MiGs and Sushki will fly to Africa. "sushki" and "migi" defeated American aircraft in almost all training battles. Reasons for the defeat of Eritrean pilots

American Military Analytical Review The National Interests reports on the acquisition by the Pentagon of combat aircraft in the former Soviet republics and countries of the Eastern Bloc, which are in service with the Russian Aerospace Forces.

The purchase is carried out by private companies Pride Aircraft, Draken International, Tactical Air Support, Air USA. Preference is given to the MiG-21 aircraft (in fact, it has long been withdrawn from service), MiG-29 and Su-27. Ukraine is the leader among suppliers of military equipment.

Aircraft purchased on the “gray market” are transported to the United States, bought up by offices close to the Pentagon, undergo technical testing, and then used as mock enemy vehicles during combat exercises.

Moreover, the Pentagon turns a blind eye to the expensive maintenance of old Soviet aircraft, since American firms are forced to buy spare parts for them also in the markets. various shades gray and through the hands of numerous intermediaries.

NI experts come to the conclusion that the United States is so impressed and at the same time worried about the combat successes of the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria that the Americans want to assess the capabilities of Russian fighter aircraft in their own skin and are preparing for the upcoming air battles with our pilots.

The bell is indeed alarming, making one think about the increased chances for a military confrontation between Russia and the United States during the current aggravation of relations, from which humanity has become unaccustomed since the outbreak of the famous "Caribbean crisis".

On the other hand, nothing is new under the sun, and if you rewind time exactly 50 years ago, you can see that the United States has already resorted to similar tricks.

In 1968, the first air battles between the US Air Force and the North Vietnamese Air Force began to take place in the skies over Vietnam. And, contrary to the reports of American propaganda, the score in these battles was not at all in favor of the "hawks" from the USAF. For every Vietnamese MiG-17 or MiG-21 that was shot down, there were four Skyhawks or Phantoms piloted by Radiant Jedi.

The command of the American Naval Air Force was the first to realize it. In 1969, a training center for the training of carrier-based pilots was organized at the Miramar military base for air war over Vietnam in order to turn the tide with losses. Since the teachers of the Vietnamese pilots were Soviet air aces, it didn’t make sense to exchange small things - the American pilots studied the tactics of the Soviet Air Force in practice, and for greater plausibility, red stars began to be painted on the planes of the mock enemy.

It should be noted here that in peacetime it is not customary to clearly and unambiguously designate the enemy during military exercises. Commonly used conventions“blue”, “green”, “purple”, and on the targets for shooting they draw some kind of conditional fascist. But the Americans were so stung by air losses over Vietnam that they designated the enemy in plain text.

The experience of deck crews from the Miramar base was a success, and in 1970 losses American aviation over North Vietnam were noticeably reduced. As a result, the methodology was generalized and extended to all the US Air Force. In 1972, the 64th combat squadron of the Aggressor fighter aircraft was formed at the Nellis airbase, equipped with aircraft that outwardly resemble Soviet aircraft.

Usually these were F-5 Tiger training fighters, but then the Americans began to lease the Israeli Kfir (French Mirage III, dug into the drawings by Israeli intelligence and “creatively rethought” by the Israeli military industry), to which the Americans assigned their own designation F-21A, alluding to imitation of the MiG-21. And so that there were no discrepancies, the exercise program was called Red Flag. And, I must say, the name of the exercises did not change even after the collapse of the USSR.

It is important to note that not the whipping boys, but the best pilots of the US Air Force were enrolled in the Aggressor squadron, paying tribute to the skill and training of Soviet military fighter pilots.

However, between "then" and "now" there is significant differences. If earlier the Americans could not get modern Soviet fighters at their disposal, and were forced to pass off their own cars or their closest allies for them, then in post-Soviet times everything changed. And already the former Soviet republics, Ukraine and Moldova in the first place, began to provide services to the United States, selling their combat aircraft from Soviet stocks.

There is evidence that the Americans received the first MiG-29s for their "aggressors" from Moldova in 1999. Then Ukraine joined the process, which had significant stocks of Soviet MiG-29s and Su-27s.

The signal that Nenka has joined the sale of military aviation at anti-crisis prices was the recent news of the crash of a Su-27 fighter piloted by US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Eric Schultz near Nellis Air Base. Despite all the efforts of the Pentagon to classify the crash and hide the ends in the water, the information was leaked to the media.

