Military Review

Lightweight fighter. Different point of view

36
Lightweight fighter. Different point of view



On the portal "Military Review" 21.01.14 was published an article "Light fighter? ”, Which appeared immediately after the NTS MIC dedicated to this issue. The consolidated decision of the NTS can be stated in three words: "To a light fighter - to be!". However, the author of the article has his own particular opinion on this matter. Without rejecting the author’s right to have his own opinion, we will try to analyze the article from a scientific point of view, asking a number of systemic and technical questions.

Question one: Can we talk about the inexpediency of including a light fighter in the weapons system without considering the system itself as an object of analysis?
(Note: a system (from the Greek. Systema is a whole made up of parts; a connection) is a set of elements that are in relationships and relationships with each other, forming a certain integrity, unity). In all textbooks on systems theory, there is a solid "NO." The author of the article, proceeding from the substantive reasoning with the use of information that is of a particular, non-systemic nature, makes a systemic conclusion: “Thus, it can be concluded that the feasibility of developing LFIs is currently not obvious due to difficulties with implementation in this dimensional class of key elements of stealth technology, applied in F-22 and PAK FA. As well as the lack of a large guaranteed market, which would justify the huge investments in the development of the machine. In addition, there is no LFI and in the near future a suitable engine will not appear. ”

The author put the whole system analysis in the following phrase: “... Huge spaces in a rarefied aerodrome network rely on heavy machines, at least it makes sense to have a lot of them, and it’s not a fact that it is more expensive than using mostly light equipment, t. because the latter will need more. " Very similar to: “Everyone thinks he is a strategist, seeing the fight from the side” from the famous work of Shota Rustaveli. And: “Yes, and pilots for one built aircraft during its service it prepares a lot, for each goes the money break even before he first sits in the cab of the car, which will serve. And the notorious relationship - 70% light, 30% heavy, - taken from the ceiling. " And this is A.P. Chekhov: "This can not be, because there can never be." That is, in fact, the whole solution to the most complex system issue.

And what has been said and is still not completely destroyed by the applied military aviation the science? Science by the results of mathematical modeling suggests that only by optimizing the structure of the two-aircraft fleet of fighters can an increase in the complex indicator “efficiency / costs” be achieved up to 20% (Fig. 1). When optimized at the level of the entire operational-tactical aviation (OTA), the gain due to the inclusion of a light fighter in the OTA combat weapon system will be about 5% (Fig. 2). It should be so, because the higher the level of the quality index of the system, the more its dependence on the argument parameter flows (the smaller the gain). However, in any case, this is hundreds of billions of rubles of Russian taxpayers for the life cycle.

The results shown in Fig. 1 are obtained by the method of mathematical modeling of the combat operation of the calculated aviation formation (RAF) of a mixed composition. They were obtained under the condition of optimal distribution of tasks between light and heavy fighters in accordance with the following logic:

- when solving problems of providing strike aviation to a depth beyond the limits of the radar field, heavy fighters (TI) are used. Powerful radar and increased USP allow them to create their own information field and maximize the number of serviced targets;

- when solving the tasks of covering the troops and objects of the front, light fighters (LI) are used, since in terms of the detection range of air targets (CC) ground-based radar, limited by a horizon, the combat capabilities of a heavy fighter will not be fully used;

- heavy fighters are used in case lung losses exceed the value requiring replenishment of the RAF.

Actually, the author of the article agrees with this, for example: “If you return to Russian conditions, first of all we need to provide our own air defense, and if attack aircraft can be thrown into a threatened area in the event of a threat of war, then air defense fighters should be ready to fly at any time. "

Shown in Fig. 2 results were obtained under the condition of optimal distribution of PTA tasks among all aviation complexes (AK) within its structure, taking into account the degree of their multifunctionality (the ability to effectively solve heterogeneous tasks without AK re-equipment). The results were obtained on condition that a unique two-aircraft fleet of fighters, differing in dimension, was realized in Russia. This circumstance determined the relevance of their classification by weight.

Thus, the above conclusion about the inexpediency of the development of a light fighter at the present time seems unreasonable. In addition, it does not correspond not only to the Russian conditions, for which the above results of the optimization of parks were obtained, but also to world experience. According to the author himself: “The lungs are just the cars that form the basis of the fleet of developed countries' air forces”.

Question two: So what should be understood as a light fighter?
The attempt to classify fighters as weapons by mass should be recognized as not entirely successful. The abundance of parameters and indicators used by the author in the analysis of almost all aircrafts created in the world for all history jet aircraft with different objectives, different purposes, differing in structural-layout schemes, tactical and technical characteristics (performance characteristics), number of engines, etc., allowed him to only strengthen his own opinion. The reasoning contained in the article is far from science, since science ends where the generalizations end.

Experience shows that in the conditions of the fundamental impossibility of a single definition of an object, the most constructive solution is an attempt to reach an agreement. The question here comes down to the position (mercantile, corporate, scientific) on which an agreement should be made. The scientific position is the most rational in determining the dimensions of fighters, since the formation of a standard-sized fighter range is a stage in solving the park problem (one of the classical problems of the theory of operations research).

From a scientific point of view, any classification of objects presupposes the isolation of those who satisfy certain general conditions and characteristics from the whole of their set. In order to be objective, the classification should be based on certain laws. It should be borne in mind that the combat properties and efficiency of the fighter will be determined by the values ​​of its performance characteristics, which are optimized when forming the technical appearance, are set in the customer's TTZ and are checked in tests for a normal take-off mass. Naturally, it should be used as a classification feature.

Considering the classification conventionality, we can agree with the proposed in the article the division of all PTA aircraft into AKs of the “super-light”, “light”, “medium” and “heavy” classes. Moreover, in a number of publications there are even some justifications for such a classification. However, it should be borne in mind that the dimension of the fighter should be considered, first of all, not from the point of view of the mass of an empty aircraft, but from the point of view of its combat capabilities and its combat properties. The experience of developing front-line fighter 4 generation (Su-27, MiG-29, MiG-31) and research on fighter 5-generation show that the autonomy of action is fundamental in deciding whether to assign a fighter to a light or heavy class. - the ability to solve combat missions without the support of ground-based radar to a greater depth.

To ensure the autonomy of actions of fighters in the interests of solving the task of accompanying strike groups and air defense-missile defense, it is necessary:

- ensure the possibility of creating their own information field (preferably circular) using only onboard surveillance and sighting equipment (OPS);

- to provide a greater depth of action (outside the radar field of ground-based radar and AK RLDN);

- to expand the nomenclature and increase the number of weapons in the ammunition;

- to increase the survival rate of the fighter (the ability to avoid the impact of enemy air defenses or to oppose it).

The fundamental differences in the requirements for the autonomy of actions in solving problems of cover and escort caused the division of front-line fighters of the 4 generation into two classes: light,

decisive combat missions in terms of ensuring combat use by external systems, and heavy decisive combat missions at great depths autonomously, in the absence of such support.

In addition, the classification should be carried out in relation to promising, or at least to modern combat aircraft with approximately the same combat properties. Analysis of the main directions of development of tactical (operational-tactical) aviation and the existing fleet showed that the majority of aviation complexes can be attributed to multi-functional AK. With this in mind, the classification should be applied to modern multi-purpose fighters.

In fig. 3 shows the distribution of the set of multifunctional fighters (MFIs) according to mass attributes in the coordinates “normal take-off weight - empty aircraft weight”. Analysis of this set shows that, unlike the distribution of combat aircraft by dimension into four classes proposed in the article, modern and prospective multi-purpose fighters can be divided into three classes according to the normal take-off mass:

- light class, which includes tactical fighters of the type "Mirage" 2000, "Rafale", F-16C,

EF-2000, Russian versions of the MiG-29;

- middle class, which include tactical fighter type F / A-18C / D, "Tornado", F-35C, MiG-35;

- heavy class (type F-15E / I, F-14D, F-22А, various variants of Su-27 and Su-30).


Rafale fighter in combat configuration with six air-to-ground Hammer, four MICA medium and long-range UR and two Meteor long-range Meteor-type URs, as well as three 2000 outboard suspended fuel tanks
Source: Dassault Aviation


At the same time, MFIs with a normal take-off mass up to 18 t can be attributed to the light class, the middle class can range from 18 to 23 t, and to the heavy class, over 23 tons. An ultra-light class, including combat AKs, created, as a rule, on the basis of training aircraft, can hardly be considered fighters in the currently accepted sense of the word, even taking into account the fact that they are capable of conducting close air combat (BVB). The ability to conduct BVB - a necessary condition for any fighter. However, it is not a sufficient condition for solving the tasks of fighter aviation that require a number of other properties of the fighter. This, in turn, does not allow to classify them as multi-functional AK. Studies show that with a fighter's mass of less than 10, it is impossible to achieve a level of efficiency that allows it to at least withstand a potential enemy in air battles, due to the impossibility of providing the necessary performance values ​​for this mass up to 10.

In addition, in relation to modern multi-purpose fighters, the classes “heavy” and “medium” can be combined. Comparison of the fighters of these classes indicates that they have no differences of a fundamental nature, necessitating the necessity of distinguishing them into independent classes. Multifunctional fighters of these classes differ slightly in maneuverability. In terms of flight range and composition of weapons, a heavy fighter is usually somewhat superior to the average. And these are the differences between types in the same class.

Thus, all OTA multifunctional fighters are proposed to be conditionally divided (like front-line 4 fighters) into heavy ones with a normal take-off weight of up to 18 t and light ones below 18 t. This classification will be valid only for multi-purpose fighters. And this is just a proposal aimed at achieving at least some unambiguity in determining the dimension of fighters in solving the park problem, justifying their role and place in the weapon system, resulting from operational tactical requirements and the effectiveness of solving combat missions, to which the author of the article is reasoning about the dimension was forced to periodically apply.


