"Eagle" or "Bear"? Comparison of military fighters of Russia and the USA. Comparison of aviation of the USA and the Russian Federation (MIL02) Comparison of the combat capabilities of aircraft in terms of performance characteristics

So, we already know that in the USSR, fifth-generation fighters were developed simultaneously with similar developments in the United States, but the collapse of the country prevented the implementation of the plan.

Has this work gone to waste? No. Of course, the aircraft developed in those years did not go into production, but many advantages were obtained as a result of this work.

Firstly, a huge amount of research and development work has been carried out, a huge amount of experience has been accumulated, which has not gone away.

Secondly, after all, not only the design bureaus of Mikoyan and Sukhoi were engaged in this work. The research institutes of TsAGI, VIAM, CIAM, CIATIM, and engine builders, and radar developers, and a huge number of institutes, design bureaus, and factories worked on new aircraft. After all, thousands of subcontractors are involved in the production of the aircraft, and each of them received his own task.

Thirdly, despite the secrecy, Russian specialists followed with interest the development and testing of the Raptor by the Americans. After all, someone else's experience, whether successful or not, teaches competent specialists something, and besides, it becomes clear what exactly your future aircraft should resist, what you need to strive for so that it surpasses the enemy.

And therefore, when in 1998 the designers again received technical task for the development of a fifth generation fighter (according to its requirements, it did not differ too much from the previous one), they already had ready-made options draft designs in each design bureau. Without going into details, I will say that the task again included two aircraft - a light and a heavy one, and also considered options for a "medium" fighter and a vertical variant. And again they decided that the MiG-35 could be suitable for the role of the LFI, the vertical version was postponed for the future, as a result they settled on the Sukhoi Design Bureau with the PAK FA (aka T-50, aka Su-50).

What does he represent? Some journalists from the yellow press claim that this is a dumb copy of the American Raptor. Let me tell you right now that this is not the case. This can be seen immediately by an aerodynamic specialist, but it is obvious to anyone who is interested, especially if you compare two aircraft when viewed from the side: a short Raptor with huge keels, and a flat, long PAK FA. Let's take a closer look at the differences next.

And if you just think a little: the plane was developed precisely with the aim of surpassing the Raptor, otherwise why is it needed at all? And this was controlled not only by the domestic Ministry of Defense, but also by the Indian one, since the project is joint, and they will not spend such huge money in vain. And since the capabilities of the Raptor have long been known, there was no need to even guess. I will add that the Indian representatives put forward very strict requirements for the aircraft, and very stubbornly defended them. They agreed to cooperate only when they got acquainted with the project in detail and were convinced of its prospects.

How is it different? There are many interesting features.

To begin with, I will say that in the comments to previous articles, as well as in reposts on other sites and in LiveJournal, there are persistent demands to compare the capabilities of PAK FA and Raptor, and at the same time their number, pilot raid and other details. As if the US is already at war with Russia. Guys, I'll tell you scary things in secret: firstly, neither Raptor will be able to fly to Russia, nor PAK FA to the USA. And if it comes to a direct collision, then it is necessary to compare not fighters, but strategic missiles and anti-missile defense systems. Although US supporters will not like such a comparison again, since even the United States still has no protection from the ancient “Satan”, whose resource was recently extended. “ Star Wars” SDI turned out to be a fake, and there is neither money nor brains for European missile defense. The existing strategic weapons in the United States are rapidly falling apart: catastrophic degradation. Pay attention to the comments, competent specialists communicate there, and they are clearly “in the know”.

True, some American journalists were pretty amused when they said that the great and terrible F-35 would patrol over Poland and shoot down Russian ballistic missiles launched somewhere in the Urals, but here one can only envy the fenced grass that they smoke. How many kilometers are there from Poland to the Urals? What missile is capable of such a range? Will the F-35 lift it? And how long will it fly to the Urals? Or chase "Satan" all the way to Washington and fall into the target with her?

Well, to compare the capabilities of aircraft? Yeah why not! Only secrecy interferes with this, and therefore do not cling too much to the data: according to Raptor, that according to PAK FA, they are taken, of course, from open sources.

So, the first difference is super-maneuverability. It was retained despite stringent stealth requirements that go against aerodynamics. At the same time, they applied new solutions that are not available either in the Raptor or in other aircraft. This, for example, is the turning part of the wing influx, that is, the influx plays the role of not only a vortex generator, but also the front horizontal tail. This solution reduces visibility.

The engines are spaced apart (the Raptor has them next to each other). This allows you to increase maneuverability, and at the same time releases more space for internal compartments with weapons. The ventral tunnel between them increases lift, and maneuverability is maintained even at high altitudes. At the same time, spaced engines increase survivability in the event of combat damage or an engine fire.

Another original solution- the engines are not parallel, but at a slight angle to each other (damn, I once stared at the pictures for a long time, until I was convinced that this was not an optical illusion. In normal mode, the direction of the jet stream is compensated by an all-angle rotary nozzle, and in case of failure or combat damage to one engine, this arrangement allows you to more confidently stay in the air.This photo clearly shows that this is not an optical illusion, at the same time both the weapon bays and the turning part of the wing influx are visible:

The aircraft has two inclined keels, like the Raptor. But there are also new items here: firstly, they are much smaller in area, which reduces visibility, and secondly, they are all-moving, there are no separate rudders. This is also for stealth. In addition, they also play the role of an air brake, that is, they can deviate inconsistently, in different directions. A separate brake is no longer needed, which reduces weight.

