency.
In general, stealth is a very useful thing in theory, since it gives the aircraft the main thing - the ability to survive. In general, at a long distance, say, 100-200 km, any aircraft can throw a missile aside with an elementary anti-aircraft maneuver and decoys. Of course, it depends on what kind of missile, this is also important. But ours is a stealth aircraft...
This means that if they spot him, they will do so point-blank. And the pilot will have practically no time, if they really spot him and aim the missile from about 20-30 kilometers away. He will have to move very actively to get away. So it is a real double-edged sword here.
Stealth is very difficult, expensive and in terms of efficiency - a question that can only be resolved by full-fledged participation in combat operations. The Su-57 tests in the skies of Ukraine are not full-fledged combat operations, they are simply tests in combat conditions.
weaponry
I also didn't see the tale about laser blasters. It was actively told, but they just didn't show it, so it's a miracleweapon in the form of super-smart missiles, which cannot be captured and from which there is no escape, will probably be shown later.
It turns out that behind the absolutely trivial bomb bay doors, which as a structure are 100 years old, are hidden trivial missiles like the same Sidewinder, which will turn 70 years old this year as a product, if anything.
And this is the "new generation"?
Oh yeah... There's a super system there that takes the missile out of the compartment and launches it outside the plane...
I can't say how much of a novelty there is, but the Junkers Ju-87 had such a thing and it took a bomb dropped in a dive beyond the radius swept by the propeller. It's very modern and innovative, you know.
Well, we’ll accept the Sparrow, Sidewinder and AMRAAMs in the bomb bays (sorry, weapons bays) as a given.
A lot of questions were asked about whether the Raptor is crap or the best aircraft in the world?
The Raptor has received very good engines, reliable and time-tested. Pratt & Whitney F100 is probably the best that the company has ever produced. And with these engines, the Raptor has no problem cruising supersonic, and considering that it also has a TVS, albeit in a very narrow range (not comparable to Russian aircraft), but nevertheless, the maneuverability and thrust-to-weight ratio of the F-22 are quite decent.
Camouflage in the status of low visibility? Yes. Curved intake ducts designed to hide the turbine blades (and this is what the plane "shines" best of all), exhaust nozzles of such a strange configuration that in the last century such a thing could only be seen in Hollywood science fiction, in general - reduced visibility in the radio range, reduced thermal signature, complete, so to speak, grace?
Oh, well, we haven't covered the last point yet.
About AFAR and all that stuff
Well, I already said about the AFAR, you won’t surprise anyone with this, in terms of the placement of emitters and all-round visibility, as well as all sorts of EW- there are probably worse planes than this (yes, you need to go to the Sukhoi company website), but what do they have that others don’t?
Yes, there is. All modern jet aircraft in terms of control are like a steel ball balancing on the tip of a needle. That is, they are dynamically unstable objects. There are planes with a pronounced rear center of gravity, there are planes with a front center of gravity, and there is, for example, the Su-27, which I haven’t even read about the aerodynamic trick. Therefore, it is unrealistic to control such a plane without a computer, but you can do somersaults that no American planes could even dream of.
The F-22 has a center of mass close to the aerodynamic focus or slightly behind, meaning the aircraft is unstable to the fullest extent, which leaves room for super maneuverability. Without the electronic control system (FBW), the aircraft would be uncontrollable, but yes, the Raptor flies well, there's no denying that.
We simply keep quiet about aircraft with real, not cut-off, UVT.
It is clear that balancing a modern aircraft is a very delicate matter. And specially trained people do this so that the aircraft does not start to raise its nose in flight or, on the contrary, lower it due to, say, running out of fuel.
The Raptor's flight configuration is programmed in a special service center, and is stuffed into a "flight suitcase" in the form of a flash drive, which also contains "friend or foe" codes, coordinates of restricted areas, and signatures of objects that are prohibited from attack. In general, a lot of very useful and important information. This box is attached to the left weapons compartment and connected to the onboard system.
This is what the compartment with the connection point for this box looks like; I couldn’t find a photo of the device itself.
