Military Review

We need a lightweight fighter

35
Two-component front-line squad aviation not a word game, but an urgent need


Among the important problematic issues that require priority consideration by the scientific community and the adoption of appropriate decisions, first of all, is the rationale for the rational appearance of the aviation branches (operational-tactical, long-range, military transport, military). This is especially true for the future up to 2025 of the year, that is, for the duration of the next LG and beyond.

Not only the generalized quantitative and qualitative characteristics of each individual aviation complex achievable in this perspective, but also possible options for the formation of the appearance of each complex, taking into account its place in the military construction system as a whole, in the implementation of long-term state policy should be subjected to a detailed scientific analysis. aspects (economy, geopolitics). Let us highlight the key issues: the appearance of a promising light fighter and its place in the front aviation (PAK FA), the appearance of a promising long-range aviation complex (PAK DA), taking into account the development of the entire heavy aircraft fleet, including naval aviation, the role and place of the promising attack aircraft, taking into account the rapid development of high-speed helicopters and fire systems of the SV, the concept of a prospective UAV subsystem and its place in the military aviation system.

Task analysis

To determine the appearance of a promising light fighter, the most important is the term "dimension". The current regulatory and technical documents do not provide for the classification of combat aircraft by mass. However, its absence significantly complicates the conduct of various kinds of research, the organization of design work, the adoption of important decisions that have a national and even international level. An integrated approach to the substantiation of a rational fleet of aircraft of various types of aviation required a new approach to the classification of the fighter fleet complexes. A thorough analysis of the tasks of fighter aviation in operations and combat operations at various theaters and the cost indicators of the factions led to the conclusion that it was expedient to separate front-line fighters into light and heavy ones. With the head role of the 30 Central Research Institute of Defense, the TTT was justified for each of the selected classes of fighters, according to which the tasks of air supremacy were assigned to the light fighter mainly by covering troops and front facilities, and providing air force strike cover territory of the enemy to the full depth of action and the solution of air defense tasks.

With this concept, the light fighter should have been used mainly in the conditions of information support from the ground and had an appropriate range of actions, and a heavy one - to operate outside the field of ground control information systems. In full accordance with the specified conceptual provisions, the requirements for the onboard equipment and the composition of the means of destruction of aviation complexes were formed. The strength of each class of fighters in the general grouping of front-line fighters had a 1: 2 ratio, that is, about 1 / 3 heavy fighters and 2 / 3 light.

The fourth-generation fighter fleet classification adopted in our country had a counterpart in the form of American fighters F-15 and F-16, although the airborne armament of the F-16A did not initially include medium-range guided missiles (UR) and, therefore, long-range air combat was maintained, and the maneuverability characteristics of the aircraft did not allow for close maneuver combat. At the same time, the composition weapons class "air-surface" included a very wide range. As a result, F-16А, by our classification, was more related to fighter-bombers.

Of the number of foreign fighters of the fifth generation, the F-22 rightfully belongs to the heavy one. The F-35, being developed to replace the F-16, has several modifications and can be considered with great caution as a lightweight fighter. The above said has a very noticeable semantic load in the comparative assessments of various options for aviation complexes. For example, our fifth-generation fighter, the PAK FA, can be compared with its foreign counterpart F-22, and not with the F-35.

About definitions

The lack of a unified approach to the concept of dimension makes it much more difficult to obtain adequate estimates in the consumer properties of AC both in the domestic and foreign markets. Go to analysis historical aspects of the dimension of the modern fleet of fighters requires consideration of the terms (concepts) "multifunctional aviation complex" (MFAC), "fifth generation AK" and "AK dimension". The Military Encyclopedic Dictionary gives the following definition of the MFAC: an aircraft capable of solving somewhat different tasks from each other - the defeat of ground (surface targets), air combat and aerial reconnaissance.

We need a lightweight fighterAs can be seen from the definition, the concept of "MFAK" refers only to aircraft without a pilot (crew). This is very important, because it is difficult to imagine a pilot even of a very high class, capable of equally successful modern high-maneuver air combat, as well as in a tactical group and at the same time possessing the skills of searching, target detection, anti-aircraft maneuvering, aiming and striking disguised targets. the use of aircraft cannons, unguided short-range, medium and long-range missiles, aerial bombs, one-time bomb cassettes.