The very fact of the crash of the Su-27 did not particularly surprise anyone. It is no secret that over the past quarter of a century, Ukraine has not been engaged in its Armed Forces and the modernization of the military equipment of the three Soviet military districts left to it. What the Ukrainian Air Force was like became known during the Crimean Spring, when, through the joint efforts of the “polite” and Crimean militias, the Ukrainian military were first isolated in their places of deployment, and then put outside the peninsula.

As soon as the “polite” took full control of the Belbek airfield, where the Ukrainian tactical aviation brigade was based, a heartbreaking sight appeared before their eyes. Of the entire fleet of aircraft, only a few units of the MiG-29 were in good condition, but even they were suitable only for the museum - the equipment and avionics of the fighters remained technologically in December 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed.

Thus, buying cheap Ukrainian flying junk and putting their pilots in it, the Americans obviously took a significant risk. At first, the “multi-vector” Kuchma and Yanukovych did not care about the modernization of aircraft, using the restored military-technical ties with Russia, and after March 2014, Ukraine itself severed these ties, remaining cut off from advanced technologies in many industries.

The way the emergency modernization of military junk in Ukrainian took place is well known: “technical cannibalism” was used to maintain the combat capability of more or less suitable equipment, and if there was nowhere to get parts and spare parts, materiel acquired at a flea market or somehow civilian analogues that are up to par in terms of performance characteristics are almost from Aliexpress.

The way the degraded Ukrainian craftsmen bring to mind complex and not very technical equipment was shown by the explosions of Molot mortars and the accidents of Soviet rocket engines for American missiles finished in Yuzhny. Needless to say, the tests of the “unique” Vilkha missiles, announced with great fanfare by Turchinov, were greeted with a shudder, since they posed a danger not only to those around them, but also to the testers themselves.

Some military experts suggested that the Su-27 that crashed near the Nellis air base was “modified” by the mangy hands of Turchinov’s “craftsmen” using handicraft materiel.

Apparently, the Americans themselves did not rely too much on the outdated aircraft provided to them by the Ukrainian “ally”, since the Aggressor squadron was replenished with the latest modification of the F-16C Block 25F, which should imitate modern Russian Su-35s up to tactical coloring.

In general, the practice of buying up aviation illiquid assets by the Pentagon was criticized even by American experts, who noted that over the past 30 years, Russian military aviation has made a huge leap forward. You can paint old Soviet aircraft and newer American aircraft resold by Ukrainian dealers as much as you like to look like Russian 4++ and fifth generation fighters, but it does not follow from this that the “aggressors” will be able to fully master the modern tactics of air combat Russian pilots.

Throughout the 1990s, the Americans so diligently hammered into the public consciousness that in the field of high technologies Russia lagged behind forever, that a collision with the facts that it has Armed Forces modern aviation, precision weapons and unique electronic warfare came as a real shock to them. And it can certainly be argued that the old soviet weapons will not be able to become an anti-shock drug for the Pentagon.

In the Soviet Union, there has always been competition between firms developing weapons systems. And she showed up in aviation competitions. Work on the creation of fourth-generation aircraft was no exception. Despite the fact that the development of the well-known Su-27 and MiG-29 was eventually divided into two programs - a heavy and a light fighter, the likelihood that only one type of aircraft would be adopted remained until the very beginning. series production. Do not forget that even after the launch of the series, the volume of the order, depending on the current views of the military, could change significantly. Well, with the advent of Gorbachev and the destruction of the USSR, economic and political factors. As a result, the Su-27 became the clear favorite, and the MiG-29 has practically disappeared into oblivion over the past two decades. But was the Su-27 really so superior to the MiG-29, and is it really possible to get by with only heavy fighters? This question is still relevant now, because, unlike the United States, Russia today is developing only a heavy machine, continuing to move along a path taken solely on a subjective basis.

Complex and expensive machines often have redundant data for the main range of combat missions, as a result of which their performance resembles hammering nails with a microscope. That is why at one time in the United States the concept of two fighters was adopted: heavy and light. And the distribution of the fighter fleet was built in such a way that 80% should be light aircraft, and 20% heavy. This ratio, of course, may fluctuate slightly: 90 to 10 or 30 to 70 percent, but in any case, the fleet of light fighters should be at least 70 percent. And this ratio in the USA and the USSR came after lengthy research and analysis combat use fighters in various conflicts and during exercises. An air fleet of two types of aircraft is the basis of the power of the air force of any large country. At the same time, it should be noted that only those states that claim a leading role, at least in their region, have a fleet of heavy vehicles. These are the USA, Russia, China, India, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Japan. The world fleet of heavy machines is about 1000 machines. At the same time, the fleet of light fighters is about 14,000 vehicles. Those. the share of heavy machines in the world is only 7%.