Question three: How does the effectiveness of light and heavy fighters correlate?
When searching for an answer to this question, it is proposed to distinguish between the combat effectiveness of the MFI and the effectiveness of its combat use. Combat effectiveness is the defining characteristic of an MFI, assessing the degree of its adaptability to inflicting combat damage on an enemy. It depends solely on the performance of the fighter - weapons, using which the pilot solves the task assigned to him. The effectiveness of combat use is the combat effectiveness of MFIs achieved (calculated) in specific combat use conditions as part of the RAF, taking into account the capabilities of combat control and support systems. The introduction of this term is due to the need to take into account the contribution of supporting systems to the efficiency of the use of MFIs in solving fighter aircraft tasks. With a very high combat effectiveness of a fighter, the effectiveness of its combat use may be zero, for example, due to the inability to provide refueling.

Quite rightly, the author of the article addresses the equation for the existence of an aircraft: "In aviation, there is such a thing as the equation for the existence of an aircraft, from which it follows that the proportion of each component of an aircraft among machines of the same purpose with the same flight data is the same." However, this treatment is purely theoretical. Who can give an example of “cars (meaning planes) of the same purpose with the same flight data”?

The author uses the purely constructive meaning of the existence equation (the sum of the relative masses of the LA subsystems is equal to one) and at the same time misses its no less important component - the dependence of the combat properties, and, consequently, the combat effectiveness of the MFIs on the distribution of the relative weights of its subsystems. For example, in order to increase the fighter’s depth of action (basic tactical performance) in order to accomplish the tasks of accompanying strike groups, it is necessary to increase the relative masses of fuel, sight and sight system and armament, sacrificing for this purpose the relative masses of the structure, propulsion system life activity. Fortunately, with an increase in the normal take-off mass, for which VF recorded. Bolkhovitinov is the equation of existence, and the constancy of the absolute masses of these subsystems, their relative mass decreases.

The equation of existence is the same fundamental law as the laws of conservation of energy, mass, and momentum. By analogy, it can be represented as the law of conservation of the combat properties of the AK, which establishes the laws of their change in accordance with the redistribution of the relative masses of the aircraft. For example, reducing a medium-range SD (ammunition load) ammunition while maintaining a normal take-off mass of a fighter can provide an increase in the relative mass of the power plant, thrust-weight ratio, maneuverability and, as a result, increase in efficiency in melee air combat.

The search for optimal combinations of AK relative masses, and, consequently, the optimal distribution of its combat properties, is a complex scientific task, the solution of which requires special knowledge and special training. Its popular presentation can start with the well-known axiom: you have to pay for everything. So, do you need to pay for an increase in the dimension (mass and linear dimensions) of a fighter in the interests of increasing the autonomy of its use? And what? Or do not need to pay anything? After all, there is a point of view that the combat potential of a fighter is proportional to its mass! Let's try to figure it out.

Yes, indeed, an increase in combat power (by increasing the ammunition and increasing the effectiveness of means of destruction) leads to an increase in combat potential. But all this is not so simple, otherwise the MiG-31 with a normal take-off mass of 37 T would have to have the largest potential of Russian fighters. Combat potential must be assessed in relation to specific tasks and conditions for their implementation. The task of covering is solved in conditions of limited RL-field, which limits the line of interception. This, combined with the rapidity of air combat, does not allow a heavy fighter to realize its full potential, it is oversized for this task.

Negative impact of the increase in the dimension of the fighter on the characteristics of combat readiness. For example, the take-off time of the MiG-29 light fighter from BG-1 is 3 minutes, and the heavy MiG-31 fighter - 5 minutes. In the conditions of centralized management, when the rise of duty vehicles is carried out only after the detection of an air enemy, this is essential. For example, with a target speed of 900 km / h, an increase of 2 min of take-off time will lead to a decrease in the interception line by 30 km. The reduction in the combat readiness characteristics will also have a negative impact on the effectiveness of the combat use of MFIs for solving shock tasks in the context of the network-centric nature of combat operations, the implementation of reconnaissance and percussion actions, and the defeat of operational targets.



MiG-31B


The reduction in the line of interception as a result of reduced operational efficiency is the payment for ensuring the possibility of solving the most complex combat task of fighter aviation — accompanying strike groups. But large ammunition, together with a powerful radar, multi-channel escort / shelling of the CC will provide the most effective solution to this problem. The heavy fighter is also irreplaceable when solving the country's air defense and anti-missile defense tasks in Russian conditions, first of all, in the conditions of underdeveloped infrastructure, sparseness of the airfield network, for example, when repelling air raids from the north and northeast directions. This, in fact, writes the author of the article.

It should be borne in mind that the final stage of any of the tasks of the fighter is air combat (WB): long-range - beyond visual visibility (DVB) and close-range - under the condition of visual visibility of the target. It is at these stages that combat effectiveness is manifested as a defining characteristic of the quality of MFIs. To assess combat effectiveness in the WB, it is customary to use the probabilities of hitting a target with a fighter and a fighter target. One of the peculiarities of air combat is the widespread use of REP.

Naturally, the enemy can interfere with airborne radar. However, this cannot completely deprive the fighter of the possibility of establishing information contact with the target. The impact of interference will affect, first of all, the possibility of maintaining the DVB in adverse weather conditions that make it difficult to use the opto-electronic channel, since it can not be maintained at large (30 ... 50 km and more) distances under interference conditions. And even if the DVB takes place, under the influence of interference, the defeat of an enemy of medium and long-range SD is far from reliable. Consequently, in the conditions of interference BVB may be the main, and possibly the only way to accomplish a combat mission.

The condition for the BVB set is the detection of each other by the opponents. The probability of detecting a VC in the optical range will be determined by many factors, the main one being the linear dimensions of the object of observation. In fig. 4 shows the dependence of the detection probability of a CC on its size. The simulation results of the BVB hypothetical light and heavy fighters showed that, on average, the light fighter will exceed the heavy one by more than two times over the entire set of possible fighters positions. Such simulation results are explained by the fact that when a target is lost during combat maneuvering, a pilot of a light fighter who has a smaller size detects an enemy earlier. This provides him with an earlier use of weapons. As a result, the effect named by the author of the BWB model “the first start effect” is triggered. Its essence lies in the fact that the fighter in BVB, who used the weapon first, receives the initial probability of hitting the enemy, which can no longer be reduced under any circumstances.

Thus, the superiority of a heavy fighter in terms of fuel supply, in terms of ammunition size, in multi-channel use of USP can be fully realized only when solving problems in the absence of an RL-field. When solving other tasks, its combat capabilities will be redundant. That is why heavy fighters have found limited use both as part of the Air Force of the producing countries (excluding the poorest among them - Russia) and of the importing countries.

Question four: What is the role of a light fighter in the global aircraft market?
The MiG and Su fighter jets are part of the world's 55 parks, while the fighters of both brands are operated in the 20 countries. Of these, 9 countries should be excluded from the potential Russian market segment, since 7 countries (Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Croatia, the Czech Republic) joined NATO, and the DPRK and Iran are under international sanctions. The type and number of combat aircraft of the Russian market segment are shown in Fig. 5.

Sighted see. And no reasoning like: “Countries that could theoretically buy from us hundreds of modern fighters in the world can be counted on the fingers: India, China, Indonesia. India ordered 3 hundreds of Su-30, but in order to purchase a light fighter, contacted the French, China is trying to do its own, Indonesia could buy it for a long time, but apparently it doesn’t hurt. Vietnam with its large population and very serious flocks with China acquired 48 Su-30, the rest of the buyers took from 6 to 24 machines in different configurations. That is, as soon as the Indian market closes, you can forget about the serious export of combat aircraft. ” Speaking about the "serious export" of combat aircraft, the author shyly misses the words "heavy fighters", from which the conversation began. Very unprofessional sophistry (sophistry - reasoning based on deliberate violation of the laws of logic)!


The last Su-30CM built on the airfield in Domne built 2013 of the year (tail number "10 black", serial number 10МК5 1016). Domna, 17.04.2014
Source: Alexey Kitaev / VKontakte


But other results of the assessment of the state and market development forecast. Analysis of the potential capacity of the Russian market shows:

1. The total number of combat aircraft of Russian (Soviet) production, delivered abroad and currently in operation, is ~ 5,4 thousand aircraft or 45% of the total world market of tactical aircraft.

2. Among them ~ 3,4 thousand fighters and ~ 1,5 thousand shock. Considering that during Soviet times there was the possibility of delivering airplanes of any purpose to a friendly country, it can be concluded that most countries consider the priority task of protecting their airspace.

3. The Russian market, as well as the global market as a whole, is focused on light-class airplanes. So, among the fighters ~ 76%, and among the drums ~ 72% belong to the light class (normal take-off weight to 18 t).

Such a market structure was caused by the fact that, of the total revenue that the aviation industry has consistently received, up to the present, more than 80% were revenues from the sale of combat aircraft of front-line aviation. The lack of development in Russia that can satisfy through 10 ... 15 for years the market needs for new AT models will inevitably lead to the loss of a significant share of the market for combat aircraft. An objective forecast of the dynamics of market changes in the period up to 2030 year as a result of the appearance of China on it, obtained back in 2010 using the model of forecasting the results of the tender (see the monograph by V.I. Barkovsky and others. “Methodology of the formation of the technical appearance of export-oriented aviation complexes” ) is given in table. 1 and fig. 6.


Options for market proposals of China and Russia
Source: Aviapanorama


When the forecast was taken into account:

- the Russian market segment was formed as a result of deliveries to friendly countries by barter, on account of the national debt or as a fraternal help of combat aircraft of a predominantly light class (Fig. 5);

- meeting the needs of supplying a heavy fighter of the 5 generation to it at market prices seems even too optimistic at its market price of $ 100 million or more;

- for many countries of the Russian market segment, the tactical and technical data of the heavy T-50 fighter are redundant;

- Deliveries of T-50 can disrupt regional stability.

Analysis of the results shown in Figure 6 shows that the absence of Russian proposals in the class of light fighters will make it impossible to curb Chinese expansion in the AT market. The loss of the Russian market segment only due to the need to share it only with China for 2030 g will amount to:

~ 30% with a heavy-duty MFI for export policy (from 46 to 32 countries);

~ on 25% in the case of creating an export-oriented MFI of the light class (from 46 to 39 countries).