Unambiguously agreeing with the IFAC definition given in the dictionary, we can immediately state the fact that the overwhelming majority of front-line (tactical) fighters developed in the world were created as multifunctional, and the development of highly specialized ones was practically not done. The main reasons for this were, on the one hand, a fairly broad commonality of requirements for strength, thrust-to-weight, on-board equipment for general use and the desire to reduce the cost of creating AKs of a given class, solving a wide range of tasks, on the other. For example, the onboard equipment of all modern MFAKs being developed or upgraded includes a multifunctional radar and an optical-electronic sight-sight system, which usually includes a television system, a laser range finder target indicator and a laser spot finder, ensuring the use of AKs as for air targets , and on ground (surface) objects. Armament MFAK close in composition and differs, as a rule, only by the number of aviation weapons of destruction (TSA) and their total weight. The armament complex usually includes short-range and medium-range air-to-air missiles, general-purpose air-to-air missiles, air-to-craft and air-radar missile systems, as well as aerial bombs, including number and adjustable. A common thing is also the equipping of joint stock companies by means of electronic warfare and electronic communications.

The term "fifth-generation fighter" appeared in the middle of the 90-ies and most likely in connection with the deployment of work on a new generation of on-board electronic equipment (RDB) fighters, including such as the F-22, F-35, PAK FA. Today, the fifth generation fighter most often refers to an aircraft that combines the implementation of Stealth technology, supersonic cruising speed and super-maneuverability, as well as an integrated modular avionics structure with an open architecture, involving the integration of data from various sensors and a global element information and combat system.

The term "dimension" is commonly understood as the normal take-off mass of the aircraft, that is, the mass at which the requirements of its main performance characteristics are met. As additional indicators, dimensions often use the mass of an empty aircraft and the mass of the combat load. In the 30-th Central Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense, performed at the end of 60-x and the beginning of 70-s, all combat aircraft were conventionally divided by the normal take-off mass (G0) into four groups: ultra-light (G0 ≤ 10 tons), light (from 10 to 17,5), medium (from 17,5 to 23) and heavy (more than 23).

This approach to the weight classification of combat aircraft of front-line (tactical) aviation by weight is generally mechanistic in nature. It is based on the consideration of the entire set of airplanes with different missions (fighters, attack, attack aircraft, training), built in different countries at different times. This, in particular, can explain the wide range of dimensional changes in each weight class. Consideration of this issue in relation to a specific fleet of fighters requires consideration of a number of important additional factors. Among the latter, first of all, there is a target-oriented analysis and consideration of global trends in the development of combat capabilities of promising IFACs of one or another weight class.

From this point of view, the ultralight class should be excluded from further consideration, since it primarily includes combat AKs created on the basis of training aircraft, and they can hardly be considered promising fighters even considering that they are capable of close air combat. If the fighter’s mass is less than ten tons, it’s impossible to achieve a level of efficiency that allows it to withstand potential enemies in air battles. From the same standpoint, it is quite acceptable to unite the middle and heavy classes into one heavy class. The absence of differences in the middle class of a fundamental nature, which determine their separation into an independent class, speaks in favor of such a union. For example, they practically do not differ in maneuverability, and a heavy fighter, as a rule, surpasses the average one in flight range and composition of weapons.

The analysis shows the admissibility of the following classification, established for the fourth generation in determining the dimension of promising combat fighters. Light class - normal take-off weight up to 18 tons (“Mirage-2000”, “Rafale”, F-16С, ITS 2000, F-35А, Russian versions MiG-29). Heavy - normal take-off weight over 18 tons (Tornado, F / A-18C / D, F-35C, F-15, E / I, F-14D, F-22, Russian versions MiG-31, Su-27 and Su-30). The proposed delineation takes into account the most important factors by areas of combat use, zones, tasks and conditions of information support, and makes it possible to emphasize the need to consider a two-component fleet of front-line fighters from both the country's needs and the position of our combat vehicles on the world market, taking into account the reality of the fifth generation fighters .

Offers

Let us return to the reasonable two-component fighter fleet and the ratio of the number of heavy to light 1: 2. Military expediency is due to real needs in the park (number) of consumers and maintenance costs.

If we confine ourselves to system-wide considerations, it is unlikely that anyone would object to the assertion that the total fleet of front-line fighters in our country should be about a thousand airplanes (with normal development of the situation in the world and the state of the country's economy). In this case, each of the three strategic areas will have about three hundred aircraft. It seems that this is a very reasonable figure for approximate calculations. And if we consider that the length of our borders is over 60 thousands of kilometers, then 60 fighters for a thousand kilometers is a very modest figure.

A thousand fighters in the Russian Air Force can be considered the minimum necessary (expedient) also for reasons of internal needs. This refers to the maintenance of trained flight and technical personnel, the content of educational institutions that ensure the continuous flow of personnel to combat units, the maintenance of the entire infrastructure of combat training and comprehensive support.

Of considerable interest is the analysis of the results of a comparative assessment of the effectiveness of various types of foreign-made fighter aircraft in their solution to one of the most important tasks — the destruction of the air defense system of a potential enemy. Estimates were obtained by IABG (Germany) and DRA (United Kingdom) based on simulation modeling, and the effectiveness of air combat was evaluated by RAND Corporation (USA). The main (integrated) indicator of efficiency was the cost of the aircraft fleet, capable of solving the task, which is the product of the cost of the basic version of the considered carriers and their combat equipment without the cost of logistics, training of flight personnel, and the required number of aircraft to destroy the enemy’s air defense system.