Of course, the construction of heavy fighters is justified, but it is fundamentally wrong to place the main stake on them. Hyzhen optimal balance. And it would be wrong to skew towards heavy fighters - this is a deep mistake both in economic terms and in terms of efficiency. But this is exactly what was done in our country in the 90s of the last century. With this filing, the MiG-29 became the official stepson in our country.

The creator of the Su-27 was Mikhail Petrovich Simonov, it was he who created the legendary aircraft from the first T-10, losing to the F-15. A designer from God, he was also an energetic and talented organizer. And unfortunately, his organizational activity was concentrated precisely on turning the concept of the ratio of heavy and light fighters upside down. The concept was then brought under the Su-27, and not a fighter under the concept Simonov was not at a loss in the 90s and continued to lobby his car, when R.A. Belyakov (general designer of OKB named after A. I. Mikoyan), apparently, was completely lost in the new economic and political realities. Thus, during the period of active lobbying of the Su-27, Rostislav Apollosovich did not oppose anything to this lobby. And this was the first mistake of the general. Naturally, the MiGs were pushed into the shadow of the "dry".

Honored Test Pilot of the USSR, chief pilot of the OKB im. Mikoyan Valery Evgenievich Menitsky recalled: “Somehow I came to Oleg Nikolaevich Soskovtsy, who was then First Deputy Prime Minister. The beginning of our conversation was interesting. He says: “What, in fact, is this MiG? I don’t know such an aircraft, there are Cy, but there are no MiGs. ” And smiles. It is clear that he said this in jest, but there was some truth in this joke, because both in the government and in the Ministry of Defense everyone was talking only about Cy planes. Needless to say, about two-thirds of the budget went to Sukhoi's firms.

Did a light fighter even have a right to exist in the era of widespread savings on defense? Could he solve problems and was he inferior to the Su-27 at times? Representatives of the Mikoyan Design Bureau had no doubt that the MiG-29 was the best in its class, moreover, they were sure that in many respects it even surpassed the heavy Su-27. It was very easy to solve the question of which aircraft has advantages - the MiG-29 or the Cy-27: in a mock air combat. In addition, such a battle would allow simulating the actions of its mixed fleet against a mock enemy. Develop tactics of action both against a single heavy fighter and against a "bundle" of F-15 - F-16. It was the Mikoyanites who initiated such a training battle. And many military and civil institutes TsNII-30, GNIKI, LII, TsAGI, NIAS supported this idea. The only opponent was Mikhail Petrovich Simonov. In his opinion, such air battles did not make sense, because supposedly even without them it was clear that the Cy-27 was much better than the MiG-29. In particular, the Sukhovites claimed that their aircraft had higher flight qualities. Indeed, at lower speeds (500-550 km/h), the Cy-27 had a slight advantage, but at speeds over 550 km/h - and this is the main real combat range - our aircraft looked much stronger. Another advantage of the Cy-27 was its powerful locator. But only an amateur can evaluate the locator only by its power. Power in itself does not mean very much in combat, since the detection range and the target capture range and its tracking depend not so much on the power of the locator, but on the size of the target, that is, its reflective surface. And the Cy-27, by the way, is 1.5 times larger than the MiG-29.

No one wanted to go against the opinion of Simonov, so it seemed that the idea of ​​these air battles was never to be realized. However, there was a person who was able to negotiate with Simonov, it was the head of the Center for Combat Use in Lipetsk, Sylambek Askanov. And the fights were held. More than a hundred battles showed that in 80 percent the advantage was on the side of the MiG-29. Moreover, the MiG won both close, and medium, and even long-range maneuverable battles, which were obviously considered the "horse" of the Cy-27. As the Mikoyanovites suggested, it was not the power of his locator that came to the fore, but the dimension of our "twenty-ninth". This result became deafening for many, and they preferred not to advertise it. From the scientific and methodological point of view, these experiments were carried out quite correctly, and there was no reason to doubt the reliability of their results.