That is, we will lose 7 countries anyway. It should be noted that the loss of 30% of the market with the degree of uncertainty characteristic of the conditions for solving such problems is not tragic. However, the picture changes when moving from the number of countries of the lost market to the number of aircraft. Thus, we have already lost the market in more than 1200 morally obsolete and practically exhausted MiG-21 resources, since Russia has nothing to offer in such a price class of fighters. And in the subsequent period (2020 ... 2030), there will be a further collapse of the Russian market due to the withdrawal of 3-th and 4-th generation fighters. The service life of the MiG-23 (620 units) and MiG-29 (760 units) put on the market in the last century will end. In addition, Russia will lose almost the entire market of attack aircraft (180 fighter-bombers MiG-27 and 470 Su-17 / 22), which could be replaced by a double version of a light fighter, given its multi-functionality.

Thus, the situation in the terminology of the theory of safety emerging in the Russian segment of the aviation technology market can be assessed as “controlled movement to the point of catastrophe”, when the object is in good condition and controllable, and the crew is unaware that its movement parameters inevitably lead to death. In this case, the aviation industry may die.

While on the Russian market “Irkuts” together with “dry”, supported by “Rosoboronexport”, are fighting with “Mikoyans”, the Chinese are actively seizing our market (Fig. 6). And with the meager needs of the Russian Air Force in combat aircraft of operational tactical aviation and the absence of a weighted technical policy (the Russian type surpasses the total type of American and European countries), it is possible to enter production volumes that ensure profitability only by promoting the products of the Russian aircraft industry to the foreign market. One can not disagree with the estimates of the author of the article: “The Russian Air Force now has 38 fighter squadrons. This gives the full strength in 456 machines. When fully replaced with the PAK FA and LFI in the ratio of 1: 2, only 300 machines fall on the LIF. Of course, there are still exports, where LFI should have an advantage over PAK FA at the expense of a lower price. ”

If the problem of a light fighter is viewed not from corporate, but from state positions, from the position of preserving the aviation industry in Russia, then it turns out that the question is not in the relationship between light and heavy fighters. In this situation, even for T-50, it will be problematic to organize a decent series. The question of the future of the aviation industry of Russia, its ability to create combat aircraft in demand on the world market and engines for them, which are an independent export item. There will be no light fighter, one more object of Russian export will disappear, and with it another engine.

But all these arguments and assessments will make sense on the condition of technical feasibility of a light class fighter meeting the requirements of the Russian Air Force and importing countries. And it was gratifying to hear in speeches on the NTS MIC an awareness of the special significance of the light fighter for the development of the market and the preservation of the Russian aviation industry.

Fifth question: Is the idea realizable? The author of the article devoted a lot of space to this question, as if trying to please someone, and not try to at least get closer to the truth. Here, for example: “... With LFI, everything will be much harder ... the LFI project can very easily eat years of labor of qualified engineers and generate something unintelligible at the exit, and a full-fledged stealth like PAK FA does not pull, and for the mainstream like MiG-35 too expensive…".

Of course, it is expensive, since to implement the idea of ​​a light multifunctional fighter (LMFI) will require a lot of intellectual work of designers and scientists. However, it should be borne in mind that the creation of the LMFI will not be done from scratch. The country has a scientific and technical reserve (NTZ), created in the process of developing the PAK FA. It is impossible to agree with the author on the issue of using the received NTRP "... To develop, however, it is necessary not only the engine, but all the other equipment that cannot be taken from the PAK FA ...".

Why it will not work? After all, the NTZ was created for state money, and it is difficult to imagine that the state customer, who paid for it, will not be able to "incline" the sukhovets in this matter. There would be a will. And with the use of the already created NTZ, the cost of OCD can be significantly reduced. There are other ways to reduce the financial burden on the budget, for example, implementing a strategy for the phased implementation of OCD, involving the use of an RD-33MK engine in the first stage of OCD according to the LMFI, which virtually negates the problem of the engine. And even if you do not conflict with the owners of the NTRP, it turns out that the cost of developing the LMFI will be negligible compared with the averted losses of the Russian market, and, possibly, of the aviation industry. There was money for the political PAK DA, with which only expenses are connected.

The specialists are not interested in the author's reasoning about the feasibility of a lung MFI such as “... a more interesting question with a hypothetical perspective LFI. Obviously, developing and introducing new aircraft into production only makes sense if it promises a sharp increase in combat capabilities compared to upgrading existing models. All sorts of radar with AFAR can be installed on the old modernized aircraft, thereby saving a lot of resources on OCD and the restructuring of production ... ". This recommendation is on the surface, however, there is the concept of "modernization potential", and if it is exhausted, the modernization is meaningless.

I would like to remind you that the existence equation, which the author refers to when considering the classification issue, should be performed not only when creating new aircraft, but also when modernizing existing ones. At the same time, since the modernization is carried out with the aim of improving the combat and operational qualities of the sample, and, consequently, increasing or at least maintaining its achieved level in more difficult combat conditions by increasing the functional characteristics of the subsystems, its mass increases. Thus, the normal take-off mass of the MiG-29 increased in the process of its phased modernization from 14,8 t from MiG-29 to 18,5 t from MiG-35, that is, it passed the dimension of light-class fighter jets. An attempt to further increase the combat properties will lead to a further increase in mass, a reduction in thrust-capacity and a decrease in efficiency in the BVB, that is, to the transformation of a fighter into a strike aircraft. But this is a theory. It seems that the author’s proposal to try to submit MiG-35 to foreign customers as LMFS of a new generation is destructive.


MiG-35 at the Bangalore Air Show in 2007.
Source: Alexander Rybakov


Even if you do not take into account the lack of efficiency, the MiG-35 can not be considered as a fighter of the light class of a new generation for the following reasons:

1. The glider of the aircraft, optimized for the requirements and technological capabilities of 70-ies of the last century, is morally obsolete and does not provide the technical capabilities to meet the requirements for aerodynamic characteristics, mass perfection of a promising fighter, determined by aviation materials and technologies, and visibility of the aircraft in the RL range.

2. Aircraft avionics does not meet modern requirements for equipment integration, which will not allow implementing modern concepts of an integrated MFI board, increasing its intelligence, creating a BASU that provides not only automation of aircraft control, but also the development of optimal solutions in a specific tactical situation, which is especially important for a fighter.

3. The survival requirement of the LMFI cannot be fulfilled due to the absence of a circular information-control field, which will not ensure full use of the capabilities of promising USP (anti-missile and SD in anti-missile mode).

4. The absence of the SCS mode for the MiG-35 will lead to a decrease in the efficiency of its use for the defeat of quickly detected objects in the network-centric nature of future wars.

As a result, the fears that the LMFI on the basis of the MiG-35 will not have a high export potential are fully justified, since the well-known marketing condition will not be fulfilled: “a good product is in its original packaging”. The structural layout of the MiG-29 is no longer as such. Actually, this was confirmed during the Indian tender, despite the fact that the tender presented a slightly different MiG-35.

In addition, it is equally important for Russia to consider the need to preserve and develop unique technologies for the development and production of light class fighters, design and production teams that own them. Indeed, in the time that has passed since the development of the MiG-29, a twin-engine fighter with 14,8 t mass, no one in the world managed to repeat a similar project (the F-16 is, in general, in aviation circles, not a fighter, but according to our classification the fighter bomber, that is, a multifunctional shock AK).

As for the technical feasibility of the LMFI project, the author should be aware of projects executed in Russia on this topic. The openness of the article does not allow to give specific data in it. We can say one thing: Russia is losing a lot without advancing the development of the LMFI, the fighter of the new generation of the light class, both with the internal placement of weapons and with the USP conformal suspension. The reasoning in this article makes it possible to doubt the truth of the assertion that there is no “sukhovskaya” and “Mikoyan” design school, expressed as one of the arguments for combining design potential in creating the KLA.

In the author's arguments there is such a passage: “If you look at the history of the Soviet and then Russian Air Forces over the past 30 years, then it is clear that, contrary to the assertions of evil Pogosyan, who suffocates MiG and light fighters as a class, the very topic of LFI was not more pictures and in the USSR. The C-54 / 55 / 56 family did not find support. ... It seems to me that Pogosyan has nothing to do with it ... ". Do not roll on the individual. It seems that MA Pogosyan is really “innocent” here. After all, every period in the history of the state requires the appearance of their personalities, their, as they say, heroes. And, nevertheless, the above statement raises the following question.

Question six: "Is there a subjective factor in the history of a light fighter?" The answer to this question is likely to be positive. At the beginning of 1990-ies in the conditions of economic depression, the production capabilities of the aviation industry created during the Soviet era turned out to be excessive, and the load of enterprises began to be determined more than ever by the personal qualities of their managers, their ability to adapt to the chronic lack of funds. Under these conditions (“there is no money and there will not be”), the task of finding effective solutions to bring the aviation industry out of crisis has acquired particular urgency. The demand for ideas could not help but generate suggestions. One of them was the least costly for the budget idea of ​​embedding in the global aviation industry, in its simplicity that everyone understands.

What is the realization of this idea, today almost every day they write the Russian media. The great desire to find a solution did not allow the authors of the embedding idea to take into account that simple solutions, as a rule, lead to the emergence of new problems, even larger than the original ones. It was necessary to pay for the integration, to sacrifice something. With such tacit consent of all levels of management, the A.I. Mikoyan.

For Russia, it was a big sacrifice. At that time, the Design Bureau named after A.I. Mikoyan carried out a project on the 5 generation fighter of the IFI, which was an integrator of all the latest technologies in the aircraft industry and related industries. In addition, the OKB would complete the upgrade of the MiG-29 light fighter, while the MiG-29M would be the main threat to Western manufacturers in the global market for combat aircraft. It is even hard to imagine what would have happened to the market, appear on it in 1990-ies of the MiG-29М at prices corresponding to that period of time.