The results obtained convincingly enough confirm the fact that a light fighter of the type “Rafale”, “Eurofighter”, possessing high combat effectiveness, with good reason can take its rightful place in the composition of any group.

From the standpoint of military expediency, the rational balance of light and heavy fighters is unlikely to change significantly compared with the figures relating to the fourth generation, and if they are possible, only towards the light. Two provisions speak in favor of such a hypothesis. The first is that, based on the provisions of our Military Doctrine, it does not follow the necessity of escorting large masses of bomber aircraft to a depth of 2000 kilometers in the conditions of a powerful enemy air defense. We are not going to fight at the same time with the whole world. The second is that the air defense of troops from the enemy’s air in border areas with the help of long-range fighters from the depth of their territory has never been and will not be rational both in terms of flight time and fuel consumption, and in terms of the organization of hostilities and the management of existing ones aviation forces.

One of the most difficult and crucial tasks in the field of air defense - the interaction of ground and air forces - must be carried out in each specific direction by a clearly oriented force composition. At present, even the thinning network of airfields in our country allows us to successfully solve the tasks of basing the required number of light fighters on the main routes. But where this problem is acute (areas of the Arctic), heavy fighters really should play a leading role - today it is MiG-31, in the future - PAK FA.

From the standpoint of the economy (reducing the cost of creating and maintaining a fleet of light and heavy fighters), the arguments are again only in favor of the light one. There are estimates of the cost of one kilogram of modern Su-27 and MiG-29 fighters - from 3,5 to 4,5 thousands of dollars, F-22 - 10 thousands of US dollars. It seems that our PAK FA has these numbers no less, so for simplicity of reasoning we take 10 thousand dollars as the basis for one kilogram of the mass of the equipped fighter aircraft with a full range of weapons. Then we get very simple, but very convincing indicators. The cost of purchasing a fleet of thousands of heavy fighters, the average mass of which is 25 – 30 tons, will average 275 billion dollars, for lightweight ones with an average weight of 17 – 18 tons - an average of 175 billion, and purchasing a mixed fleet in the proportion 1: 2 - 210 billions. Thus, the savings in procurement alone amount to 65 billions of dollars or 30 percent. Considering the fact that one hour of a heavy fighter flight today costs one and a half times more expensive than a light one, and the average flight time of a second class pilot cannot be lower than 130 – 150 hours per year, it is quite understandable that the cost of annual AK operation is also proportional to the weight of the aircraft. Savings due to the operation of a mixed fleet for the AK life cycle (30 years) - 25 – 30 percent. In absolute terms, this is a very impressive amount.

In terms of their combat capabilities, the classes of fighters in question differ less and less. This is largely due to the rapid pace of miniaturization of the electronic equipment of both the aircraft and the means of destruction. At the same time, the task of achieving such indicators characterizing a promising fighter as super-maneuverability, supersonic cruising speed and low visibility is solved on a light fighter with less cost than on a heavy one. It is enough here to recall the problem of the engine.

The analysis of the feasibility of creating a light fighter for the foreign market is also associated primarily with the cost of the AK. The vast majority of buyers from among relatively small countries (both in territory and in economy) are already striving to acquire first and foremost AK light-class companies. In the near future, this trend will only intensify. Among these countries are both our partners in the CIS and other traditional buyers. This is explained by the cost of procurement and operation, as well as military expediency. It is from these positions that our MiGs have become so widespread, and it is with these positions that the main aircraft manufacturers (USA, China, Brazil, South Korea, Turkey) as part of the fifth-generation programs today intensively develop light-class AKs.

Today, the proportion of fighters of two classes in terms of size and development costs is 2: 1, that is, two heavy ones per light one. The bias in the development of our fighter aircraft is obvious. The main reason is a clear disregard for the scientific approach to the formation of important conceptual aspects of the substantiation of weapons systems of any kind (kind). The period of rapid growth in the number of various kinds of early-maturing concepts while simultaneously eliminating the head role of research organizations of the Ministry of Defense and the defense industry has ended. It would be right to recall the achievements of the national military science during the formation of the fourth generation of aviation complexes, when decisions on the quantitative and qualitative composition of the fleet of front-line fighters were not only rational, but also unique. Rationality, in particular, consisted in substantiating the fleet, capable of solving the entire scope of tasks assigned to front-line fighter aircraft, with minimal expenses for its creation and maintenance, and uniqueness in securing two schools to create effective world-class aviation equipment on a competitive basis.