However, Simonov could not arrange such a result. Mikhail Petrovich urgently flew to Lipetsk. Thanks to his activities, certain restrictions were imposed on the MiG-29. These restrictions did not allow him to enter the mode of permissible angles, which were deliberately reduced, justifying this by insufficient lateral controllability. Naturally, these restrictions were incorrect and far-fetched. All aircraft of that time did not have the required level of lateral control for such angles of attack. But be that as it may, these restrictions for the MiG-29 were accepted. New battles have already been fought with them. What kind of purity of the experiment could we talk about when the MiG pilots were placed in deliberately unequal conditions? Firstly, restrictions were imposed on only one aircraft, and secondly, to monitor the forbidden angle of attack, any excess of which was punished as a prerequisite for stalling, the pilot had to visually, "by eye", which is generally unacceptable in combat. In this situation, the Su-27 already had an advantage. Pilot of the Center A. Kharchevsky commented on the results of the battle: “Now the picture is a little better. Finally, the advantage of Cy-27 began to appear.

Next, an air battle was held between the MiG-29 and Su-27 twins. The chief pilot of OKB im. Mikoyan Valery Evgenievich Menitsky. Here is how he describes the battle: “For the first one and a half minutes of the battle, we moved along the trajectory, going to the place necessary for the attack with all possible ways. We quite quickly managed to create an advantage for ourselves to attack the target, we sat on the "tail" of the Cy-27 and spent the rest of the battle without getting off it. We must pay tribute to the Cy-27 pilot, he piloted well, but we still won the battle. True, Kharchevsky tried to convince me that the pilot was chosen unsuccessfully and that if he fought the battle himself, the result would be different. But the fact of the matter is that the result of the experiment should not depend on the qualifications of the pilot.

The second mistake of Rostislav Apollosovich Belyakov in those years was that he did not want to embody the next modification, the MiG-29MZ, in the metal. It was a vehicle of the MiG-29 size, but at the same time capable of performing missions with a range greater than the y Cy-27 with a range of about 4000 km, equipped with air refueling. In addition, she was a full-fledged multifunctional fighter capable of "working on the ground" in difficult weather conditions day and night. Belyakov feared that this apparatus would "cut off oxygen" to its main development, the MFI fighter. The MiG-29MZ was a modernization of the MiG-29M - a welded aluminum-lithium alloy structure was 10 percent larger in area than the MiG-29, plus a forward controllable horizontal tail was added. This multi-role fighter was designed to gain air superiority and to work on ground point targets.

Belyakov's third mistake is a human one, he did not know how to build relations with the leadership of the Air Force and the ministries of defense and the aviation industry. With his knowledge, he stood out noticeably among the general designers, but he lacked flexibility in dealing with people. He could, for example, openly, with a large crowd of people, make very unflattering critical remarks to the military, which, of course, they could not like, since these remarks did not add authority to the criticized.

All this affected the MiG-29 program. That is why, and only why, he did not gain fame equal to that of the Su-27. And that is why the MiG-29 development program on long years"stalled". But the results of the outgoing year give hope that the MiG-29 in its latest incarnation (MiG-35) will take its rightful place in the Russian Air Force and the air forces of our friendly countries. In addition, I would like to hope that the development of a single fifth-generation fighter has a reasonable basis, or there is a prospect of developing, like the Americans, also a light fighter.

Sources:
Menitsky V.E. My heavenly life.
Gordon E., Fomin A., Mikheev A. MiG-29.
Levin M. The same MiG.
Belosvet A., Polushkin Yu. MiG-29? No, MiG-33.

Scientific Supervisor of the State Research Institute aviation systems(GosNIIAS), responsible for system research military aviation, development of combat algorithms and analysis of the effectiveness of aviation systems, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Evgeny Fedosov spoke in an interview with RNS about the prospects for military aviation, the erroneous American concept of 5th generation aircraft and the future of Russian long-range aviation.

How is the role of military aviation changing in modern armed conflicts?

- Already in World War II, it became clear to everyone that without air supremacy, a ground operation could not achieve the expected effect. We can say that in that war, the doctrine of the Italian General Douai, born in the 30s, was partially confirmed, who said that in the future it would be the only type of armed forces and all military operations would be decided in the air. Because the enemy will be inflicted such unacceptable damage from the air that he will already be politically crushed and he will only have to surrender and accept the demands of the enemy.

Was the Italian general right?

- Yes, you know, it turns out, not really ... So I see, even Syria showed. We dominate the air there, but without ground forces and correct actions on the ground, not everything is decided very well there.