Only the need to sacrifice to foreign aircraft companies can explain the adoption of a number of decisions that are not amenable to common sense, such as:

- termination of work on the Su-27M and MiG-29M, which were in the final stages of testing (on the MiG-29M

a preliminary conclusion has already been received), despite the obviousness of a reasonable solution: certify the fighters, and if you don’t have enough money to buy them for your own air force, deliver to the Russian market segment;

- termination of the R & D "Direction Finder" at the stage of preparation of the design documentation, carried out by the A.I. Mikoyan, later again open, but already by the PAK FA and given by the P.O. Sukhoi, the TTZ for which they did not reach the agreed upon TTZ for the MFIs, according to various estimates for 20 ... 30%;

- the cessation of work on the MiG-AT UTS joint development with France, to a greater extent than the Yak-130, which corresponded to the advanced training concept of the UTS “minimum training costs for the combat-ready pilot,” which led to the loss of the French Alfa Jet trainer market;

- the loss of the competition of avant-projects on the LVTS, in which the MiG-110, whose mock-up was already in the workshop of the pilot plant, lost to the paper Il-112 because of the “high technical risk”. At the same time, an objective evaluation of the projects in terms of 12 indicators showed that in 10 of them, the MiG-110 won against IL-112, and in two it did not lose;

- organization of the competition between the certified Tu-334 and absent at that time, even on paper, on 80% foreign SSJ-100, in which the paper won;

- the lack of promising topics for RAC "MiG" for several decades, without which, sooner or later, any project organization turns into a workshop.

We will give the judgment of the history of the decisions taken, perhaps we misunderstand something due to lack of awareness in the strategic plans. Maybe in vain for more than 20 years, warnings of system analysts are heard that eventually Russia will turn from a country selling planes into a country buying them? Maybe, indeed, the bright future of the aviation industry of Russia will come after all the air carriers change to Airbus, Boeing, etc., Russian-made military planes disappear completely, and the once famous OKB named after P.O. Dry left to support the operation of the Su-30 and T-50, will design the flaps of Chinese fighters? Interestingly, one of the authors of the concept of embedding in the global aviation industry wondered why China does not set itself a similar task? After all, he has a shortage of aviation technology much more.

That's how many questions arise with LMFI. They will be withdrawn only under the condition that they make constructive decisions in accordance with the recommendations of the Scientific and Technical Council of the MIC, that is, after the discovery of a well-balanced OCD. The aviation industry has never come so close to the line beyond which to divide. In this situation, strong solutions are needed, first of all, for a light fighter, not such as, for example, conducting research with 2016 for a year, 3 ... 4 for a year, then an advance project of the same length for XRUMX 10 years. This is the road to nowhere.

Published in the magazine "Aviapanorama" №2-2014
Author:
Originator:
http://aviapanorama.ru/
36 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Nayhas
    Nayhas April 29 2014 08: 58
    -1
    Well let's summarize. The author quite clearly explained the need for LFI, but honestly, this was not necessary. By 2020 all MiG-29s (those still capable of flying into the air) will finally work out their resources. Therefore, LFI is needed as air, but:
    1. There is no time and resources for development.
    Even if tomorrow we begin the development of LFI, the finished copy will roll out of the workshop at best by 2020.
    Mass production requires modern equipment, under the conditions of sanctions it is not possible to get it in the required quantities (not to mention technical support).
    2. There is no one to do this.
    As already mentioned in the article, the MiG Design Bureau actually degraded into the workshop, the LFI is beyond its power.
    Sukhoi Design Bureau is loaded head over heels for PAK-FA for the next 4-5 years.
    In these conditions, there is nothing to do but forgetting about pride to negotiate with the only remaining "ally" China on the licensed production of Chengdu J-10B LPI.
    Or indulge your pride with "past feats" and be left without air defense aviation and then 2020. we will have 100-150 modern cars from Kaliningrad to Vladivostok ...
    1. Crang
      Crang April 29 2014 09: 23
      +10
      Quote: Nayhas
      1. There is no time and resources for development.

      Why develop something? It already exists and is called the MiG-29. All sorts of Su-30 and Su-37 were not developed anew, but created on the basis of the old Su-27 (the size of a long-range strategist of WW2), which prevents the MiG-29 from being modernized in the same way? Moreover, it already has many new models: MiG-29K, MiG-29M (MiG-35) and MiG-29SMT. Lightweight, beautiful and very nimble aircraft. A kind of analogue of the cool I-16, nicknamed "Rat" in the 30s, early 40s.
      1. PROXOR
        PROXOR April 29 2014 09: 39
        +7
        I will remind the distinguished public. That PAK-FA was still being developed in the USSR and it was not alone. At the same time, a lightweight single-engine fighter went into development. To say that now we can’t lie.
        Firstly, it is necessary to supplement the fleet of heavy fighters LFI MIG-35. Secondly, to develop the development of PAK-LFI (I came up with this wink ) and continue to implement the project. Thirdly (I’m not sure how realistic it is) to raise the topic of the Yak-141. And based on his developments using T-50 systems with vertical take-off, make an LFI. It will be very good help. Especially in the light of the fact that after 2020 the Stopuds will need an aircraft carrier fleet and will need a bird aboard it. PySy: do not write that the Yak-141 is sold to mattresses. We should already have a chat for all agreements with this shitty country.
        1. Gamdlislyam
          Gamdlislyam April 29 2014 13: 48
          +11
          Quote: PROXOR
          Thirdly (I’m not sure how realistic it is) to raise the topic of the Yak-141. And based on his developments using T-50 systems with vertical take-off, make an LFI.


          Dear colleague Sergey, Yak-141 is already a dead topic. The reason is that there is no longer a design team that would have experience and knowledge in this topic, and could continue to work.
          The creation of a new team, the accumulation of experience and skills, is many years of work and the investment is not of small means. No way without it.

          Although the author of the article introduced himself as an "independent systems analyst", the content of the article clearly shows only attempts to defend the corporate point of view of one of the groups in the aviation industry. Reading the article did not bring satisfaction.
        2. bigELDAK
          bigELDAK April 29 2014 14: 04
          +3
          What PAK-FA was developed back in the USSR and he alone

          You confuse the IFI programs (80s) and PAKFA (2002).
          1. PROXOR
            PROXOR April 29 2014 14: 20
            0
            Quote: bigELDAK
            You confuse the IFI programs (80th) and PAKFA (2002).

            Both programs started in the USSR in the late 80s. Then the programs were curtailed at the design stage. There was only a concept. In 2002, the heavy fighter project was revived again and now it is PAK-FA.
      2. Nayhas
        Nayhas April 29 2014 09: 50
        0
        Quote: Krang
        Why develop something? It already exists and is called the MiG-29.

        Those. do you think it is necessary to resume the release of the MiG-29?
        Quote: Krang
        Moreover, he already has many new models: MiG-29K, MiG-29M (MiG-35)

        MiG-29M / 35 is not a MiG-29, although it looks similar. This is not LFI (light front-line fighter), but MFI (multifunctional fighter) which we simply do not need in the presence of the Su-35S.
        Quote: Krang
        Lightweight, beautiful and very nimble aircraft.

        Yeah, light, 11 tons of empty mass ...
        1. Crang
          Crang April 30 2014 07: 08
          +1
          Quote: Nayhas
          Those. do you think it is necessary to resume the release of the MiG-29?

          In my opinion, it is necessary to remake all MiG-29s to the 4 ++ standard at aircraft repair plants.
          Quote: Nayhas
          MiG-29M / 35 is not a MiG-29, although it looks similar. This is not LFI (light front-line fighter), but MFI (multifunctional fighter) which we simply do not need in the presence of the Su-35S.

          The MiG-29M is much smaller and lighter than the Su-35S, which gives it well-known advantages.
          Quote: Nayhas
          Yeah, light, 11 tons of empty mass ...

          In comparison with the giant Su-27 is lightweight. If you do not like it, there is even easier: Yak-130. Very cool machine.
          1. samoletil18
            samoletil18 April 30 2014 21: 02
            0
            Quote: Krang
            In my opinion, it is necessary to remake all MiG-29s to the 4 ++ standard at aircraft repair plants.

            Late. The steep slides drove Sivka. The existing 29 resources have 7-8 years left. While TTZ will be thought out, while the project ... Already need to design a new one. But who was left in the Mikoyanovsky Design Bureau?
          2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Realist1989
        Realist1989 April 29 2014 19: 19
        +2
        MiG-35 is not a damn easy. This is an average plane. PAK FA will be medium-heavy, which means that another medium plane is not needed. What is needed is light - single-engine, maximum takeoff 15-16 tons. Roughly speaking, the S-56 is needed ... but then the MiG RSK will remain overboard.
        1. patsantre
          patsantre April 29 2014 19: 56
          +1
          Quote: Realist1989
          PAK FA will be medium-heavy

          Why? It will be heavy and will ...
        2. supertiger21
          supertiger21 April 29 2014 20: 37
          0
          Quote: Realist1989
          MiG-35 is not a damn easy. This is an average plane. PAK FA will be medium-heavy, which means that another medium plane is not needed. What is needed is light - single-engine, maximum takeoff 15-16 tons. Roughly speaking, the S-56 is needed ... but then the MiG RSK will remain overboard.


          Nonsense! The concept of "average fighter" is in itself conditional, meaning a light with an excess, but not up to heavy.
        3. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 30 2014 00: 45
          -1
          what is it needed for? F-16 is SEAD (against SAM) and he is a dogmeat for any Russian fighter. and for almost any Chinese.
    2. Fiero
      Fiero April 29 2014 11: 09
      +6
      You are already 100 times about this J-10. Why is he Russia?
      Themselves have it in 2 times less than the MiG-21. This says a lot)
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas April 29 2014 11: 40
        +2
        Quote: Fiero
        You are already 100 times about this J-10.

        Second, I have all the moves recorded!
        Quote: Fiero
        Why is he Russia?