As a result, today there is hardly any country in the world that is not familiar with our brands - Su and MiG. In fairness, it should be noted that the MiG brand is generally more familiar to states with relatively small territory and limited economic opportunities. And this is quite understandable from the standpoint of the expediency of spending on ensuring the security of a country, taking into account geopolitical and economic factors. Such an understanding gave us an invaluable opportunity to be present in dozens of countries around the world. With the Su brand, as a rule, larger states are familiar. It makes no sense to compare the importance or value of these global brands, for both are our national treasure and should be cherished.
Author:
35 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Nayhas
    Nayhas 11 July 2013 09: 13 New
    18
    Everything is correct of course. The author just did not mention that AKs should also include AWACS, and not monsters like A-50, but in Tu-204 or less, you need a Link-16 or CDL 39 data transfer system ... All this is needed, question is it doable ...
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. fzr1000
      fzr1000 11 July 2013 09: 47 New
      +6
      Everything is doable if you have the will, strength and means. Yesterday I climbed the network after talking in the thread about the launch of small WFDs by Saturn, to find out about our technology for growing monocrystalline structures with high heat capacity. Some dissertations and abstracts. Only on the Nanotech website is some North Caucasus University experimenting in a laboratory with 5 employees. The trouble is simple.
      1. urganov
        urganov 11 July 2013 15: 19 New
        0
        and on the website of ChVZ (Chelyabinsk electrode plant) did not look?
        1. fzr1000
          fzr1000 11 July 2013 16: 17 New
          0
          Not. I'll look right now.
          1. fzr1000
            fzr1000 11 July 2013 22: 41 New
            0
            Looked and yet no. There is something else.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    3. leon-iv
      leon-iv 11 July 2013 10: 25 New
      +7
      And the energy of Bort?
      The same A-50 still has its own and the turbine is inside for a mushroom. Will all this get on the Tu-204? Or will you have to cut the functionality and put a flat AFAR, thereby cutting off the sector? like a chinese woman

      HZ is a controversial decision here the most important nuance is whether such an AWACS can work on the A-50 land even though badly but maybe the A-50U does it well
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 11 July 2013 10: 54 New
        +3
        Yes, somehow no one has any problems ...
        Saab 340

        Boeing 737 AEW & C (Peace Eagle)Boeing 737 AEW & C (Peace Eagle)
        1. leon-iv
          leon-iv 11 July 2013 11: 09 New
          +6
          I understand that there is no problem with the characteristics of these radars. After all, we need to not only monitor the air but also the land, preferably in a large sector. So it's debatable here. Although you can think of an ersatz about the Tu-204, but here you have to sit down on pieces of paper and count it count it count.
          Roughly speaking, SMs have 23 tons of payload. then we pretend to remove all the passenger entrails we get tons-3 total 26 tons. We look where to spend it
          1 refueling system
          2 additional fuel tanks.

          But here the question comes out how many operators I would not have hoped for more than 6.
          And the most important question is how much the equipment will weigh. If modern computers take up little space, then the normal radar and its harness is not much reduced in size. And the most important question is where to get EE. Monster one more engine or install the APU? If you're interested, let's figure it out on your fingers.
      2. Airman
        Airman 11 July 2013 14: 12 New
        0
        Quote: leon-iv
        And the energy of Bort?
        The same A-50 still has its own and the turbine is inside for a mushroom. Will all this get on the Tu-204? Or will you have to cut the functionality and put a flat AFAR, thereby cutting off the sector? like a chinese woman

        HZ is a controversial decision here the most important nuance is whether such an AWACS can work on the A-50 land even though badly but maybe the A-50U does it well