In order not to be convicted of praising everything ours, I will say that a puncture came out with the keels. Too many new things: both all-moving, and can serve as an air brake, and small area, the lack of which is compensated by automation, and are made of carbon fiber (it is lighter in weight and better for stealth), and the way they are installed is quite tricky ... limit the maximum speed of the PAK FA to 2M (approximately 2125-2400 km / h - it is not known at what altitude this figure was meant) instead of 2.15M according to the terms of reference and even more - really. I was still surprised then: well, let’s say that the military won’t trample on their commander-in-chief, although this is not a fact, the designers also don’t really need to resist, but what about the Indians? It seems that they nevertheless resisted: on February 13, 2012, the commander-in-chief of the Russian Air Force, Colonel General Alexander Zelin, stated that comparative analysis characteristics of the Russian fifth-generation fighter T-50 with the American F-22 and the Chinese J-20 shows that the T-50 is superior to foreign counterparts in terms of maximum flight speed (both afterburner and non-afterburner), maximum flight range, thrust-weight ratio, and the value of the maximum realized overload , smaller takeoff and mileage, and also looks better than foreign analogues in terms of on-board equipment characteristics.

I will add that the message that slipped through the American press that the Raptor reached a speed of 2.6 M is not true. With Raptor air intakes that are not regulated in the classical sense, this is impossible in principle, in addition, at such speeds, the thermal barrier already begins to noticeably act (the heating of the aircraft from air friction at such a speed is over 300 degrees), and neither aluminum nor carbon fiber can withstand it.

It's not worth talking about maintainability, and even more so - about the price of aircraft.

ENGINES.

The flat nozzle was abandoned in favor of super-maneuverability. At the same time, visibility in the rear hemisphere theoretically becomes worse, but look at the shooting of the Raptor in a thermal imager: it doesn’t save much, to put it mildly.

The air intakes, like those of the Raptor, are curved in two planes, that is, the engine blades are not visible to the locators. According to other sources, they are not too curved, and a special device will be located in front of the shoulder blades - a radar blocker. Now PAK FA flies on one of the modifications of the AL-41F engines. They have less thrust than those that are now being tested and will be installed regularly, but all the requirements for the fifth generation are met even with them. The new engine will have not only higher thrust, but also better efficiency. Although the efficiency of Russian engines has surpassed American ones, already starting with a pair of Su-27s and F-15s. It is difficult to search for specific characteristics of fuel consumption, but here are indirect data:
The first value is PAK FA, the second is F-22
normal takeoff weight: with 100% fuel: 30610 kg / 30206 kg
Fuel mass: 11100 kg / 9367 kg
Practical range: 4300 km / 2500 km

Of course, better aerodynamics compared to the Raptor also reduce fuel consumption, but neither it nor the 1.7 tons more fuel supply by themselves will provide such an impressive difference in range.

By the way, many modifications of both this and the new engine are being worked out, with improved parameters, reduced weight, etc. All of them are designated differently (AL-41, Type-30, item-117, item-129, item-133, project "Demon", etc.), and it's not too easy to figure it out. Again, one recalls a heavy sigh in one of the American aviation magazines: "The designation system of the Sukhoi Design Bureau horrifies bourgeois analysts."

A novelty is a plasma ignition system, which allows you to get rid of oxygen replenishment when starting the engine, even at high altitude.

By itself, a fighter can be as good as you like, but without a weapon it is worthless. Let's see what the designers have prepared? The set is quite extensive.

For close combat - a 30 mm caliber gun. There are two internal compartments for bombs and missiles, each more than 5 meters long. There you can "hide" from 6 to 12 bombs or missiles. In addition, up to six external hardpoints can be installed. Consider what PAK FA can take with you.

But first, a little about the types of rockets. The first rockets were unguided, it was necessary to aim for their launch using the same sight as for cannons / machine guns. They appeared with us during the Great Patriotic War, terrifying the Germans no worse than the famous Katyusha, but their descendants NURS (unguided rocket) or NAR are still used, more often by helicopters. Everyone has probably seen launchers in the form of cylinders with several holes for rockets, these are just them.

Then came airborne locators, or, more precisely, radar stations for interception and aiming, and with them radio-controlled missiles. The pilot captures the target on the locator screen, approaches it to the missile launch range, the “PR” signal lights up - the launch is allowed, we press the trigger, the rocket leaves the pylon, but we continue to keep the enemy on the locator screen. In this case, a narrow beam of the radar is directed at him, and the rocket goes along this beam. And only when she gets so close that you can’t miss, the “Lapel” signal lights up - you can dump. Sometimes this can be dangerous if the target is a heavily loaded bomber or tanker. It can take off in such a way that fragments will get you.

They try to defend themselves against such missiles by shooting passive interference, simple packs of foil tape. In the hope that the locator beam will lose the plane and will follow the ribbons. In response, the radars began to sort targets by speed so as not to notice low-speed ones, and take other measures to combat interference.

Next developed homing missiles. Their thermal homing head (TGSN) senses heat from the enemy's engine. As you approach, the “ZG” light lights up - the capture of heads, which means that the missiles saw the target, launch - and you can immediately dump. This is called the “let it go and forget it” principle. It is curious to smoke near such a rocket and see how the GOS is watching your cigarette. At first, it's somehow not very pleasant to see it.

They defend themselves by firing off heat traps, everyone has seen footage on TV when a similar "firework" flies out of an airplane.

Well, then there were missiles with a wide variety of guidance methods, including multi-channel ones, which are not so easy to deceive. I will not explain in detail: it will take up too much space. So:

1. The main weapon is the RVV-BD, a long-range air-to-air missile.

The maximum launch range is 300 km (export version - 200 km), and according to some reports, it reaches high contrast targets from 400 km. Please note: all the data below is for export versions of missiles and bombs (often coming across the letter "E" in the designation means export), it's just easier to find them. As you can see, it does much better for itself. The mass of the warhead is 60 kg, high-explosive fragmentation. The guidance system is inertial, with radio correction and active radar homing in the final section of the flight path.