        There is nothing else available for Russia in the world.
        Quote: Fiero
        Themselves have it in 2 times less than the MiG-21. This says a lot)

        The number of J-10s in the PLA Air Force is known only to the PLA leadership and the leadership of China. All other digits are just an assumption, an attempt to calculate from space ...
        They adopted it in 2003, for 2012. 220 are supposedly built. But no one knows for sure. Even so, then 24 cars a year is normal. We would have such a pace ...
        1. Fiero
          Fiero April 29 2014 12: 15
          +1
          Yes, these J-10s surrendered to you, which were essentially made by Russia and Israel.
          Sweden could do Gripen and we can do no worse, but the fate of the MiG-27 would not be repeated with them.
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas April 29 2014 17: 40
            +4
            Quote: Fiero
            Yes, these J-10s surrendered to you, which were essentially made by Russia and Israel.

            So our engine is there, and this is already a third of the cost ...
    3. bigELDAK
      bigELDAK April 29 2014 14: 14
      +2
      And then all at once forgot about the MiG-35, MiG-29K, MiG-29M, MiG-29SM, MiG-29SMT.
      OKB MiG actually degraded to the workshop
      but what about the Indian orders for the MiG-29K, but what about the MiG-4 generation 35 ++ aircraft. Even if not everything is so smooth, but certainly not a "workshop".
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas April 29 2014 17: 20
        +2
        Quote: bigELDAK
        But what about Indian orders for the MiG-29K

        The MiG-29K was manufactured back in the late 80s by the team that could. After it, the MiG-29M was created which eventually became the MiG-35. That was over twenty years ago.
        1. Kasym
          Kasym April 29 2014 21: 37
          +5
          Nayhas, don't you think this plane was ahead of its time? Only now the United States was able to respond "adequately" with F-35s. Yes Rafal, who has just installed a radar with a phased array.
          The topic of the fact that the lungs began to grow heavy is associated with scientific and technological progress. New opportunities appear, there is a need for them - and they are being introduced. MiG-35 with modern avionics, with modern weapons, covered with special. paint and varnish composition "stealth" and engines with IVT will give an answer to all competitors. It is not in vain that the Chinese try to copy the growth. engines - "they are more powerful and more compact than competitors" ... And you say 20 years.
          Lungs are needed to cover the ground forces. So that no helicopter or attack aircraft could attack them. But it is necessary and will help with a bomb, Nursami or AP. The heavy ones can, how to direct their actions, tk. has more powerful hardware. So to cover their actions, they can work in the rear of the enemy, on "distant approaches". They can carry long-range V-V missiles. Lungs are much cheaper than heavy ones. But most of the tasks of the Air Force are easy to solve, so from an economic point of view, you need to have more lungs. Not in vain the Americans. made only 180 F-22s and are planning about 2 light F-500s.
          All the latest "novelties" of the West are associated with the domination of the MiG-29 and Su-27 (their modifications) in the air - in the 90s everyone recognized this. Even the old MiG-29, if it approaches the enemy unnoticed (at low altitude) and enters a dog dump with any western enemy, it will not seem enough.
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas April 30 2014 07: 02
            +1
            Quote: Kasym
            Nayhas, Do not you think that this plane was ahead of its time?

            Well, you could say that.
            Quote: Kasym
            MiG-35 with modern avionics, with modern weapons, covered with special. paint and varnish composition "stealth" and engines with ICT will give an answer to all competitors

            Everything is fine in the MiG-35, only its combat load is small. Four missiles in-in and a pair of PTB, this is its maximum ...
            1. gfs84
              gfs84 April 30 2014 18: 16
              +1
              Everything is fine in the MiG-35, only its combat load is small. Four missiles in-in and a pair of PTB, this is its maximum ...


              I mean, not everything is lost? MiG is able to create exterminators that meet their objectives.
              It's up to the "small" to increase the thrust-to-weight ratio - read, "stick in a MORE POWERFUL engine"? ..

              Moreover, you say:
              So there our engine, and it already one third of the cost...


              So why should Russia feed PCR?
              In these conditions, there is nothing to do but forgetting about pride to negotiate with the only remaining "ally" China on the licensed production of Chengdu J-10B LPI.

              If the only serious minus (as I understand your comments) is the MiG-35 low combat load ...
            2. Kasym
              Kasym April 30 2014 18: 44
              +1
              Eugene, that Rafal is no longer dragging. I already wrote. The combat load (weapons) directly depends on the payload (fuel + weapons). "4 V-V missiles and 2 PTB" are decent for such aircraft.
              1. mehmeh
                mehmeh 4 December 2014 10: 18
                0
                Sense more to drag what?
                The bottom line is that you need to go into a position to attack a. If out of six four missiles one two hits it well. fine . the point is
                What is the use of medium-range missiles
                And turn the destroyer into a rocket platform
                The effect of such machines of type f15 is based on the interaction of sdrl and there is a lot of doubtful here. need a plane for aerial combat
  2. Ivan Tarasov
    Ivan Tarasov April 29 2014 09: 04
    +1
    To expand our export of fighter jets, countries such as Syria, Iran, Argentina should be taken into account.
    This is at least a hundred cars.
  3. La-5
    La-5 April 29 2014 10: 14
    0
    Yes, there’s even nothing to discuss, a light fighter is needed and that’s it. Now, when the characteristics of light fighters are equal to those of heavy fighters, then another question will arise - is a heavy fighter needed?
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion April 29 2014 11: 33
      +1
      Amazing logic. "Knife and that's it." I have an opinion - you can argue with hell.
    2. patsantre
      patsantre April 29 2014 15: 05
      +3
      Quote: La-5
      That's when the characteristics of light fighters are equal to the characteristics of heavy


      Stunning inability to read the article and lack of common sense in one bottle. How, HOW can they be equaled at one technological level ???
    3. supertiger21
      supertiger21 April 29 2014 18: 03
      +1
      Quote: La-5
      Now, when the characteristics of light fighters are equal to those of heavy fighters, then another question will arise - is a heavy fighter needed?


      What is this nonsense? Because of the fact that fighters are deliberately divided into "light" and "heavy", it is not possible that one or the other, within the framework of these concepts, are superior to each other in certain individual advantages. A heavy fighter cannot be more economical and partly more maneuverable, and a light fighter less limited in range and speed. There is nothing to discuss here ... request
  4. sivuch
    sivuch April 29 2014 10: 15
    +10
    Prokhor, I completely agree with you regarding a fighter of a special period.
    http://www.almanacwhf.ru/?no=4&art=8
    Tactical aircraft for Russia - an attempt to market approach
    Zakharov Alexey
    The phrase was especially impressive:
    Before providing the materials to the Customer, the aerodynamics of the design bureau recalculated the characteristics three times, making sure that the project data did not exceed (!) In its performance the MiG-29, which the design bureau at that time advertised as "the best air superiority fighter".
    But I'm afraid this train has already left. Now, to create a plane without a hint of stealth, in my opinion, it makes no sense
    PS
    And the article, it seems, was written by a former or current Mikoyanovets
    1. PROXOR
      PROXOR April 29 2014 10: 27
      +4
      Quote: sivuch
      But I'm afraid this train has already left. Now, to create a plane without a hint of stealth, in my opinion, it makes no sense

      Question. Why is this aircraft stealth? LFI is a fighter not to gain air supremacy, but to support ground units. Its purpose is to work on ground targets and destroy enemy rotorcraft.
      Quote: Nayhas
      Those. do you think it is necessary to resume the release of the MiG-29?

      Mattress mats modernize their F-15 and F-18 and do not blow into the mustache, but what are we? Like we are so smart, give us a new one?
      Quote: Nayhas
      MiG-29M / 35 is not a MiG-29, although it looks similar. This is not LFI (light front-line fighter), but MFI (multifunctional fighter) which we simply do not need in the presence of the Su-35S.

      I fundamentally disagree. MIG-35 is not able to act independently against the same F-15. F-15 and faster, and the weapons on board are larger and the range is greater.
      Quote: Nayhas
      Yeah, light, 11 tons of empty mass ...

      So what? Let's compare: Mirage 2000C - Maximum take-off weight: 17 kg, Dassault Rafale - Maximum take-off weight: 000 kg, General Dynamics F-24 Fighting Falcon - Maximum take-off weight: 500 kg, Saab JAS 16 Gripen - Maximum take-off weight: 21 772 kg, MIG-39 - maximum take-off: 14 kg. SO WHERE DOES IT HEAR FOR YOU?
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas April 29 2014 11: 26
        +7
        Quote: PROXOR
        Question. Why is this aircraft stealth?

        I agree, this radically increases its price, putting an end to mass production.
        Quote: PROXOR
        LFI is a fighter not to gain air supremacy, but to support ground units. Its purpose is to work on ground targets and destroy enemy rotorcraft.

        Well hello, what you listed is just the functionality of MFIs. LFI just for conservation your sky under control. The LFI is part of the air defense complex, which includes both ground-based and airborne assets (including the CPSU).
        Quote: PROXOR
        I fundamentally disagree. MIG-35 is not able to act independently against the same F-15. F-15 and faster, and the weapons on board are larger and the range is greater.

        And it is not possible to win the battle on your own, only as part of the system.
        Quote: PROXOR
        Mattress mats modernize their F-15 and F-18 and do not blow into the mustache, but what are we? Like we are so smart, give us a new one?