        There is already the prospect of making an AWACS aircraft based on IL-476.
        1. leon-iv
          leon-iv 11 July 2013 21: 53 New
          0
          Yeah, there is such that on the basis of 476 there will be AWACS. The question here is different: what to create a sort of Erzac AWACS, but a cheaper one that has fewer channels does not have a refueling system. On the basis of 204CM, I think this idea makes sense about ordering at least 2 regiments, that is, 50 aircraft.
    4. Argon
      Argon 11 July 2013 12: 33 New
      +8
      I do not agree with the opinion of the author, the assessment of the situation is given from the position of the beginning of the 80s, mainly in a "theoretical key", and does not take into account today's realities. However, the key theses are generally indisputable - the scientific substantiation of the development of the Air Force, the division into classes of percussion machines, the rigid relationship of the mass of the machine with its cost \ life cycle cost. But on the face and some inaccuracies. The program developed by the 30th Central Research Institute of MO was never implemented, primarily due to the delay of the MiG-29 series, which was explained by the impossibility (with the industrial potential of the USSR at that time ) preservation of the specified weight and size characteristics to achieve the specified efficiency. The cost of the MiG-29 was steadily growing and by 89g it could be confidently said that the 1: 2 ratio would not allow keeping the "profitability" of the fighter fleet. The estimation of the "5th generation" fleet, in my opinion, is not objective - agree that it is quite difficult to compare the technological level of the F-22 with the "Rafal", "Eurofighter" (we do not take the mass factor into account). The latter are not far from our machines in 4 + ... And at the end, the author's idea that the "light" class is approaching in capabilities to the machines of the "heavy" due to the "rapid pace of miniaturization of avionics and ASP" is fundamentally incorrect "- In my opinion, this is occurs due to the placement of part of the avionics outside the platform, (I will explain, in a somewhat exaggerated form), let's say a PRNK is installed on the Su-30, which solves the navigation problem autonomously and uses external sources (radio beacons, information from GLONASS) as a correction, and the F-35 relies on NAVSTAR, as the main source, having a navigator on board, which is close in weight to a laptop, in contrast to the Su, which carries a significant increase in the mass of the radar. I repeat, this comparison is rather exaggerated, and is intended to explain the principle itself. Approximately the same is the case with systems reconnaissance-identification of targets (to one degree or another) depending on external sources (systems) of target designation. This example shows that "Zaezia" or "Shore of the elephant heap" can invent a 5th generation machine in a light class that satisfies their capabilities in terms of cost and operation, but its effectiveness will depend on the desire of the owner of the "Global Combat Systems" - it will not allow it. For Russia, this is not acceptable. Own such systems have been developed, but have not yet been implemented (I cannot go deeper, this is a topic for a separate conversation). heavy class allows you to solve all the tasks of the 5th generation much more autonomously (for which you have to pay with a small number of aircraft). Taking into account the military doctrine of Russia (its defensive character), I consider it more rational to have a "light" platform of generation 4 ++ in the Air Force ... more precisely MiG-35.A prospective R&D should be carried out in the direction of the UAV with a normal takeoff weight of about 12 tons and a machine of the 5 ++ generation that meets all the requirements ... lol
      1. fzr1000
        fzr1000 11 July 2013 13: 28 New
        +1
        Interesting opinion.
        1. Uncle Serozha
          Uncle Serozha 11 July 2013 15: 24 New
          +1
          Argon, thanks, I read it with interest
  2. fisherman
    fisherman 11 July 2013 09: 38 New
    +4
    instant 35 need

    and not so much for foreign markets as for our vast expanses
    1. Airman
      Airman 11 July 2013 14: 21 New
      +2
      Quote: fisherman
      instant 35 need

      and not so much for foreign markets as for our vast expanses

      And for the fact that even the hedgehog understands the need for several types of fighters, 30 Central Research Institute for several years sawing folk money. And also, probably, several doctors and candidates of sciences defended themselves on this topic.
      1. fisherman
        fisherman 12 July 2013 01: 16 New
        +2
        30 Central Research Institute for several years sawing folk money.


        and I’m constantly talking about this, the threat from somewhere is not so terrible, but the one that walks nearby

        "permanent reproduction of temporary workers"

        they became noticeable in the 70s, in the 80s there were more of them, and since the 90s the number of hitrovans (intellectuals, fraudsters, parasites, lawyers, managers, speculators, political scientists, journalists and other creaks) has dramatically increased
  3. Shadowcat
    Shadowcat 11 July 2013 09: 49 New
    -1
    The weight problem is that in one plane it is necessary to cram the electronics responsible for the land, and for the air, and over the sea. Plus we add here that all systems should be duplicated and shielded. Plus the volume of tanks, engines, navigation. Another computer (several) that will handle all this. Ability to work at various heights. As a result, the weight is great, but a wide range of tasks is solved.
    From this we conclude - either it is necessary to carry out a wide range of tasks (i.e., the plane is both a destroyer, and attack aircraft, and a bomber) and qualitatively or to perform narrow while maintaining quality in this, but quality deterioration in others (i.e., the aircraft is what then one, and the rest goes in worse quality than the main task).
    Citing an analogy - for example, the planes of the Great Patriotic War, such as the Yak-1 and others could be used for attack, although their task was to fight enemy fighters at medium altitude. At the same time, the famous Il-2 could work as a fighter, although its main task was to attack.
    The reason for abandoning such a concept occurred because airplanes became more complicated and more expensive to manufacture and the price of the averaged multifunctional in terms of parameters turned out to be lower than a highly specialized fighter or attack aircraft, and sometimes the qualities were the same.