Let me remind you that the AIM-120C missile, which the Raptor is armed with, has a launch range of 120 km, in the future it will be modified for the AIM-120D missile with a launch range of 180 km. True, with missiles from the Americans serious problems, their engines suddenly turned out to be unreliable, although before that they worked fine: “Bad luck again! AMRAAM rocket engine problems.” They refuse to low temperatures and their acceptance has been suspended. Let me remind readers that at an altitude of 10 km the temperature in both summer and winter is approximately minus 56.5 degrees. And since this missile is the main one for all aircraft of the NATO bloc, consider that there is nothing to hit the enemy with ... Or rather, there is something, but only at low altitude, not in winter and not in polar latitudes.

The launch range of option “E” is up to 110 km. The mass of the warhead is 22.5 kg, rod, multi-cumulative. The guidance system is inertial with radio correction and active radar homing in the final section of the trajectory.

A missile for close-range highly maneuverable air combat with all-aspect passive infrared guidance (dual-band IGS). Launch range - up to 40 km. The mass of the warhead is 8 kg.

A very interesting rocket. The engine is with a controlled thrust vector, and if the pilot captured the target with the help of a helmet-mounted system somewhere on the side, by turning his head, then this missile is able to turn around on the target. IR-guided missile jammers either blind the targeting heads with a laser or shoot off heat traps. But this missile will still distinguish the trap from the aircraft due to the difference in ranges, and the laser beam will “turn off” only one “color” of it.

Refers to short-range modular guided missiles. Through the use of various types of guidance systems and various combat equipment, enhanced combat capabilities are provided for operations against a wide range of ground targets, as well as surface targets in the coastal strip.

X-38MLE - inertial + semi-active laser
X-38MAE - inertial + active radar
X-38MTE - inertial + thermal imaging
X-38MKE - inertial + satellite navigation

The first three types can be equipped with combat equipment with a high-explosive fragmentation or penetrating warhead. X-38MKE - cluster warhead
Launch range from 3 to 40 km

5. Kh-58UShKE.

Anti-radar missile. What it is? We release it into any ground locator, and it goes to the target along the beam of the same locator. Moreover, even if the locator is turned off, she will not lose it.

The missile can be used both for programmed radar targets and for targets quickly detected by the PAK FA target designation system. The maximum launch range (in the carrier altitude range from 200 m to 20 km) is 76 - 245 km. The probability of a missile hitting a circle with a radius of 20 m, in the center of which there is an operating radar, is at least 0.8. Warhead - high-explosive, weight 149 kg. The launch weight of the rocket is 650 kg.

Other weapons are also being developed against locators and any other electronics - the so-called electromagnetic ammunition, which can be made in the form of a rocket, aerial bombs, a grenade for a grenade launcher, an artillery shell, etc. The idea is that we release such ammunition into an enemy locator, command post, etc., but it does not explode, but briefly emits a powerful electromagnetic pulse (which, although weaker than at the time of the explosion atomic bomb, but it is enough), and within a radius of several tens (or even many hundreds) of meters, any electronics “dies” - locators, computers, radio stations, control systems, not to mention mobile phones, for example.
Moreover, since in modern weapons full of electronics, it can be much easier to disable it by making this weapon a useless heap of iron than to destroy enemy equipment with the brute force of an explosion. So you can neutralize aircraft, and tanks, and locators, and communications. You can provoke a non-contact detonation of mines, missiles, bombs ... you can also in peacetime, for example, drive up to some skyscraper in which many financial organizations are concentrated, as was the case at the World Trade Center, in a harmless-looking van, and you don’t have to stick into it planes and sacrifice people - it is enough to destroy all computers with databases, and chaos is guaranteed all over the world ...
And although such weapons have been researched and produced in many countries for a long time, they do not like to advertise specific serial samples, preferring to talk about the theory of their use. But all this was a lyrical digression, whether there will be a similar one at PAK FA - I don’t know.

6. KAB-500S-E, Guided aerial bomb

Weight - 560 kg (including 195 kg - mass of explosives). Drop height from 500 m to 5 km. Targeting accuracy (Equo) 7 - 12 m. Warhead - high-explosive.

It's probably not full list weapons, they write about 14 different types of weapons, but so far they have decided to remove the secrecy only from this. However, in some places the X-35 anti-ship missile is also mentioned.

ON-BOARD EQUIPMENT.

Weapons are good, but in order for them to hit somewhere, you need various and complex aiming devices, the days of the usual crosshairs are long gone. The PAK FA used the so-called "smart skin", when all antennas from all sides of the aircraft are reduced to a single complex. What is there?

The main part, of course, is the nasal AFAR, in which there are 1522 transceiver modules (the Raptor has 1200). Two side-view AFARs. Two AFARs in wing socks. Two AFAR L-band in the slats. This is a decimeter range (somewhere from 15 to 30 cm), stealth is clearly visible in it, although the accuracy is worse than in centimeter. But the main thing is that the pilot is warned, he sees the target, and then - the problems of the RVV-BD missile, which has enough of its own guidance systems, and when it approaches it in order to see it, it will be more and more accurate and confident. The Raptor does not have such a decimeter radar, and is not expected in the foreseeable future. Of course, it is better to get closer to 120 km - the launch range of the Raptor missile, everything will be much more accurate there: there the Raptor will already see the conventional radar, and, most likely, even the optical system.

They prefer to remain silent about the rest of the antennas, although there is probably an antenna on the back, because it appeared on some versions of the Su-27. On it, part of the missiles could be hung "back to front". Surprise for the enemy chasing you.

In addition to the H-036 type radar, there is the OLS-50 optical multi-channel all-round visibility system, capable of seeing day and night, and even in the ultraviolet range. Her details are also not disclosed.

Of course, there is also a helmet-mounted target designation system, and much more, but since secrecy in our country is traditionally higher than in the United States, which is good, many data are still unknown. More details in the video:

Well, no Raptor is capable of flying like this!