        The USA is the only country in the world capable of containing such an air fleet. And you don’t need to be guided in this, it is fraught. They and LFI, as such, do not, F-16, even if empty and less than 10 tons in mass, but it has long been an MFI.
        Now about the upgrade. The MiG-29 (not the MiG-35) initially had a meager modernization reserve. The combat load of 9-12 is only 2 tons! On 9-13 they raised to 3 tons and on 9-17 (SMT) to 4 tons. This is the maximum achieved! No more squeezing!
        The MiG-29M / 35 is a redesigned MiG-29 that corrected many of the MiG-29's flaws, especially in flight range, but failed to squeeze more than 4,5 tons of combat load. For comparison, Rafal, which is lighter than the MiG-35 per ton, carries 9,5 tons of combat load! More than twice! Now compare with the LFI.
        Chengdu J-10, empty weight 9,8 tons, combat load of 7,2 tons.
        What kind of modernization can we talk about?
        Quote: PROXOR
        So what? Let's compare: Mirage 2000C -

        What a cunning you are. What does the maximum take-off mass have to do with it?
        1. PROXOR
          PROXOR April 29 2014 11: 33
          0
          Quote: Nayhas
          Well hello, what you listed is just the functionality of MFIs. LFI just to keep your sky under control. The LFI is part of an air defense complex including both ground-based and airborne assets (including the CPS)

          From an economic point of view, the need for LFIs with an existing MFI is not profitable !!!
          Quote: Nayhas
          The USA is the only country in the world capable of containing such an air fleet. And you don’t need to be guided in this, it is fraught. They and LFI as such do not, F-16, although empty in weight and less than 10 tons, but this has long been the MFI. Now it's about modernization. The MiG-29 (not the MiG-35) initially had a meager modernization reserve. The combat load of 9-12 is only 2 tons! On 9-13 they raised to 3 tons and on 9-17 (SMT) to 4 tons. This is the maximum achieved! No more squeezing! The MiG-29M / 35 is a redesigned MiG-29 that corrected many of the MiG-29's flaws, especially in flight range, but failed to squeeze out more than 4,5 tons of combat load. For comparison, Rafal, which is lighter than the MiG-35 per ton, carries 9,5 tons of combat load! More than twice! Now compare with the LFI. Chengdu J-10, empty weight 9,8 tons, combat load 7,2 tons. What kind of modernization can we talk about?

          Check out their aviation park !!!! The basis is the F-15, F-16 and F-18. All the rest are in incredibly smaller quantities. And by the way, the Mattress Makers themselves understand that their over-"advanced" F-35 will not be able to replace all these machines at the moment. The F-35 is insanely expensive, its capabilities raise a lot of questions.
          Quote: Nayhas
          What a cunning you are. What does the maximum take-off mass have to do with it?

          Well, why compare it? The combat load is what it was created for. But even if you take an empty plane, then there statistics are again in favor of my version. Both Rafal and F-16 are comparable in weight with the MIG-35.
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas April 29 2014 11: 59
            +3
            Quote: PROXOR
            From an economic point of view, the need for LFIs with an existing MFI is not profitable !!!

            Those. Are you for the parallel production of the MiG-35 and Su-35S?
            Quote: PROXOR
            You look at their fleet !!!!

            I repeat, to copy the approach to the formation of the US Air Force is stupid. Our economy will not stand.
            Quote: PROXOR
            But even if you take an empty plane, then there statistics are again in favor of my version.

            Yes of course! Rafal is an average MFI and is similar to the MiG-35, empty weight is 11 tons.
            Light MFIs are J-10 and JAS 39, with an empty weight of 7-9 tons. Immediately by the way, and F-16A Block 10 with an empty weight of 7 tons. Now it is heavier by three tons, but these are the consequences of multiple modernizations.
            1. PROXOR
              PROXOR April 29 2014 12: 13
              +1
              I put another plus for perseverance)))
              Now about our sheep:
              Quote: Nayhas
              Those. Are you for the parallel production of the MiG-35 and Su-35S?

              Yes, I am for it !!! Drive low over the battlefield, even on the SU-35S is up waste. Need a lighter and nimble MIG-35. I’m silent about working in the highlands.
              Quote: Nayhas
              I repeat, to copy the approach to the formation of the US Air Force is stupid. Our economy will not stand.

              No one talks about copying the US Air Force. It is their Air Force that will soon gobble up the entire budget. They now have no one to fly. But you need your own MIG-35 light park.
              Quote: Nayhas
              Yes of course! Rafal is an average MFI and is similar to the MiG-35, with an empty weight of 11 tons. Light MFIs are J-10 and JAS 39, with an empty weight of 7-9 tons. Immediately by the way, and F-16A Block 10 with an empty weight of 7 tons. Now it is heavier by three tons, but these are the consequences of multiple modernizations.
              And all this goes. That the weight of an empty light fighter will be 10-12 tons. And the J-10 and JAS-39 have such weight due to the thrust-weight ratio of the aircraft. Take for example what costs in the J-10. Correctly!!!! Our AL-31FN. We look at the engine thrust of 12800kgs at afterburner and 7700kgs at maximum. Where it is harder to do))) He just does not come off the ground. In general, looking at the J-10 one gets the impression that this is an F-16 made according to the duck pattern.
              1. EvilLion
                EvilLion April 29 2014 16: 59
                +1
                "Vertigo" is not determined by the size, but by the thrust-to-weight ratio and wing loading.
              2. Nayhas
                Nayhas April 29 2014 18: 21
                0
                Quote: PROXOR
                Yes, I am for it !!! Drive low over the battlefield, even on the SU-35S is up waste. Need a lighter and nimble MIG-35.

                And the fact that his small combat load does not bother you?
                Quote: PROXOR
                No one talks about copying the US Air Force. It is their Air Force that will soon gobble up the entire budget.

                There are enough eaters without the Air Force, compared to which the Air Force is vegetarian. They spend as much on the famine as on the military ...
                Quote: PROXOR
                And all this goes.

                In terms of the line between the lungs and the middle erased?
        2. Morgan
          Morgan April 29 2014 21: 09
          0
          Regarding stealth: do we need to not be seen or not to be shot down? If the first, then stealth is not the only way to increase survival ...
      2. supertiger21
        supertiger21 April 29 2014 18: 46
        +1
        Quote: PROXOR
        LFI is a fighter not to gain air supremacy, but to support ground units. Its purpose is to work on ground targets and destroy enemy rotorcraft.


        Let me fix it. The main task of a light fighter is not to support troops, but to cover them from the air. And work on ground targets is a broader concept that applies to all multi-role fighters.

        Quote: PROXOR
        Mattress mats modernize their F-15 and F-18 and do not blow into the mustache, but what are we? Like we are so smart, give us a new one?


        F-15s will no longer be upgraded, and the latest F-15SE modification is unlikely to go into the army even in small numbers. F-18C / D Hornets will be completely withdrawn from service in 2017-2020, at least according to the plan. them to completely new F-35C fighters. And the more modern F-18E / F Super Hornets will remain what they are without modernization, but they will last for at least 25-30 years along with the F-35.

        Quote: PROXOR
        Check out their aviation park !!!! The basis is the F-15, F-16 and F-18. All the rest are in incredibly smaller quantities. And by the way, the Mattress Makers themselves understand that their over-"advanced" F-35 will not be able to replace all these machines at the moment. The F-35 is insanely expensive, its capabilities raise a lot of questions.


        Three versions of the F-35 will replace all American fighters and attack aircraft, except for the F-15C / D / E and F-18E / F. And the replacement of the F-16, F-18, A-10, A-8 with three 70- 90% of the unified variants of a single fighter is already a big savings. For you do not need to individually train pilots for an aircraft for a specific task. And it’s easy to use, in particular in repair and modernization. And this is not the first time in history. A similar role aircraft F -4 The Phantom was used by the Americans in the Air Force, the Navy, and the ILC, and this unification gave more pluses than minuses.
        1. iwind
          iwind April 29 2014 19: 14
          0
          Quote: supertiger21
          F-15s will no longer be upgraded, and the latest F-15SE modification is unlikely to go into the army even in small numbers. F-18C / D Hornets will be completely withdrawn from service in 2017-2020, at least according to the plan. them to completely new F-35C fighters. And the more modern F-18E / F Super Hornets will remain what they are without modernization, but they will last for at least 25-30 years along with the F-35.

          Not really, the F-15s will be planned to be modernized, of course, not to the F-15SE (different planes can already be said), they are not going to drop them.
          F-18C \ D until the mid-20s should be promoted, the fleet is not particularly in a hurry with the F-35C.
          But the Super Hornet in 2015-16 is waiting for a significant upgrade, part of the avionics with the F-35 will be installed on it.
          1. supertiger21
            supertiger21 April 29 2014 19: 50
            0
            Quote: iwind
            Not really, the F-15s will be planned to be modernized, of course, not to the F-15SE (different planes can already be said), they are not going to drop them.


            I agree! F-15 can be upgraded further, but the problem is that they do not have a direct replacement, such as the F-22.

            Quote: iwind
            F-18C \ D until the mid-20s should be promoted, the fleet is not particularly in a hurry with the F-35C. But the Super Hornet in 2015-16 is waiting for a significant upgrade, part of the avionics with the F-35 will be installed on it.


            Perhaps, but still by 2028 the main one will be the F-35C. Now Boeing has the latest F-18 modification called the Advanced Super Hornet. The main innovations of ASH compared to the usual Super Hornet are: the presence of hanging containers of weapons, even more reduced EPR, conformal fuel tanks, multi-angle OLS under the fuselage (almost like the F-35). I think that this machine will serve side by side with the 35th, being its internal competitor.
    2. VAF
      VAF April 29 2014 16: 10
      +2
      Quote: sivuch
      And the article, it seems, was written by a former or current Mikoyanovets


      And what's wrong with that? (not in the sense of the former or the present0. but that he is MIKOYANOVETS? soldier
      1. sivuch
        sivuch April 29 2014 16: 40
        +1
        he doesn’t leave the idea that the author is pulling the blanket over himself. Regarding Mig-AT, I agree with him, I just don’t know about Mig-110, but they already said about Tu-334
        1. patsantre
          patsantre April 29 2014 16: 50
          +2
          But Tu is not a MiG, is it?)
  5. EvilLion
    EvilLion April 29 2014 10: 30
    +3
    And what did the applied military aviation science, which is still not completely destroyed, talk about and say? Science by the results of mathematical modeling suggests that only by optimizing the structure of the two-aircraft fleet of fighters can an increase in the integrated indicator "efficiency / costs" be achieved up to 20% (Fig. 1). When optimized at the level of the entire operational-tactical aviation (OTA), the gain due to the inclusion of a light fighter in the OTA combat weapons system will be about 5% (Fig. 2).