You can write any program of "behavior" in the air into this box. Absolutely any, depending on the task. This can say a lot, including that the F-22 airframe is good and has excellent flight characteristics in theory. Well, like the Su-27. The fact that the "Raptors" do not put on a show in the style of "Russian Knights" does not mean that the aircraft is not capable of doing "Cobra" in the air or something else from the arsenal of our aerobatic pilots.
But, let's be honest, there were no nuclear shows involving the F-22 due to a complete reluctance to sell them to the side. So, theory is theory, but theory requires practical evidence.
What else is there that is so cutting-edge? A lantern, perhaps.
In general, smart people say that the cockpit canopy is the second most "luminous" part of the plane, after the turbine blades. That's why the Raptor canopy costs several million dollars apiece (7,028, to be exact) and is made of multiple layers: indium, tin and gold between layers of different plastics. It looks amazing, but also saves the pilot from getting a tan (even though he's wearing a helmet and mask) and greatly reduces visibility.
Versatility? Well, yes, the Americans reported that during one super-mission the F-22 made an ultra-long-range flight with refueling, during the mission it worked as a fighter (the question is - against whom, it was in Syria), a bomber, a photo control aircraft, again as an escort fighter and a guidance aircraft. 11 hours - I hope the pilots had enough diapers, I have not come across any information about the F-22 having a waste disposal unit.
Okay, maybe it's time to answer the question "What was all this for?" and "Why did you bother with the F-22?"
Actually, all of the above serves one purpose: to prove that the F-22 is not that different from the previous generation of aircraft. And, perhaps, it is a very good machine, the meaning is just a little different.
So, we have a fifth-generation aircraft that partially shares the characteristics of this generation. More precisely, one: the ability to fly supersonic without afterburner. Low visibility is conditional, because it really does not work at supersonic speeds, and it does not work with external mounts. The armament is absolutely the same as that of fourth-generation aircraft.
Question: is this supersonic speed necessary?
Answer: only in some places, as was said above. Missiles and anti-missiles, and most importantly, UAVs armed with missiles, can fly and maneuver today with overloads of up to 30g and speeds of up to 8M. An airplane with a pilot inside is not even close to being able to fly like that, because a person is weak and fragile and may not withstand overloads starting from 15g. Flying in a straight line and waiting for a missile to catch up with you? Some kind of strange masochism, because a missile is faster anyway.
Okay, there is a small EPR, which is great, but modern missiles no longer rely on their own radar, they, like ATGMs, will soon be able to work "by portrait", when the missile processor database contains all the "images" of enemy aircraft and the missile "knows" who it is going to. And 60-100 times per second it takes pictures of the target and compares them with the database, without releasing the target from capture. And here all the tricks of electronic warfare, all the traps will be about as effective as tank defense systems against Javelins.
So there you have it: three fundamental factors for the fifth generation and… nothing special compared to the same F-15, if you don’t take into account the simply mind-boggling cost. The F-15 flies twice as far, carries twice as many missiles and bombs, and the fact that it can’t fly 150 km at non-afterburning supersonic speed – well, by and large no one cares about that.
There remains this stealthiness, which is impossible at supersonic speeds, with suspended PTBs, with missiles on the external suspension... In short, not a fighter, but some kind of assassin from a computer game: he sneaked up, launched a couple of missiles and disappeared unnoticed before they saw him and gave him the full treatment. No, that's also tactics, but still...
And here is the most important question: what do we care about American torments?
In principle, except for fiddling with the Su-57, nothing. But it must be said that our aviation industry is not the same as in Soviet times, so it does not really need extra loads. The Americans, we must give them credit, played enough with the Raptor very quickly, to put it mildly, stunned by the prices of production and maintenance, they shut down the program, having made a couple of hundred "miracle planes". But having arranged an unprecedented PR campaign, turning the whole world on its ears and forcing the world to believe that the F-22 is the best thing that could ever fly in the skies, and the most deadly. And therefore the US will not sell a single plane to anyone, they themselves desperately need such a plane.