From the first steps of mankind in conquering the sky, the world has constantly observed the evolution of military aviation. Fighters have always come to the rescue in military and local conflicts, performing the most complex operations. To date, this type of aircraft has reached inexpressibly in its development high point progress. In our time, no one can be surprised by the ability of a person to stay in the air element, but the high technology, colossal combat equipment of combat fighters and the mass of opportunities that open up before them really amaze the mind and excite the imagination. The wealth of power and variety of these war machines encourages the creation rating of the best fighters in the world.

10. Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

Unlocks the top 10 best Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighters. It is in service with the US Army and is a carrier-based fighter-bomber and attack aircraft. Combat vehicles of this type are very popular for deployment on aircraft carriers. This fighter is equipped with a 6-barreled cannon capable of firing at a rate of 6,000 rounds per minute. Nine external mounts allow you to equip the aircraft with a wide range of different weapons, including: missiles - simple and laser-guided, many types of bombs, as well as weapons that allow you to fly effective fight against enemy ships, and a system that prevents aircraft from being tracked on radar.

9 Saab JAS 39 Gripen

The Saab JAS 39 Gripen combat fighter, which ranks 9th in our rating, has been in service with the Swedish army for thirty years now. His first demonstration flight took place in the 88th year of the last century. To date, this combat vehicle is equipped with one of the the best technologies peace. The fourth generation fighter was created specifically for the effective conduct of hostilities in the conditions of the Scandinavian terrain - the limited plains and the severity of the weather. The Saab JAS 39 Gripen is armed with a 30mm cannon, different types bombs (depending on the need), several types of missiles (guided and unguided).

8. MIG-35

The genius of the Russian military air armament is the MIG-35 fighter. This aircraft is planned to be put into service only this (2018) year, but it has already established itself as one of the best fighters, although it has not yet shown itself in the combat field. The MIG-35 has surpassed its predecessor in many ways. For example, this fighter consumes less fuel, the oxygen station produces more oxygen, and the duration of the autopilot during aiming has been extended so that the pilot has more opportunity to conduct accurate fire at the enemy. Including Russian engineers managed to reduce the cost of producing a fighter, for comparison - the French side spends 2-3 times more on the creation of aircraft of this type.

7F-16 Fighting Falcon

The seventh line in the ranking of fighters is the American F-16 Fighting Falcon. At one time, this combat vehicle was the leader among the most popular in the world - the low cost of its production and high quality characteristics allowed US military factories to produce these vehicles in large quantities for export to other countries. There are currently over 4,700 F-16 Fighting Falcons worldwide. These combat vehicles managed to prove themselves in more than a hundred combat operations around the world.

6 Eurofighter Typhoon

The Eurofighter Typhoon combat fighter is the brainchild of four EU countries at once, which has proven its effectiveness in real armed conflicts. One of the main advantages of this aircraft is the ability to interfere with enemy radars, which allows you to adjust the flight of guided missiles. This, first of all, influenced the fact that the Eurofighter Typhoon became very "survivable" - getting into a fighter with such a system is quite difficult. Typhoon also surpasses its counterparts in firing range (as much as 100 km). Today, there are about five hundred such fighters in the world, and each combat vehicle is made using a unique technology.

5. Dassault Rafale

The pride of the French armed forces, the Dassault Rafale, was also on the list of the most powerful fighters. The creators claim that the only factor that prevents the incredible rise of this combat vehicle is its high cost. Dassault Rafale has been in service with the French army for 50 years, it has shown itself well in armed conflicts several times. However, today this fighter is used only for training and demonstration flights. Also, its name often appeared in air crashes, but the French side each time claimed that the human factor was the reason for this.

4Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II

Another development of the US Air Force was the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, designed to replace obsolete aircraft of this generation. The fighter entered service with both the US Navy and the US Army - it is actively used on the aircraft carriers of the fleet due to the short takeoff run distance and braking landing. The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is also capable of vertical takeoff. After the development and release of the fighter into mass production, it was exported to other countries of the world, the first of which was Great Britain. The aircraft is equipped with advanced electronics and powerful weapons.

3. Su-35S

On the third line of the rating is one of the best Russian fighters. Su-35S made its first sortie in 2008. quality characteristics the fighter can be attributed to the 5th generation. US analysts dubbed the Su-35S the most dangerous and deadly model ever created in the USSR and Russia. To date, part of the characteristics and combat capabilities of the fighter is kept by the armed forces in the strictest confidence, therefore it is not yet possible to fully assess its combat potential.

2. Su-57

A completely new achievement of the domestic military industry - the Su-57. The fifth generation fighter is recognized by domestic designers as the best fighter of Russian aviation. Today, this combat vehicle is on the same level as the American Raptor. The main feature of the Su-57 is the ability to fight with several opponents at once, which can be both in the air and on the ground. Currently, the designers are working on an improved camouflage fighter. The aircraft is equipped with the world's most advanced electronics and incredibly deadly weapons.

1 Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

On the first line of the rating "the best fighters in the world" is the American Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. In fact, he shares the palm with the Russian Su-57. The Raptor is a 5th generation fighter, presented to the public in the second half of the 90th year. It is capable of performing many purposes and combat missions. On the this moment The Raptor is recognized as an advanced development of American designers in this area. Among the advantages of a combat vehicle is complete invisibility to enemy radars. The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is described as a fighter with high maneuverability, low fuel consumption and relatively low weight. Only two cases of the loss of these fighters in combat operations have been registered.

If Russia does not support us from the air, we will have to retreat from Brooklyn to Long Island.
I. Strelkov's emergency message, November 2016

Every joke has its share of jokes. The recent statement that Russia in the outgoing year outstripped the United States in the production of military aircraft, clearly indicated who our "probable enemy" is and with whom the Russian aircraft manufacturers intend to compete.