Let's get back to where we started: will the role of aviation in armed conflicts increase? Undoubtedly, the role of aviation is increasing. The structure of aviation is also changing. Previously, we had specialized: fighters, bombers, attack aircraft. The bombers were front-line, long-range. But recent wars, to a greater extent local conflicts, showed the advantages of multifunctional aircraft. Front-line aviation (in the American classification - tactical) has become multifunctional. The trend began to emerge from the 4+ generation, when both we and the Americans began to build multifunctional aircraft. And of course, 5th generation aircraft are built exclusively on the concept of multifunctionality.

- What tasks are being solved by military aviation today?

- The main operations are, of course, an attack from the air, strike operations against ground, surface and underwater targets, the struggle for air supremacy, that is, the fight against enemy fighters, reconnaissance. As a trend - strengthening the role aerial reconnaissance. The concept of "network-centric fighting”, where intelligence data is decisive. The importance of electronic warfare is also growing.

- Combat aviation is now experiencing a generational change. What are the trends here? Is our 5th generation aircraft inferior to the American F-22 and F-35?

— We are carefully analyzing this topic at GosNIIAS. We have prepared an information collection “5th generation fighters of the USA and China - combat aviation systems of mutual threats in the new US geostrategy in the Pacific theater of operations”. What are generations in combat aviation, what is the philosophy? Some understand it this way: they say, there is a certain life cycle the aircraft - let's say, 25 years of operation. And every 25 years you need to create something new, and this is a generational change. It is both so and not so. In fact, each new generation marks the emergence of fundamentally new combat qualities of the aircraft. The first generation of our jet aviation is the MiG-15, MiG-17. There was a departure from the propeller, which set an insurmountable high-speed aerodynamic limit. Aviation switched to a jet engine, providing a qualitative jump in speed.

Aircraft of the first generation fought in the Korean War. The Americans then had F-86s, and our MiGs were in no way inferior to them. There, by the way, our and American pilots fought each other for the first time. The second generation of aviation is associated with the development of supersonic speeds. On the MiG-19 we first went to supersonic, and then the MiG-21 was built as supersonic. Reached speeds of Mach 2. It changed the whole look of the aircraft. Delta-shaped wings appeared, swept, in a word, supersonic aerodynamics. This is a whole revolutionary event. Plus there was a change. At such speeds, you need to increase the range of the weapon. Therefore, controlled “air-to-air” appeared.

The first such missile appeared on the MiG-19. The MiG-21 was very good rocket, which was based on the American Sidewinder. The original was given to us by the Chinese after the armed conflict with the United States. A broken rocket was brought to our institute. We solved it like a charade. It turned out to be a very elegant solution. It was built on the basis of an unguided rocket, in my opinion, 82 mm. She had a large elongation, so she did not require artificial stabilization. She just stabilized in flight with her plumage. True, at the same time it turned on a roll. The thermal homing head was made in such a way that it was rotated by the oncoming air flow. And she simultaneously scanned the space due to this. The rocket had powder charge. It was also used as a power generator to power on-board systems. In short, there was a good integration of rocket design and control principles. It turned out to be a cheap rocket, quite good in terms of range. As a result, we reproduced the American missile, adapted it and put it into service. She played a very important role in the development of other types of missiles - for example, anti-tank, some guided anti-aircraft missiles. That is, this trophy was very useful for us. I don’t know what the fate of the author of the rocket is, but I would think that a monument should be erected to him during his lifetime for such a beautiful, revolutionary decision.

In principle, the USSR and the USA by this time had parity in the field of combat aviation. But then there was a crash. Nikita Khrushchev caused great harm to our front-line aviation when he said that everyone would decide on missiles, the war would be only nuclear missiles, and why spend money on tactical weapons at all. There was such a short period of time when we suspended development. But it turned out to be painful. Because at that time the Arab-Israeli wars began, and the Americans got the 3rd generation aircraft - the F-4 Phantom, which was born before the Vietnam War. And we had a MiG-21, a 2nd generation aircraft. Our MiG-21s, by the way, did not lose much to F-4s. They excelled in speed. But on the "phantoms" there was already a medium-range missile with a location homing head. The range has been increased. The locator worked against the background of the earth, that is, for aircraft that flew below. It was an advantage. Our homing heads could only work in contrast, against the sky.