    I would like to remind the author that there is a big difference between "non-obvious expediency" and "nafig is not needed". Our MO did not tell me its calculations about the required number of vehicles and other technical and economic indicators, so I avoided harsh judgments, but the same Vicki reports that, according to open sources, the Russian Federation now has 38 fighter squadrons, i.e. the total number of the fleet we get in 500-600 cars, with a two-part fleet we get a batch size for one model in 200-400 cars, in this case the development cost can gobble up all the savings from the introduction of a lighter and cheaper model. In general, without specific numbers, smart words about the growth of complex indicators are nothing more than empty chatter. It is not even indicated in what year these results were obtained.

    According to the author himself: “Lungs are just those machines that make up the basis of the developed countries air force fleet.”


    Pulling words out of context is not good. The article explicitly stated that developed countries, as a rule, have no need to protect a huge territory, so they have a combat radius of 500-600 km behind the eyes. Otherwise, you have to admit that they invented the Su-27 from nefig, since no one had built such monsters before the F-22 appeared. That's just the Chinese and Indians for some reason do not agree.

    when solving the tasks of covering troops and front objects, light fighters (LI) are used, since in the conditions of detection range of air targets (CC) by ground radars limited by the radio horizon, the combat capabilities of a heavy fighter will not be fully used;


    At least a controversial statement, especially if the fighter is forced to barrage.
  6. EvilLion
    EvilLion April 29 2014 10: 41
    +4
    However, it should be borne in mind that the dimension of a fighter must be considered, first of all, not from the point of view of the mass of an empty aircraft, but from the point of view of its combat capabilities, its combat properties. The experience of developing front-line fighters of the 4 generation (Su-27, MiG-29, MiG-31) and research on fighters of the 5 generation show that fundamental to solving the issue of classifying a fighter as light or heavy is autonomy - the ability to solve combat missions without the support of ground-based radar to a great depth.


    Simply the presence of a large radar, co-pilot and more kerosene. The larger the plane, the more useful it is possible to cram it and the more expensive it is, therefore the size classification more or less adequately reflects the capabilities of the machine and the Gripen with Su-35 will never be compared.

    The fundamental differences in the requirements for the autonomy of actions in solving problems of cover and escort caused the division of front-line fighters of the 4 generation into two classes: light,

    decisive combat missions in terms of ensuring combat use by external systems, and heavy decisive combat missions at great depths autonomously, in the absence of such support.


    The author is apparently not in the know, but such a separation was already during the Second World War. There was the task of escorting bombers at great distances, and to solve it, it wasn’t that heavy machines were being built, even the two-body twin mustangs were invented so that the 2 pilots could at least replace each other in watch raids on the 10. There was also a platform like the F-4.
  7. EvilLion
    EvilLion April 29 2014 10: 52
    +4
    The increase in fighter dimension negatively affects the combat readiness characteristics. So, for example, the take-off time of a light MiG-29 fighter from a BG-1 is 3 min, and a heavy MiG-31 fighter takes 5 min.


    Is this true for the MiG-29 and Su-27? Or we are talking about the features of the MiG-31, the car even a little similar in size to the Su-27.

    So, we have already lost the market in more than 1200 obsolete and practically exhausted MiG-21 resources, because Russia has nothing to offer in this price class of fighters.


    1200 EXISTING machines that no one plans to replace with 1 to 1. For example, the Indians do not plan to build more 200 HAL Tejas, although the MiG-21 they still have to beat and beat. So it’s not necessary to operate with the numbers of the Cold War. More precisely, the Cold War has not gone away, but the huge Air Force has disappeared.
  8. anfil
    anfil April 29 2014 11: 04
    -3
    Quote: Nayhas
    Naturally, the enemy can interfere with the airborne radar. However, this cannot completely deprive the fighter of the possibility of establishing information contact with the target. The influence of interference will affect, first of all, the ability to conduct DVB in difficult weather conditions, which complicate the use of the optoelectronic channel, since it becomes impossible to conduct it at large (30 ... 50 km or more) distances.

  9. EvilLion
    EvilLion April 29 2014 11: 19
    +7
    Of course, expensive, because the idea of ​​a lightweight multi-functional fighter (LMFI) will require a lot of intellectual work of designers and scientists.


    And before you give all these people such an interesting lesson, you should carefully calculate everything.

    This recommendation is on the surface, however, there is the concept of “modernization potential”, and if it is exhausted, then modernization is meaningless.


    Cap, you?

    Russia is losing a lot without promoting the development of the LMFI, a new-generation light-class fighter, both with the internal placement of weapons and with the conformal suspension of the USP.


    I explained for a very long time that in the MiG-29 dimension it is impossible to create such an aircraft. Technically impossible. For this, there is a conceptual design to assess the possibilities of technical implementation. Well, no more 2 CAB-500 and a pair of missiles will fit into it. The sketch of C-21 shown in the article clearly shows that the length of the compartment does not exceed 3 m, this is exactly under the CAB-500. It remains either to fly in this form, or to grow to the size of the F-35, which nafig is not needed if there is a T-50.

    Now about the MiG-35. By itself, any aircraft is neither good nor bad. He can only be compared with others. Against the background of others like the "Eurofighter", the MiG-35 is just the same. As for the combat properties of the MiG-35 and similar machines, in aerial combat they will be good against everything except the T-50 analogues, and practically for most of the world's armies, their capabilities are quite sufficient. Want more? Then a completely new aircraft with composites, cruising supersonic, internal suspension of weapons and stealth technologies for fundamentally different money. Well, we will make this plane, but we will not sell it anywhere, the rich will buy the T-50, the poor will not master it. The fact is that the fighters have come to a certain point, when it is impossible to raise flight data in an evolutionary way, since they rested on the speed of sound. A situation arises in the second half of the 40s, when everyone flew about the same due to a drop in the efficiency of the propeller at high speeds. Arguments about avionics are simply ridiculous, everything you need equipment is perfectly installed on the MiG-35. The 5th generation is precisely the qualitatively different flight data and stealth, not software.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas April 29 2014 12: 10
      +3
      Quote: EvilLion
      On the sketch of S-21 given in the article, it is clearly visible that the length of the compartment does not exceed 3 m, this is exactly under the KAB-500.

      And where is the sketch? The article does not ...
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion April 29 2014 17: 01
        +2
        In my article, which the author criticizes, there was. http://topwar.ru/38556-legkiy-istrebitel.html
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas April 29 2014 19: 33
          +8
          Quote: EvilLion
          In my article, which the author criticizes, there was. http://topwar.ru/38556-legkiy-istrebitel.html

          About those times that I missed it ... I read it. Got your thought. You are also for the production of the MiG-35 as the easiest option. And the topic of LFI is only in the parameters you specify.
          I disagree with you. The MiG-35 is a good aircraft, but a small combat load kills all of it "well". And a dilemma arises, it is necessary, but not suitable ... hence the debate about LPI.
          PS: returning to your article.
          Driving bearded men in the mountains with KABami is of little use, you still have to hit the squares

          Many years ago, acting as a bearded man by mistake of some dumbbells, I and 30 other colleagues of mine watched the live implementation of your concept. Two Su-25, on a tip from the ground, dropped two cluster bombs on our group. The landmark was good, the ruins of an old village on the slope of a high mountain + we did not hide because did not understand that a surprise from the sky was for us. How it was. Because I love aviation, instead of looking for the notorious cache, I stared at how two Su-25s cut circles above us (so beautiful against the background of a clear sky), then the first began to shoot off heat traps, two diverging stripes appeared in the sky at the entrance to which the second Su -25 reset the cassette. A large "bandura" flew on a parachute, then suddenly turned into a cloud, RBC had a joyful thought in my head, but then I wondered, and who is this meant for? In general, this cloud fell in an incomprehensible place, I did not even hear the explosions, then the first one repeated, the explosions were not audible again. Then a pair of Su-25 flew away. Later, after returning "home", they told me the story of the okay "coordination" of the actions of adjacent structures, as a result of which we were subjected to an air strike that did not overtake us. So that's it. If there were a couple of KABs on these Su-25s, I would not be discussing the topic of LPI right now, but thanks to the confidence in the usefulness of "work on areas" I am alive and well. Which is what I wish for you.
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion April 30 2014 23: 31
            +1
            The combat load of the MiG-35 is quite at the level of vehicles of its dimension. For air defense tasks, it will even be superfluous. But I can’t count what even fits into the larger F-35 for the combat load, because it’s not serious.

            That is, you want to say that the cluster bomb dropped from a height not exceeding a couple of kilometers flew several kilometers away?
  10. tchoni
    tchoni April 29 2014 11: 30
    +5
    The article is a product of a solid military theorist. It was written competently and in some places even abstruse, but the author indulges in sophistry as well, because the article bears a noticeable plaque of personal relationship.
    The superiority of a light fighter over a heavy one according to the criterion of price / combat effectiveness is considered not proven. The only advantage of a light fighter over a heavy one is the high probability of finding the enemy first - the criterion is very precarious and depends both on weather conditions and the presence and characteristics of the optical reconnaissance complex. In general, the question is complicated. I hope that there will be more articles from this series. It is curious to observe controversy on this issue.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas April 29 2014 12: 15
      +7
      Quote: tchoni
      The superiority of a light fighter over a heavy one according to the criterion of price / combat effectiveness is considered not proven.

      This was not the case. There are areas in which heavy MFIs are redundant and it is easier to have cheap MFIs. Su-35S is a good aircraft, but their number in the Air Force will never be large. May God give you 100 cars. But what is 100 combat aircraft in a space like Russia?
      1. tchoni
        tchoni April 29 2014 13: 37
        +2
        Do you think the MiG-35 is much cheaper? and you think there will be many more?
        1. patsantre
          patsantre April 29 2014 15: 21
          +1
          Just this commentator does not consider the purchase of the MiG-35 a solution to the problem.
          1. supertiger21
            supertiger21 April 29 2014 18: 22
            +1
            Quote: patsantre
            Just this commentator does not consider the purchase of the MiG-35 a solution to the problem.