The US Air Force is not an easy opponent. The most difficult. The world's first consumer of aviation kerosene. The only operator of fifth-generation fighters to date. Great combat experience. Thousands of aircraft units stationed at air bases around the world.

“If in 2013 we delivered 68 combat and combat training aircraft and one military transport aircraft for the Air Force, then this year we plan to supply 100 aircraft — combat, military transport, and special aviation aircraft”

Experienced citizens reacted to this news with a certain degree of skepticism. What "effective managers" will not come up with to justify their mournful "achievements"! Goncharenko's statement contained three suspicious points: combat training, military transport and special aviation aircraft.

But let me tell you, is it correct to put the training and "combat" Yak-130 with max. with a take-off weight of 10 tons with powerful combat vehicles from the "first line" - fighter-bombers with a take-off weight of 30-45 tons? The training Yak does not even have a radar, not to mention such high-tech expensive systems as optronic sighting systems or thrust vectoring engines.

Transport "maize" L-410, "general's" business jet An-148, patched MiG-31BM and Tu-95 ... No! Indicate the number of truly combat-ready modern aircraft: representatives of the multi-purpose Su-30 family, Su-34 tactical bombers, super-maneuverable Su-35 fighters. Nearby are the new A-100 Premier airborne early warning aircraft (AWACS / AWACS), specialized aircraft for naval aviation, heavy attack UAVs and strategic unmanned reconnaissance drones ... At this point, it’s worth moderating your imagination and asking a simple question: "How much?"

Front-line bombers Su-34

The answer will surprise you - the number of new fighters and bombers delivered to the Russian Air Force at least not less than the same number of new combat aircraft, joined the US Air Force in 2014. The aviation industry of the States has completely weakened - 20 ... 30 fighters a year for its own Air Force and a certain number of units for the Air Force of NATO countries. There are only a couple of models on the assembly line - the new F-35 and the multi-purpose F / A-18 family (SuperHornet, Growler). All work on the construction / modernization of fourth-generation fighters is rapidly losing priority - now all hopes are connected only with the promising F-35.

Production of the Raptors ceased in 2011, the fleet of F-16 fighter-bombers has not been updated for ten years, and the last Eagle fighter was transferred to the US Air Force back in 1989. The "naval" fighter-bomber F/A-18E/F has long ceased to be popular in the domestic and foreign markets. All potential customers, one by one, choose the "Lockheed" F-35. Due to the loss of interest in its fighters, Boeing plans to completely phase out production of the F / A-18E / F and close the assembly line in St. Louis in 2015.

Against this background, the success of the Russian United Aircraft Corporation looks like a real triumph: a whole line of super-aircraft, each of which claims to be the best in its class. During 2014, the Russian Air Force replenished:
- 12 Su-35S fighters with unsurpassed flight characteristics;
- 18 Su-34 front-line bombers;
- 7-10 (according to various sources) Su-30SM multipurpose fighters.

Alas, behind the joy of victories lie offensive facts. The “leading” Russia has only 5 prototypes of the fifth generation fighter, while the rival has 115 flying F-35s as of October 2014. According to the LRIP-8 option, Lockheed Martin received another order for 29 " Lightning" (4 deck F-35C, 6 "vertical" F-35B and 19 basic F-35A) + an order for the construction of 14 fighters for five foreign customers. The first deliveries of vehicles from the LRIP-8 batch are scheduled for 2016. Despite the fact that at present, Lockheed Martin enterprises are already at various stages of assembling 71 F-35 multi-role fighters from contracts from previous years.

The real situation is even more serious: the abbreviation LRIP in the name of the options means Low-Rate Initial Production - small-scale production at the first stage. Over the past eight years, Lockheed Martin has been slowly assembling its Lightnings, saturating various test units with them and training centers Air Force and Aviation of the Naval Forces. 115 aircraft - by the standards of America, they did not even begin to build. When the main assembly line in Fort Worth, Texas, is turned on, the estimated production rate will be 1 aircraft per day, which means over 300 F-35 fighters annually.

Now the States clearly have nowhere to hurry - only over the past 10 years, their aviation has been replenished with a huge amount of modern aircraft, incl. 187 combat "Raptors" and four hundred F / A-18E / F (including mod. EF-18G) for naval aviation and the ILC. Ahead is the ambitious F-35 program. As for the huge fleet of aging Eagles and F-16s, the era of these machines is steadily coming to an end. Today they represent a bridge between the fourth and fifth generation.

Something similar is observed in the field of unmanned aircraft. Over the first decade of the 21st century, the Yankees have thrashed an impressive number of reconnaissance and strike UAVs various models. The toys turned out to be amusing, but not very effective: the level of technology did not allow us to get the equipment that the Pentagon dreamed of. Inexpressive flight characteristics, small payload, the need for remote control - as a result, a peppy start was replaced by a long period of recession and reassessment of existing approaches.

Therefore, it is not surprising that with all the love for drones aviation industry In 2014, the United States mastered only one prototype of the MQ-4C Triton maritime reconnaissance UAV (based on the Global Hawk). The concept demonstrator X-47B still flies from aircraft carriers. The machine shows considerable potential, but any serious conversation will turn out only with the advent of twice the larger X-47C with a combat load of 4.5 tons (not earlier than 2018). As for all kinds of Reapers and Predators, mentioning them in this context makes no more sense than mentioning combat training Yak-130s.

Special purpose aviation

Few, but critical machines to ensure the efficient operation of the Air Force and Navy. Basic anti-submarine aviation, airborne and electronic reconnaissance aircraft, air command posts, some completely unique vehicles for special operations commands ...

What has been done in this field on both sides of the ocean?

Russia - one Tu-214ON observation aircraft, to carry out flights under the Open Skies program. The scout is equipped with a full range of equipment to carry out important missions: modern digital equipment for aerial photography, synthetic aperture side-scan radar, as well as systems for observation in the IR range.