At that time, work began on our 3rd generation aircraft, the MiG-23, which was superior to the Phantom in flight properties. By the way, the F-4 is a two-seat aircraft with a crew of a pilot and a weapons operator. And on the MiG-23 there was no weapon operator, there was only a pilot. But the main operations were automated. At that time, an American Sparrow rocket, also obtained somewhere in the form of a trophy, was brought to our institute. There were enthusiasts to copy. They began to insist that it was necessary to reproduce the rocket. And at that time we were building the Kh-23 rocket for the MiG-23. When we compared all the properties, we realized that we had overtaken the Americans. X-23 was more advanced. And the homing head, and all the parameters. We withstood the colossal onslaught of the Sparrow supporters. By the way, its Soviet analogue was built, but it never went into production.

- That is, in the third generation, the gap from the Americans was eliminated?

- Yes, on the MiG-23 we somehow equalized a little with the enemy fighter.

— What other new qualities have been achieved?

- This is a variable wing geometry, a locator and homing heads operating against the background of the ground, short-range missiles. To some extent, Sidewinder also laid the foundation for them. But we built the X-60 close air combat missile, which was significantly smaller than the Sidewinder. She was very agile. By the way, the Americans never made such a rocket. Then we built the K-73 rocket on its basis, which to this day has no foreign analogues. Therefore, we are guaranteed to win in close combat, including on 4th generation aircraft.

- The fourth generation is the MiG-29 and Su-27?

- Certainly. We sold these aircraft widely, including to India, China, and Vietnam. Indians, by the way, are very demanding and meticulous. To some extent they had American systems, at least F-16. The Americans tried to make friends with them so that India would buy their equipment. So the Indian Air Force conducted a whole series of comparative tests of our and American aircraft, including 27 training air combat with the participation of the Su-27 and MiG-29 and American fighters. In almost all close air battles, the Americans lost. They won only one fight, I don't know why. Probably the pilot gaped. We made a melee weapons control system. The helmet-mounted sight, optical station and radar were integrated into a single information system. So the pilot was guaranteed to "open" the enemy and had the opportunity to launch weapons. And at the same time, we still solved the issue of super-maneuverability. MiG-29s and Su-27s were super-maneuverable compared to American aircraft. And in close combat, super-maneuverability, of course, plays a decisive role. As a result, the Americans finally issued instructions to their pilots: not to engage in close combat with MiG-29 and Su-27 aircraft.

Then the Su-30 was created as a continuation of the Su-27 development line, and, finally, the Su-35, which implemented some features of the 5th generation aircraft, including radars with an active phased antenna array, synthetic aperture. That is, multichannel appeared. It is very important. Multi-channel for air targets and at the same time multi-channel for ground targets. At the same time, the locators receive super-resolution in the radar range. In this, by the way, the Americans on the F-18 were the pioneers. But then we figured out all these principles. This was also a revolutionary leap when slotted antenna arrays were used. At first we had the Zaslon radar on the MiG-31. There was a passive phased array antenna. There is a common transmitter and receivers in the antenna cells. Each signal was processed by a separate successor module. There are more than a thousand of them in the antenna. And the radiation is centralized. Such systems appeared on the Su-30 and Su-35. All the principles of signal processing, all the principles of controlling the combat mode for a phased array, both for active and for passive, are the same. They are easily reconfigured. Just in an active array and a transmitter in each module. This is microelectronics, and in high-frequency microelectronics we are a little behind. As soon as we eliminated this gap, the modules went no worse than the American ones. Therefore, our 4th generation aircraft were superior to their American counterparts in almost everything. In some battles, the American aircraft of the 5th generation F-22 Raptor was inferior to us. The same Indian Air Force achieved test battles of the F-22 and Su-35. And the Raptor was losing. Because the Americans have relied on invisibility. We relied on super-maneuverability. This is the difference, and we won.

— But stealth planes have their advantages?

- From my point of view, invisibility, stealth technologies are not just far-fetched, but overestimated quality. Because when two planes in a duel situation fly towards each other, then this very invisibility really plays a role. Whoever shows up later gains tactical advantage. He can take a more advantageous position, he can prepare an attack, etc. But such cases are very few in real combat operations. Because modern air battles, as a rule, are all group. Nobody flies alone anymore. Maybe within the group battle, these duel situations at close range. But there, maneuverability is already beginning to work for us. And they don't have it.