    This, of course, is not the expert’s opinion, but all that’s for it is that the aircraft must be designed to perform certain tasks. If the customer wants to load it with versatile functions, the result is a heavy engine or light but not military, but only for the parade and museum car (F-35).
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 11 July 2013 11: 17 New
      -1
      Electronics, in addition to primary sensors, no longer requires any separate analog computing suitcases, questions about aerodynamics at different altitudes and the structural strength of the airframe in order to carry something heavier than air-to-air missiles.
    2. Pimply
      Pimply 11 July 2013 17: 39 New
      0
      Where did you get the idea that three, in essence, airplanes, the F-35 is a parade? The parade here is rather F-22
      1. Shadowcat
        Shadowcat 11 July 2013 18: 36 New
        +1
        sir, with its price per unit and its reliability, it is now impractical to use it in battle. Only show and no more to at least somehow justify the creation
        Regarding f22, however, I agree
  4. Thunderbolt
    Thunderbolt 11 July 2013 09: 52 New
    +2
    the ultralight class should be excluded from further consideration, since it primarily includes combat AKs created on the basis of training aircraft, and they can hardly be considered promising fighters, even if they are capable of conducting close air combat.
    And in the version of the attack aircraft they cannot be made, if only for export. And bandits in the Caucasus are preferable to neutralize reconnaissance and strike drones.
  5. Akim
    Akim 11 July 2013 10: 24 New
    +1
    In China, the J-10 is considered a light fighter, and take-off weight of 18 tons
  6. Avenger711
    Avenger711 11 July 2013 11: 14 New
    +1
    J-10 is a completely typical light fighter with an empty weight of 10 tons. Why the author decided that it is necessary to divide this way is not clear to me. In the United States, the F-15 was heavy, which is just average in view of the presence of the Su-27 and F-22.
  7. Akim
    Akim 11 July 2013 11: 15 New
    0
    And if we take into account that the length of our borders is over 60 thousand kilometers, then 60 fighters per thousand kilometers is a very modest figure.

    Such calculations are probably comparable only to the territory of Russia and China. France and Britain are much stronger in this proportion, because they have geographical rear areas. They have enough up to 100 with a small car of this class.
    1. ATATA
      ATATA 11 July 2013 14: 25 New
      +3
      If we restrict ourselves to system-wide considerations, it is unlikely that anyone will object to the assertion that the total fleet of front-line fighters in our country should be about a thousand aircraft (with the normal development of the situation in the world and the state of the country's economy). At the same time, each of the three strategic directions will have about three hundred aircraft. It seems that this is a very acceptable figure for rough calculations. And given that the length of our borders is over 60 thousand kilometers, then 60 fighters per thousand kilometers is a very modest figure.
      I didn’t want to cling to the article, but I’ll say it all the same. I think the author understands airplanes, about the same as in mathematics.
      And if you look closely at this quote from the article. it will become clear that the mathematics of the author is very peculiar.
      Of course, the article contains many technical terms, there is a claim for analysis, but in fact there is a set of "smart phrases".
      On this topic.
      What can a light fighter do that a heavy fighter cannot? Why is it needed ??? !!!
      According to the price criterion, the SU 35 efficiency will leave far behind the Mig 35 flag.
      IMHO to heavy fighters need a swarm of drums and CHEAPER UAV, that would lead the battle without sacrificing valuable pilots.
      1. Avenger711
        Avenger711 11 July 2013 16: 55 New
        +3
        UAVs are not ready for big wars. A light fighter is needed where its capabilities will be enough and it is better to increase the number. First of all, this is an air defense facility.
        1. ATATA
          ATATA 11 July 2013 19: 12 New
          +2
          The number of aircraft can be increased, but where can I get experienced pilots?
          And a heavy fighter will cope with object-based air defense better than light, if only because it can be longer in the air without refueling, and also has a more powerful airborne radar.
          1. tupolev-95
            tupolev-95 11 July 2013 20: 47 New
            +1
            But just on light fighter pilots, pilots will gain experience for less money, and there are different types of theater of operations. For example, our air base in Armenia has been armed with Mig-29 and Su-27, they haven’t fallen for 300 years, there aren’t such open spaces to use it and planned flights would have cost the homeland much more.
      2. tupolev-95
        tupolev-95 11 July 2013 20: 38 New
        +1
        Something I have not heard about UAVs that can conduct an air battle.
  8. aviamed90
    aviamed90 11 July 2013 11: 16 New
    +5
    Article "+".
    For trying to comprehend and analyze the current situation. It is high time.

    Although, some statements and conclusions are controversial.
    1. aksakal
      aksakal 12 July 2013 00: 45 New
      0
      Quote: aviamed90
      For trying to comprehend and analyze the current situation. It is high time.

      Although, some statements and conclusions are controversial

      For the same reasons, I liked the article. Controversial issues are above the roof, but the main thing is not this. The main thing is an attempt to determine and look into the future, and from here the correctly asked question - are light fighters needed? The tanks were light tanks, medium and heavy. And left MBT. IMHO, and aviation will come to the same by love.
      Where's the VAF? - His topic, something did not speak out.
      1. Airman
        Airman 12 July 2013 19: 14 New
        0
        Quote: aksakal
        Quote: aviamed90
        For trying to comprehend and analyze the current situation. It is high time.