Boeing, in turn, can be proud of the five Poseidons handed over to the Navy aviation in the past year. Multi-purpose aviation complex for searching for submarines and illuminating the situation on sea lanes. The P-8 Poseidon was built on the basis of the 737-800 model passenger airliner, the equipment of the aircraft includes a high-resolution search radar, sensors for anomalies in the Earth's magnetic field caused by the submarine hull, as well as a set of dropable radio-acoustic buoys (RSL), a radio engineering system reconnaissance and torpedo armament for the destruction of discovered submarines.

Domestic aircraft manufacturers are also making efforts in this direction. We do not have such progressive developments as the Poseidon, but there are programs for the modernization of existing anti-submarine aircraft. In the summer of 2014, the first modernized Il-38N with the Novella digital search and sighting system was handed over to the Russian Navy aviation. Of course, the Il-38 aircraft is no longer young - it is about 40 years old (Il-38 is a development based on the Il-18), but the "stuffing" of such aircraft is much more important than their airframe and performance characteristics. In this vein, the Novella modernization program is certainly an important page in the history of Russian naval aviation.

Of the other innovations in the aircraft industry, in early December 2014, two MC-130J Commando II aircraft were adopted by the US Air Force Special Operations Forces. Another improvisation based on the S-130 "Hercules" turboprop transporter, designed to perform special tasks: landing and evacuation of special forces (including non-stop - using the "Air Hook" system), search and rescue operations and delivery of special. cargo in the war zone. The Commando is distinguished from ordinary transporters not only by its gloomy coloring and increased power engines, but also by such purely military attributes as armoring of important components and cockpits, an in-flight refueling system, optoelectronic search systems operating in the visible and IR ranges, as well as means Electronic warfare and chaff firing systems.

Conclusion

Nothing special happened. Aircraft builders do their job, methodically fulfilling the terms of the concluded contracts. At the same time, the situation is alarming: the Yankees are building as many aircraft as they want. We are as much as we can. Despite all the hype around the great State Defense Order, domestic aircraft are still produced in piece quantities, with no chance of reaching the pace of building 50-100 combat aircraft of one model per year.

In turn, this casts doubt on the possibility of re-equipping the domestic Air Force in an adequate time frame. What will the pilots of the first squadron of combatant PAK FA face in the air (with all the declared avionics, a canopy of the cockpit and engines of the "second stage"). Some unmanned "Superraptor" or X-47C? This is worth thinking about now.

I was provoked to create this article by regular disputes and measurements of various "bodies" in topics about our aviation. In general, the audience of these discussions can be divided into those who believe that we are hopelessly behind, and those who, on the contrary, are subject to unprecedented enthusiasm and firmly believe that everything is wonderful. The argument basically boils down to the fact that "nothing flies here, but everything is cool with them." And vice versa. I decided to single out a few theses around which frequent disputes flare up and give them my assessment.

For those who value their time, I give conclusions at the very beginning:

1) The US Air Force and the Russian Air Force, both in quantitative and qualitative terms, are approximately equal, with a slight advantage for the United States;

2) The trend for the next 5-7 years is to achieve almost complete parity;

3) PR, advertising and psychological warfare is a favorite and effective method of US warfare. An adversary who is psychologically defeated (by disbelief in the power of his weapons, hands, etc.) is already half defeated.

So, let's begin.

Air Force/Navy/Guard USA is the most powerful in the world.

Yes this is true. The US Air Force strength as of May 2013 was 934 fighters, 96 bombers, 138 strike aircraft, 329 transport aircraft, 216 tankers, 938 trainers and 921 other aircraft.

For comparison, the strength of the Russian Air Force as of May 2013 is 738 fighters, 163 bombers, 153 strike aircraft, 372 transport aircraft, 18 tankers, 200 trainers and 500 other aircraft. As you can see, there is no “monstrous” quantitative superiority.

However, there are nuances, the main of which - US aviation is aging, but it has no replacement.

I also want to highlight the following point. Our country 20 years ago was part of a "democracy" with Su-27 and MiG-29, which, thanks to a competent export policy, were able to survive and then increase their potential to Su-35S and MiG-35. The US entered the crisis F-22, out of production, and with unfinished F-35, as well as a massive fleet of good, but outdated F-15/16. I lead my rhetoric to the fact that at the moment the United States no relatively cheap backlog, which would allow them to maintain a quantitative (and in some ways qualitative) superiority over the Russian Federation without multi-billion investment in new developments.
At the same time, the aviation fleet of the Russian Federation over the next 5-7 years will be actively modernized. Including due to the creation of completely new aircraft. At the moment, until 2017, contracts have been concluded for the production / modernization of the MiG-31BM - 100 units; Su-27SM - 96 units; Su-27SM3 - 12 units; Su-35S - 95 units; Su-30SM - 60 units; Su-30M2 - 4 units; MiG-29SMT - 34 units; MiG-29K - 24 units; Su-34 - 124 units; MiG-35 - 24 units; PAK FA - 60 units; IL-476 - 100 units; An-124-100M - 42 units; A-50U - 20 units; Tu-95MSM - 20 units; Yak-130 - 65 units. By 2020, more than 750 new machines will be put into operation.

In fairness, I note that in 2001 the United States planned to purchase more than 2,400 F-35s by 2020. However, at the moment, all deadlines have been missed, and the commissioning of the aircraft has been postponed until mid-2015.

We only have a few 4++ aircraft and no 5th generation, while the US already has hundreds of them.