You get the stealth effect in a very narrow range. A little higher your plane - and its radar already sees the "pancake" of the enemy with a large reflective surface, a little lower - again the same "pancake". Only from the nose, in a narrow cone of plus or minus 30 degrees, is it possible to reduce invisibility, as they say, down to the reflective surface of the “tennis ball”. I think the “tennis ball” may not work, but the effective scattering area is less square meter really can be obtained. When we are now building our 5th generation aircraft, we, of course, also strive to solve this problem of invisibility, but while maintaining super-maneuverability.

By the way, there are also disputes about super-maneuverability. The Americans never took that path. They say: this is all for aerial acrobatics, for show, we practically don’t have close fights, so why chase after this quality? And this quality comes at a cost, because you need an engine with a deflectable thrust vector that works stably at high angles of attack. There are stall phenomena, an uneven air flow enters the nozzle, surge is possible. Therefore, it is so necessary to build engine automation in order to avoid these surges by adjusting the fuel supply depending on the angle of attack. We didn't pay that much for it. On the other hand, we win air battles against American 4th generation aircraft and laid down a high-quality 5th generation aircraft, where stealth is combined with super-maneuverability. We believe that in terms of flight properties we are superior to both the F-22 and F-35.

- The Americans probably expected that their 5th generation aircraft would be better than the Su-27 and MiG-29. Happened?

“I think they made a huge mistake. The F-22 Raptor was conceived as an aircraft that was superior in performance to the Su-27. Such a task has been set. There were no cost limits. And so from the very beginning, the Raptor was very expensive. Immediately "flew" for $100 million. Our planes cost about $30-40 million. But this did not bother them. But they seem to have leveled off in relation to the Su-27. But the program turned out to be too expensive even for the United States. At first it was planned to purchase a large batch, then it was reduced to only 180 aircraft. And almost all of them were placed in Alaska, to cover the raid space from the side Arctic Ocean. Actually, they do not carry other functions. In the full sense, he did not become multifunctional. The tactical and technical task also contains the conditions for working on ground targets, but the grouping that was created is designed only for the air-to-air mode. And only now, given the events in Syria, it suddenly became clear that they could not use the F-22 there. After all, you have to work on the ground. Then they sort of modified some kind of batch so that the planes could destroy targets on the ground. In general, the Raptor, from my point of view, did not achieve superiority over our aircraft. Su-35 outperforms it. In principle, they received nothing on this project.

And with the F-35, they generally made a strategic mistake. They decided to build a universal aircraft for the Air Force, and for the Navy's carrier-based aviation, and for the Marine Corps. To work from the deck, the aircraft must have a short takeoff, vertical landing. At the same time, it must be arranged as a basic structure. By the way, when the United States was building the 4th generation, they also set this task, but it did not work out. And so the F-18 line, the F-15 line, and the F-16 line appeared. That is three different planes. F-16s were built for NATO, for mass sale to their allies. F-15 - mostly for myself. F / A-18 is a carrier-based aircraft. And suddenly, on the 5th generation, they again decided to create a universal machine. They made the design. The plane came out single-engine, unlike our twin-engine ones. For deck takeoff and landing, increased power consumption, additional side nozzles for stabilization are needed. It turned out cuttlefish. The engine occupied almost the entire volume of the aircraft.

Although they set the task to reach the cost of the aircraft no higher than $30 million, but it immediately jumped somewhere to $100 million. That is, they almost equaled this indicator with the F-22. And then the continuous troubles of working out began. In my opinion, they have been working on this aircraft for 11 years, if not more. And there are still a lot of restrictions. The installation batch has been released. I think they even offer it for sale. But they are still working on this aircraft. The total costs exceeded a trillion dollars. A consortium was created for this aircraft, which included the main NATO countries, as well as Israel. But some countries began to refuse purchases.

- Do you call it a mistake that they tried to combine the qualities of many aircraft in one?

They tried to combine the incompatible. As a result, they lost the volume of weapons and fuel compartments. And due to this, they lost range and combat load. The car turned out to be worse than the 4th generation aircraft. Many deficiencies were also uncovered. Most likely, this program will be stopped.

- Did you manage to get away from these shortcomings on the T-50, take into account their experience?

“And we have never set our sights on such impossible tasks. We understood the potential limitations from the very beginning. We still had experience in creating vertical takeoff and landing aircraft - there was both the Yak-38 and the Yak-141. The last one did not go into the series, but was built. We understood that these are incompatible things - ground-based and deck-based aircraft. In addition, the "ship" is not so relevant for us, given the fact that we have one aircraft carrier with a group of 30 aircraft, and the United States has more than a dozen aircraft carriers, each of which has a hundred or even more aircraft.