        Although, some statements and conclusions are controversial

        For the same reasons, I liked the article. Controversial issues are above the roof, but the main thing is not this. The main thing is an attempt to determine and look into the future, and from here the correctly asked question - are light fighters needed? The tanks were light tanks, medium and heavy. And left MBT. IMHO, and aviation will come to the same by love.
        Where's the VAF? - His topic, something did not speak out.

        The VAF on this issue has long spoken out - specialization of aircraft is needed. Something in the air defense decided to switch to a single complex S-300, but then they decided to add "Pantsir-s" and other complexes. There is nothing universal.
  9. The comment was deleted.
  10. velikoros-xnumx
    velikoros-xnumx 11 July 2013 11: 21 New
    0
    "... We are not going to be at war at the same time with the whole world" - this is how, or almost so, most often it turned out.
    I would rather say that in the foreseeable future we do not plan to conduct active offensive operations on foreign territory outside the area of ​​our air defense (and indeed, this has rarely been practiced throughout the history of our homeland). The concept of the use of our air forces should be built on the basis of of this.
    My opinion is that we do not need a "clean" light fighter, but rather a light simple attack aircraft with the ability to conduct both aerial combat and the ability to deliver high-precision strikes to the ground.
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 11 July 2013 12: 47 New
      0
      If there is a land war ahead, then how are you going to win without offensive action on enemy territory ??

      rather a lightweight simple strike aircraft with the ability to conduct both air combat and the ability to deliver high-precision strikes on the ground.


      That is, unable to provide air defense bottom.
      1. mark1
        mark1 11 July 2013 19: 08 New
        +2
        Probably they meant the need for a mobilization version of a simple multipurpose aircraft in case of a "big" fight. And offensive actions and air defense will provide heavy fighters (at least in the first, "hottest" phase of the conflict)
        1. ATATA
          ATATA 11 July 2013 20: 31 New
          +1
          Quote: mark1
          Probably they meant the need for a mobilization version of a simple multipurpose aircraft in case of a "big" fight.

          The project of such an aircraft was created in the USSR in the 80s. I don’t remember its index, I read it on "stealth machines", now I could not find something. If I'm not mistaken, it cost 2 times less than 29 and practically did not yield to it in terms of characteristics.
  11. velikoros-xnumx
    velikoros-xnumx 11 July 2013 11: 33 New
    +1
    Anyway, we already discussed something similar in the article on procurement of Mig-35
  12. Arct
    Arct 11 July 2013 12: 11 New
    +2
    I will support aviamed90. In general, a plus, but juggling with numbers is inappropriate.
    "And if you consider that the length of our borders is over 60 thousand kilometers, then 60 fighters per thousand kilometers is quite a modest figure." That is, initially the author speaks about three strategic directions, and then stupidly adds another 20 km there, where these fighters will never be used. The Mig-000 or their successors will be used to the maximum in the Arctic direction. Yes, and 31 per kilogram, the figure is also clearly far-fetched. Especially considering the nuances of the development of the 10nd.
  13. Vlad_Mir
    Vlad_Mir 11 July 2013 14: 24 New
    +1
    All is needed! It’s more important to understand that first!
  14. angarchanin
    angarchanin 11 July 2013 18: 18 New
    +3
    It seems to me that there are a lot of "failures" from the story of mother: she cannot teach her mediocrity, there is only one thing left - to inherit the family value: a rake. In not so ancient times (the US war with Vietnam), the States abandoned the universal aircraft (in the basic version of the F-111) as a reconnaissance aircraft, fighter, bomber, etc. primarily due to the low effective recoil, high cost and the number of losses from the air defense of Vietnam. Again we are doing BelAZ in the role of a taxi (and what: let it go along the route - it will carry so many people!). Our clever heads at one time refused from the MiG-25 in the bomber version. There is not and will not be a universal soldier who will be better than a sniper, a tanker - a pro in his field. The conclusion is simple: each business must have its own pro: plane, tank, ship, etc.
    1. aviamed90
      aviamed90 12 July 2013 11: 45 New
      0
      angarchanin

      I also tend to this conclusion.

      Of course, a multifunctional machine is a tempting idea. But it is practically not feasible due to the spraying of combat capabilities into various types of combat missions and the high cost of their implementation in metal.
      I do not mean modifications to the combat tasks of the base aircraft, but a multifunctional aircraft that can already solve all types of tasks in the air.

      Undoubtedly, by solving one type of tasks with a "professional plane" we will achieve a higher probability of its implementation with smaller forces. But on the other hand, professionalism presupposes the creation of your own aircraft for each type of tasks. And it seems to me that it is still cheaper and more profitable.