Yes, that's right, the US has 141 F-22A in service. We have 18 Su-35S. PAK FA - undergoing flight tests. But you need to consider:

a) Airplanes F-22s out of production due to 1) high cost ($280-300 versus $85-95 for the Su-35); 2) overlooked the issue of the tail unit (it fell apart during overloads); 3) glitches with the FCS (fire control system).

b) F-35, with all its PR, is very far from the 5th generation. Yes, and there are enough shortcomings: either the EDSU will fail, or the airframe will not work as it should, or the FCS will fail.

c) Until 2017, the troops will receive: Su-35S - 95 units, PAK FA - 60 units.

d) Comparison of individual aircraft outside the context of their combat use is not correct. fighting- this is a high-intensity and multimodal mutual destruction, where a lot depends on the specific topography, weather conditions, luck, training, coherence, morale, etc. Separate combat units do not solve anything. On paper, an ordinary ATGM will tear any modern tank, but in combat conditions everything is much more prosaic.

Their 5th generation is many times superior to our PAK FA and Su-35S.

This is a very bold statement.

a) If the F-22 and F-35 are so cool, why are they: 1) So carefully hidden? 2) Why are they not allowed to make EPR measurements? 3) Why are they not satisfied with demonstrative dogfights, or at least simple comparative maneuvering, as at air shows?

b) If we compare the performance characteristics of our and American machines, then we can find a lag in our aircraft only in terms of EPR (for the Su-35S) and detection range (20-30 km). 20-30 km in range is garbage in vegetable oil for the simple reason that the missiles that we have surpass the US AIM-54, AIM-152AAAM in range by 80-120 km. I'm talking about RVV BD, KS-172, R-37. So, if the F-35 or F-22 radars have the best range for inconspicuous targets, then how will they shoot down this target? And where is the guarantee that the "contact" will not fly "low"?

c) There is nothing universal in military affairs. An attempt to create a universal aircraft capable of performing the functions of an interceptor, bomber, fighter and attack aircraft leads to the fact that the universal becomes synonymous with the word mediocre. The war recognizes only the best models in their class, sharpened to solve specific problems. Therefore, if an attack aircraft, then - Su-25SM, if a front-line bomber, - Su-34, if an interceptor, - MiG-31BM, if a fighter - Su-35S.

d) “America spent $400 billion in R&D to create the F-35, and $70 billion for the F-22. Russia spent only $8 billion to create the T-50. Doesn’t anyone realize that if Russia would spend $400 billion on a research project, they would probably produce an aircraft capable of conquering the world in a second…” (c) War is not about who has the longest X. More importantly, who will have these X better in terms of price / quality.

The United States has a significant superiority in strategic air forces.

This is not true. The US Air Force has 96 strategic bombers: 44 B-52H, 36 B-1B and 16 B-2A. B-2 - exclusively subsonic - from nuclear weapons carries only free-falling bombs. B-52N - subsonic and old, like a mammoth. B-1B - at the moment it is not a carrier of nuclear weapons (START-3). Compared to the B-1, the Tu-160 has a 1.5 times greater takeoff weight, 1.3 times greater combat radius, 1.6 times greater speed and a greater load in the internal compartments. By 2025, we plan to commission a new strategic bomber (PAK DA), which will replace the Tu-95 and Tu-160. The United States has extended the life of its aircraft until 2035.

If we compare their ALCMs (cruise missiles) with ours, then everything turns out to be quite interesting. AGM-86 ALCM has a range of 1200-1400 km. Our Kh-55s are 3000-3500 km, and Kh-101s are 5000-5500 km. That is, the Tu-160 can shoot at the territory or AUG of the enemy without entering the affected area, and then calmly leave on supersonic sound (for comparison, the maximum operating time at full thrust with afterburner for the F / A-18 is 10 minutes , for the 160th - 45 minutes). It also raises deep doubts about their ability to overcome the normal (not Arab-Yugoslav) air defense system.

Summing up, I want to note once again that modern air warfare is not about individual battles in the air, but the work of detection, target designation and suppression systems. And it is not necessary to consider an aircraft (be it an F-22 or PAK FA) as a proud lone “wolf” in the sky. There are a lot of nuances around in the face of air defense, electronic warfare, ground-based RTR, weather conditions, flares, LTC and other joys that will not even allow the pilot to reach the target. Therefore, there is no need to add up sagas and sing hymns to single fantastic winged ships that will bring laurels of victories to the feet of those who created them, and destroy everyone who dares to "raise a hand" against their creators.

I was provoked to create this article by regular disputes and measurements of various "bodies" in topics about our aviation. In general, the audience of these discussions can be divided into those who believe that we are hopelessly behind, and those who, on the contrary, are subject to unprecedented enthusiasm and firmly believe that everything is wonderful. The argument basically boils down to the fact that "nothing flies here, but everything is cool with them." And vice versa. I decided to single out a few theses around which frequent disputes flare up and give them my assessment.

For those who value their time, I give conclusions at the very beginning:

1) The US Air Force and the Russian Air Force, both in quantitative and qualitative terms, are approximately equal, with a slight advantage for the United States;

2) The trend for the next 5-7 years is to achieve almost complete parity;

3) PR, advertising and psychological warfare is a favorite and effective method of US warfare. An adversary who is psychologically defeated (by disbelief in the power of his weapons, hands, etc.) is already half defeated.

So, let's begin.

Air Force/Navy/Guard USA is the most powerful in the world.

Yes this is true. The US Air Force strength as of May 2013 was 934 fighters, 96 bombers, 138 strike aircraft, 329 transport aircraft, 216 tankers, 938 trainers and 921 other aircraft.

For comparison, the strength of the Russian Air Force as of May 2013 is 738 fighters, 163 bombers, 153 strike aircraft, 372 transport aircraft, 18 tankers, 200 trainers and 500 other aircraft. As you can see, there is no “monstrous” quantitative superiority.

However, there are nuances, the main of which is that US aviation is aging, but it has no replacement.