            I think that with the MiG-35 we were already late to adopt a light fighter, because already in the 2020s this fighter will become obsolete compared to completely new 5th generation fighters. I believe that the resource of the existing MiG-29S must be fully extended / SM / SMT and after that, somewhere in the years 2025–2028, completely replaced with a fundamentally new 5th generation light fighter.
            1. patsantre
              patsantre April 29 2014 19: 56
              +1
              I agree with this all, but the problem is not only that the 35th will not be enough for a long time. He became too heavy, the author of the article generally classified him as heavy.
              1. tchoni
                tchoni April 30 2014 09: 18
                +1
                I didn’t mean that a bit. The redundancy of a heavy fighter for solving air defense problems in the presence of external means of detection and target designation, as well as the redundancy of its radius of action for such tasks, has not been proved.
                The author reduces all the proof of this to a not very intelligible phrase, that in the conditions of electronic warfare, radars will not help you, while he does not take into account the very course of the conflict in the field of the electromagnetic spectrum, does not analyze the potentials of systems and means of electronic warfare, etc. that the suppression of a single DLRO aircraft will make the duty from the "at the airfield" position useless, while several spatially spaced radars of interceptors on duty in the air cannot be completely suppressed, and in this case a light fighter next to a heavy one will look pale.
  11. EvilLion
    EvilLion April 29 2014 11: 31
    +7
    Only the need to sacrifice to foreign aircraft companies can explain the adoption of a number of decisions that are not amenable to common sense, such as:

    - termination of work on the Su-27M and MiG-29M, which were at the final stages of testing


    Who needed this Su-27M? Well, tell me, to whom? To China? China received ready-made export machines, but he was not interested in the prototype, which had been sawing for several years. India has stockpiled Su-Xnumx. As for the MiG-30M, there were so many new MiG-29s on the market that there wasn’t much room for new models (also at the prototype stage). And the end of the Cold War, la-la-la, does it make sense to arm yourself?

    organization of a competition between certified Tu-334 and absent at that time even on paper, on 80% foreign SSJ-100


    Author, do you know anything about this certificate? It allowed people to carry people around the airfield in sunny weather and no more. And in general, if the Tupolevites put up an airplane with 3 crew members, when the whole world had already flown for 20 years with two, rear engines and an overweight fuselage, that is, simply rubbish, obsolete before it was born, then who is the doctor to them? As a result, the "ready-made" Tu-334 is not needed by anyone, and there are so many orders on the SSJ that the question is how to fulfill all of them on time. Or will we also tell fairy tales that Misha Pogo knocked out the 334th? Or do we still admit that if even foreign customers take SSJ, it means that it is competitive. I would refrain from evaluating the article that polemizes with mine, but for such incompetence, catch a minus.
  12. krpmlws
    krpmlws April 29 2014 11: 38
    +4
    I don’t understand where the wind is blowing. The theme of aircraft carriers is constantly being discussed: whether they are necessary or unnecessary. They raised the question of the need for a light fighter. They’re nothing to do to fools, the fifth column fulfills silver mines. It can be both that and the other. It’s obvious that aircraft carriers are necessary for the fleet, without them an integral fleet we won’t have it, just as there will be no full-fledged land army without aviation. Obviously, the LFI is also necessary. It is now necessary to build and adopt the LFI, which are prepared for serial production. It is necessary to continue work on modernization of MiG-29, followed by a serial proizvodstvom.Krayne need to start designing the 5th generation of PRL.
  13. Cossacks
    Cossacks April 29 2014 12: 41
    +3
    The article is thorough. Without going into technical details. Everything ultimately depends on the political will of the first person. See the story. If you approach the matter as Pagosyan, it’s enough to recall the notorious super-jet, which is 80% of imports and the fate of the future is in question, then instead of LFI we get continuous smart reasoning up or down.
  14. abc_alex
    abc_alex April 29 2014 14: 17
    +5
    The article, in my opinion, contains a number of stretches and manipulations of facts.
    In my opinion, our Air Force needs a light front-line fighter. Whether it will be the MiG-29 SMT / OVT or the MiG-35 is the second question, but just such a fighter should be massive. Precisely because we have a huge territory and an unprecedentedly large length of land borders. And there is no need to talk about an "undeveloped airfield network." In any case, it will have to be developed. Whether for light or heavy fighters, hoping that the entire border of the country can be secured from a dozen airfields at the expense of long range is just utopia.
    1. srelock
      srelock April 29 2014 21: 38
      0
      We already have a light frontline fighter (it will enter service soon). Just for the implementation of such goodies as low visibility, cruising supersonic and weapons inside the fuselage have to pay with the mass of the machine. It should be added here that over the past 30 years, reconnaissance and destruction means have been very successful in their development, and this makes the advanced airfields "push back" further from the front line ... more + to the mass of the aircraft. I think it is preferable in this situation to create a heavy platform (normal take-off weight 40-45 tons) and, on its basis, implement a long-range interceptor to replace the MiG-31, a fighter-bomber to replace the Su-34 and Tu-22M3, and maybe a heavy MFI. Taking into account the PAK YES, it will not be a bad "company".
  15. The comment was deleted.
  16. goose
    goose April 29 2014 14: 57
    +2
    Quote: Nayhas
    Now about the upgrade. The MiG-29 (not the MiG-35) initially had a meager modernization reserve. The combat load of 9-12 is only 2 tons! On 9-13 they raised to 3 tons and on 9-17 (SMT) to 4 tons. This is the maximum achieved! No more squeezing! The MiG-29M / 35 is a redesigned MiG-29 that corrected many of the MiG-29's flaws, especially in flight range, but failed to squeeze out more than 4,5 tons of combat load. For comparison, Rafal, which is lighter than the MiG-35 per ton, carries 9,5 tons of combat load! More than twice! Now compare with the LFI. Chengdu J-10, empty weight 9,8 tons, combat load 7,2 tons. What kind of modernization can we talk about?

    Let's not juggle, this is not a combat load, which of the above can fly with such a load even with 1 drop of fuel in the tanks? I always thought that the maximum load that you brought is simply the addition of the maximum weight that can be suspended under each suspension point. If you think about it, you can figure out how much the BATTLE load can come off the J-10 to leave it 100 km from the take-off point. This is clearly not 7,2 tons. In addition, there must be a real configuration in which it is possible to implement it. For example, on the Su-30, 8 tons can only be made with bombs in multi-castle holders, and on the J-10 how to suspend it with 7,2 tons? Yes, even on Rafal, that's how you can realize its maximum combat load?

    For the MiG-29M / 35 with its huge tanks, it is normal to have 4 tons of real BATTLE load. At the same time, it can lift 9 tons on suspensions into the air. For example, 6xX-35UE + 2xP73 - why not load?
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion April 29 2014 17: 04
      0
      In fact, this is the case, dumb weight addition. And as I wrote in my article, this is actually very bad, because an abnormally large ratio of maximum take-off weight to empty indicates excessive structural strength, or a decrease in overload requirements, that is, the fighter turns out to be a fig.
    2. Nayhas
      Nayhas April 29 2014 20: 35
      +4
      Quote: goose
      Let's not juggle, this is not a combat load, which of the above can fly with such a load even with 1 drop of fuel in the tanks?

      Let's make it easier. I provide the link and photo:
      http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/dassault-aviation/press/press-kits/rafale-im

      proves-versatility /
      The first test flight of the Rafale fighter was performed in a new version of the maximum combat configuration with six AASM Hammer air-to-ground class, four medium-range and long-range missile defense MICA and two ultra-long-range Meteor air-to-air missiles, as well as three outboard fuel tanks 2000 liters, reports dassault-aviation.com January 23, 2014.

      Here it takes off:

      Here he is flying:

      Now about the nomenclature of suspended weapons:
      KAS AASM Hammer - the mass of one KAB 340kg., Six KAB 2040kg.
      missile in-in MICA - the mass of one UR 112kg., four UR 448kg.
      missile in-in MBDA Meteor - weight of one unitary enterprise 185kg., two UR 370kg.
      Total suspended weapons 2858kg.
      Fuel in the PTB at 6000l. - 4863 kg.
      The mass of one PTB for 2000l. - 150kg., Three PTB 450kg.
      In total, it carries 8171 kg. (without the mass of pylons, I could not find the data, but I can’t suppose, so without them)
  17. supertiger21
    supertiger21 April 29 2014 16: 59
    0
    Interesting article good , the author gave competent arguments proving the truth of his words!
  18. iwind
    iwind April 29 2014 18: 35
    +1
    It would certainly be good for our Air Force to have a "lightweight" 5th generation MFI. But at the moment it is too expensive and difficult to create. And it is too late to start production of the MIG-35 in 2018-20.
    In the trailer, our Air Force in the short term (10-15 years) will be enough SU-30SM.
    But the fact that we have lost the MFI market is fool . I very much doubt that someone will still conclude a contract for the purchase of 4 aircraft, and the 5th generation MFIs will now have one market, and competitors are somehow not expected.
  19. Argon
    Argon April 29 2014 21: 10
    +1
    gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
  20. Mainbeam
    Mainbeam April 30 2014 00: 58
    +1
    The equation of existence is the same fundamental law as the laws of conservation of energy, mass, momentum.

    The longer the article, the less empty comments, and generally fewer comments,
    but more reasoned polemics.
  21. silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 April 30 2014 02: 13
    +1
    I liked the article ... you can accept something ... I want to challenge something ... BUT it does not leave anyone indifferent.

    It is a pity that during the analysis the author focused on comparing light and heavy / medium fighter (one could go over the topic of heavy long-range fighter / interceptor ... MIG-31 replacement topic) ... and we must remember that in addition to the market ... there is an illogical .. not always profitable BUT noteworthy topic - PROTECTION OF THE STATE