      Now, for example, the main objective of the IBA - the breakthrough of enemy air defense is supposed to be solved by the FBA and ShA, which is very problematic. But without solving this problem, any front-line counter-offensive operation (FKNO) is doomed to failure. Maybe they will cope with this task, but at the cost of what efforts (loss, distraction from solving their problems, necessary time)?
  15. dizelniy
    dizelniy 11 July 2013 20: 09 New
    0
    Quote: fisherman

    fisherman


    Today, 09: 38




    instant 35 needs not so much for foreign markets as for our vast expanses

    Where will it fly across our vast expanses from 6 ur, without PTB, at an instrument speed of 700 km? God forbid, turn on the fast and the furious and what's next?
    1. fisherman
      fisherman 12 July 2013 01: 38 New
      0
      Where it will fly across our vast expanses


      he has other tasks, he must fly far YES

      do not forget the price of service
  16. Odysseus
    Odysseus 11 July 2013 20: 42 New
    +3
    The article is interesting, but rather abstract and divorced from modern realities.
    In the NATO Air Force, the division into light / heavy fighters in general has lost its relevance. In the strict sense of the word, of all NATO fighters, only F-2020 can be written as heavy by 22.
    In our country, this division remains relevant due to our current conditions. The poor condition of the airfield network, the meager number of tankers and huge distances.
    That is, the creation of a new light fighter is impossible without resolving issues with airfields and refueling.
    In addition, the tasks that the MiG-29 cover for large ground forces groups and the conquest of air supremacy over the front line now lost their relevance in view of the absence of the ground forces groups themselves and the low probability of the onset of a large-scale land war.
    But the main thing is that the creation of a new 5-generation light fighter in our realities will require at least 10-12 years and a lot of money.
    I’m not sure that the country will pull such a program and not sure of its necessity in 2023-2025.
    It is probably more efficient to invest in drones, new weapons (hypersound, etc.), and in air defense.
    But as an "intermediate type", the MiG-29 platform was very good (although the issue with the range remained). But here too the time, in many respects, alas, has already been lost.
    1. aviamed90
      aviamed90 12 July 2013 11: 59 New
      +1
      Odysseus

      I think that defining a large-scale war as unlikely is quite controversial. And this provision of the "RF Military Doctrine" must be revised.

      Everything indicates that such an option is quite possible.

      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus 12 July 2013 21: 35 New
        +1
        Quote: aviamed90
        I think that defining a large-scale war as unlikely is quite controversial. And this provision of the "RF Military Doctrine" must be revised.

        Dear aviamed90, I wrote that large-scale land war is unlikely. Consider options
        1) The United States and NATO in general have switched to the concept of a "global aerospace strike." They do not have large ground forces with the help of which they can invade Russian territory. And there is no need for this either.
        2) Japan can carry out a successful landing operation against the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin (because of which it is necessary to strengthen the air-sea grouping in the Far Eastern theater of operations), but they have no strength for more. They do not claim to have more.
        3) So the only country capable of carrying out a large-scale land invasion of the Russian Federation is the PRC. But there is no need to indulge oneself, after all the "army reforms" and all the "reforms" in general, we have absolutely nothing to stop China. And within the framework of the current reality of the capitalist Russian Federation to restore We will not be able to carry out a large grouping of troops in the Far East, so only strictly nuclear weapons will help against the PRC.
        Thus, the possibility of a large-scale land confrontation a la NATO against the Warsaw Treaty in the 80s, IMHO, is extremely small.
  17. Gregazov
    Gregazov 11 July 2013 20: 57 New
    +2
    The article put a minus. The author, by his own arguments, recalled a dissertation developed in the same 30th Central Research Institute for the Protection of AK RLDN from air-to-airborne radars. In the mentioned work, the applicant took the A-50 operating efficiency with the radar constantly on as a unit, and then suggested to turn it off periodically (for example, we turn it off for 3 minutes, turn it off for 1 minutes), then, according to the author’s reasoning, the combat efficiency dropped by only 0,25, but out of reach for enemy missiles. The funny thing was that for three minutes of the radar’s operation, the target tracking tracks were only tied up and prepared for transmission to guidance, however, in a minute of radio silence they were completely reset and it was necessary to start all over again. The article under discussion proposes the same crude and very simplified model, on the basis of which far-reaching conclusions are formed.
  18. tol100v
    tol100v 11 July 2013 22: 38 New
    0
    Each specific situation requires its own weapon. This applies to everything and everything. After all, to realize EVERYTHING desired in one machine is not only practically, but theoretically IMPOSSIBLE! After all, it is not in vain that for many decades there has been a division (even admitting a conditional) into fighters, fighter-interceptors, attack aircraft, attack aircraft-bombers, bombers, missile carriers, torpedo bombers, transporters, reconnaissance, etc. etc. Universalism in this case is categorically unacceptable! Each combat mission must be solved by a specially created complex (apparatus + people) and there are a lot of examples in history ...
  19. Xnumx kopeek
    Xnumx kopeek 12 July 2013 05: 46 New
    +1
    "Buy a used light fighter jet for a reasonable price."