I also want to highlight the following point. Our country 20 years ago was part of the “democracy” with the Su-27 and MiG-29, which, thanks to a competent export policy, were able to survive and then increase their potential to the Su-35S and MiG-35. The United States entered the crisis with the F-22 out of production, and with the unfinished F-35, as well as a massive fleet of good, but already outdated F-15/16. I lead my rhetoric to the fact that at the moment the United States does not have a relatively cheap backlog that would allow them to maintain a quantitative (and in some ways qualitative) superiority over the Russian Federation without multi-billion investments in new developments.

At the same time, the aviation fleet of the Russian Federation will be actively modernized over the next 5-7 years. Including due to the creation of completely new aircraft. At the moment, until 2017, contracts have been concluded for the production / modernization of the MiG-31BM - 100 units; Su-27SM - 96 units; Su-27SM3 - 12 units; Su-35S - 95 units; Su-30SM - 60 units; Su-30M2 - 4 units; MiG-29SMT - 34 units; MiG-29K - 24 units; Su-34 - 124 units; MiG-35 - 24 units; PAK FA - 60 units; IL-476 - 100 units; An-124-100M - 42 units; A-50U - 20 units; Tu-95MSM - 20 units; Yak-130 - 65 units. By 2020, more than 750 new machines will be put into operation.

In fairness, I note that in 2001 the United States planned to purchase more than 2,400 F-35s by 2020. However, at the moment, all deadlines have been missed, and the commissioning of the aircraft has been postponed until mid-2015.

We only have a few 4++ aircraft and no 5th generation, while the US already has hundreds of them.

Yes, that's right, the US has 141 F-22A in service. We have 18 Su-35S. PAK FA - undergoing flight tests. But you need to consider:

a) F-22 aircraft have been discontinued due to 1) high cost ($280-300 versus $85-95 for the Su-35); 2) overlooked the issue of the tail unit (it fell apart during overloads); 3) glitches with the FCS (fire control system).

b) F-35, with all its PR, is very far from the 5th generation. Yes, and there are enough shortcomings: either the EDSU will fail, or the airframe will not work as it should, or the FCS will fail.

c) Until 2017, the troops will receive: Su-35S - 95 units, PAK FA - 60 units.

d) Comparison of individual aircraft outside the context of their combat use is not correct. Combat operations are high-intensity and multi-modal mutual destruction, where much depends on the specific topography, weather conditions, luck, training, coherence, morale, etc. Separate combat units do not solve anything. On paper, an ordinary ATGM will tear any modern tank, but in combat conditions everything is much more prosaic.

Their 5th generation is many times superior to our PAK FA and Su-35S.

This is a very bold statement.

a) If the F-22 and F-35 are so cool, why are they: 1) So carefully hidden? 2) Why are they not allowed to make EPR measurements? 3) Why are they not satisfied with demonstrative dogfights, or at least simple comparative maneuvering, as at air shows?

b) If we compare the performance characteristics of our and American machines, then we can find a lag in our aircraft only in terms of EPR (for the Su-35S) and detection range (20-30 km). 20-30 km in range is garbage in vegetable oil for the simple reason that the missiles that we have surpass the US AIM-54, AIM-152AAAM in range by 80-120 km. I'm talking about RVV BD, KS-172, R-37. So, if the F-35 or F-22 radars have the best range for inconspicuous targets, then how will they shoot down this target? And where is the guarantee that the "contact" will not fly "low"?

c) There is nothing universal in military affairs. An attempt to create a universal aircraft capable of performing the functions of an interceptor, bomber, fighter and attack aircraft leads to the fact that the universal becomes synonymous with the word mediocre. The war recognizes only the best models in their class, sharpened to solve specific problems. Therefore, if an attack aircraft, then - Su-25SM, if a front-line bomber, - Su-34, if an interceptor, - MiG-31BM, if a fighter, - Su-35S.

d) “America spent $400 billion in R&D to create the F-35, and $70 billion for the F-22. Russia spent only $8 billion to create the T-50. Doesn’t anyone realize that if Russia would spend $400 billion on a research project, they would probably produce an aircraft capable of conquering the world in a second…” (c) War is not about who has the longest X. More importantly, who will have these X better in terms of price / quality.

The United States has a significant superiority in strategic air forces.

This is not true. The US Air Force has 96 strategic bombers: 44 B-52H, 36 B-1B and 16 B-2A. B-2 - exclusively subsonic - from nuclear weapons carries only free-falling bombs. B-52N - subsonic and old, like a mammoth. B-1B - at the moment it is not a carrier of nuclear weapons (START-3). Compared to the B-1, the Tu-160 has a 1.5 times greater takeoff weight, 1.3 times greater combat radius, 1.6 times greater speed and a greater load in the internal compartments. By 2025, we plan to commission a new strategic bomber (PAK DA), which will replace the Tu-95 and Tu-160. The United States has extended the life of its aircraft until 2035.

If we compare their ALCMs (cruise missiles) with ours, then everything turns out to be quite interesting. AGM-86 ALCM has a range of 1200-1400 km. Our Kh-55s are 3000-3500 km, and Kh-101s are 5000-5500 km. That is, the Tu-160 can shoot at the territory or AUG of the enemy without entering the affected area, and then calmly leave on supersonic sound (for comparison, the maximum operating time at full thrust with afterburner for the F / A-18 is 10 minutes , for the 160th - 45 minutes). It also raises deep doubts about their ability to overcome the normal (not Arab-Yugoslav) air defense system.

Summing up, I want to note once again that modern air warfare is not about individual battles in the air, but the work of detection, target designation and suppression systems. And consider the plane (whether F-22 or PAK FA ) as a proud lone "wolf" in the sky - no need. There are a lot of nuances around in the face of air defense, electronic warfare, ground-based RTR, weather conditions, flares, LTC and other joys that will not even allow the pilot to reach the target. Therefore, there is no need to add up sagas and sing hymns to single fantastic winged ships that will bring laurels of victories to the feet of those who created them, and destroy everyone who dares to "raise a hand" against their creators.