But how everyone rushed to catch up and overtake... Although, let's admit it, there is no one to catch up with. But those who could, began to move their processes. Our people rushed to trade left and right, first Su-57, then they began to offer Su-75, without making it in metal, but the world somehow did not appreciate it. The world preferred to buy the fourth, but unconditional generation. And do not talk about the F-35, it is no more than a skimmed F-22, not much different from the F-15 and Su-35, and in many ways inferior to these outstanding aircraft.
The Su-57 is the same kind of mindless arms race project as the aforementioned modular frigates. Remember, we rushed to stamp out such things after the States, and ended up with five or six sad, defenseless troughs that were quickly sent to rot in the Black Sea, and that, thank God, is all.
What is the problem with the Su-57? It's all the same - the engines. It's not in series yet, everyone is still finishing up "product 30", which should give the Su-57 this supersonic cruise. Why - that's the question. More precisely, this is how: the Russian Aerospace Forces will have a fighter capable of flying supersonic without afterburner, the question remains - where and why. The Americans could not answer.
In general, it would be worth using a calculator here. Let's take a hypothetical F-22, which on its supercruise flies towards Russia from the territory of, say, Ukraine. The distance from Boryspil to Valuyki is 500 km. In Boryspil there is an airfield, in Valuyki - the headquarters of the 3rd motorized division as a target.
The funny thing is that the F-22 can only fly 185 km out of 500 at supercruise. This is official information, so something like this: 185 km at 1 km/h, and then either afterburner and fall in the Belgorod steppes due to fuel exhaustion, or puff at subsonic speed. Hardly noticeable. Here we must remember that the combat radius of the F-900 in this scenario is 22 km. Well, yes, all the magic camouflage coatings do not work at supersonic speeds, do not forget.
The F-15 will fly this distance in about the same time, because its speed will still be the same 1200-1300 km/h, but without the mental anguish of not having enough fuel. It will be enough to fly like this twice.
This supersonic speed does not provide any advantages over other aircraft; here it would be worth relying more on the new electronic warfare systems and radars that we have.
There were a lot of empty questions on the topic of "Where are our regiments and divisions on the Su-57???", including in the comments on our pages. But now you sit and think: are they really so necessary? Because of supersonic speed? Or because of stealth? It turns out to be either one or the other, not all together. The F-22 has proven it.
The flight characteristics of the Su-35 and Su-57 are very similar. And the Su-35 can fly supersonic without afterburners, if that matters. Maybe not at the same speed as the 57th, but it can. And their weapons are practically the same. The Su-57 has absolutely the same stealth limitations. Cost? Well, the 57th is a little (only 300 million rubles) more expensive. And, accordingly, it takes more time than the 35th.
Of course, it is worth comparing closely, but it is already clear that as a next-generation aircraft it is not much superior to the Su-35 from the previous one. Then why all this? Why the billions spent? Just because the Americans got a new toy that they did not really show to anyone? Well, I do not mean the demonstration aerobatics of the F-22 Demo-Team, they fly normally there, beautifully.
It seems that this was some kind of program aimed at making Russia rush to build armadas of Su-57s with all its might. And then push them to other countries, which would be difficult even in the best of times; the Americans are great at marketing their planes. And those who don't understand this can be brainwashed with sanctions.
Looking at all this today, you inevitably begin to understand that it is not for nothing that regiments of Su-57s do not furrow the skies. There is a certain understanding of the moment that so far all fifth-generation aircraft, except for the price, are no different from fourth-generation aircraft. And maybe it is not for nothing that the Europeans began to mold something there that looks like the sixth? And the Chinese are already flying around?
But if the Chinese really do have a three-engine rocket plane capable of going almost into near space, then yes, that's a difference. But if they just have planes made of more expensive materials and with more expensive components, then we could definitely say that the F-22, F-35, Su-57, J-20 and all those who will follow are nothing more than a dead-end branch of aviation development, devouring billions of billions, but not representing anything that wasn't invented 50 years ago.
Information