Therefore, we simply did not go down this path. Of course, it is too early to fully talk about the qualities of the T-50. However, it is still in the testing phase. Nevertheless, it contains compatible qualities - invisibility and super-maneuverability. Plus a radar with an active phased antenna array. The aircraft is designed for group operations, meets the requirements of network-centric military operations. This is what distinguishes the T-50 from the 4th generation machines. But it has not yet been made, and it is difficult to say what it will be like finally. There are difficulties, as with any new car.

- Now you can often hear talk about the 6th generation of combat aviation. What will it be like?

As they say, if only I knew! There is no technical requirement. There is no clear concept. Some qualitative moments that speak of the possibility of building a new aircraft have not been accumulated. Everything that was understood was invested in the T-50. So far, nothing smarter has come up. But I think we'll come up with something. You can say in advance that it will be manned. And then someone has already proclaimed that the 6th generation will be unmanned. Now, however, more and more experts in the United States are already talking only about a greater degree of automation of a manned aircraft. It is not clear that some kind of super-revolutionary technical solution appeared in the same Americans. Some unformed sketches. There will be a pilot on a combat aircraft for a long time, because human intelligence has not yet been revealed.

- It turns out that you, scientists, are ahead of our military leaders in this matter, who say that the 6th generation is about to come?

— Yes, we like to fantasize.

- Now there is an accumulation and expectation of some revolutionary breakthrough technical solutions?

- Certainly. Something is being looked at. For example, now the role of composites has increased dramatically in our country. And the proportion of composites in construction is growing. So maybe the 6th generation will be purely composite. This is not out of the question. Because composite technology is improving. We can talk about electronic components. Radars are improving all the time. Now they are switching to gallium nitride in microwave emitters. The transmitters are getting more powerful. Now the radiation power of the module is within 5 watts, a maximum of 7 watts. And if you switch to nitrides, then there will be 20 watts. This is a more powerful radiation, which means that the radar parameters will improve, and the dimensions will decrease. Onboard computer technology is also being improved. Although we have a rather difficult situation with the electronic element base. We are lagging behind in microelectronics. And so far there is no light. Now the task has been set to ensure import substitution, to switch to everything domestic. Let's move on ... We just pay for it all in size.

We now use the ideology of the so-called integrated modular avionics. It is already being implemented, including partially on the T-50. Relatively speaking, there is a cabinet with modules - separate computers, each with its own operating system. We add two or three more modules - and we get new functions. The task is easily solved. No need to redo the entire computational part. Modularity opens up the possibility of expanding functions. And, probably, the number of functions will grow. And in new cars there will probably be more of them than in 5th generation aircraft.

In a word, some elements of the next generation of combat aviation are already visible. But to say what this original aircraft will be like is not yet possible. We would have to decide on the 5th generation. Moreover, our 4++ generation is no worse than the 5th.

— And what about the Chinese experiments with the 5th generation?

The Chinese are very dynamic in copying other people's ideas. They later began to deal with the 5th generation later than us, but they already fly this plane too. It is not very clear in what capacity, but it flies. They again copied the design that the MiG company did.

— Is this the 1.44 project?

- Yes. The engine was proposed by the designer Viktor Mikhailovich Chepkin from the Lyulka Design Bureau. Later, a modification of this engine was installed on the "Sukhovsky" aircraft of the 5th generation. True, while this is the engine of the so-called first stage. The engine of the second stage, capable of providing long-term supersonic flight, is not yet ready. We are still waiting for him. I don’t know who and when transferred the developments on our aircraft to the Chinese and whether they transferred it at all, but purely outwardly, the Chinese J-11 was made structurally according to the MiG scheme.

By the way, that project didn't work for us. After the collapse of the USSR, in the early 90s, all funding was suspended. And then, when the aviation industry was more or less restored under Putin, Sukhoi took revenge. Belyakov got off at the MiG Firm, but there was no such energetic designer in the firm. In the Sukhoi Design Bureau there was also the designer Simonov, who to some extent laid the foundation for the T-50 project. But Poghosyan played a big role, of course. So they seized the initiative. But this is a completely different plane. This is not what OKB MiG created. And the Chinese went that way. But they are something at the same time American projects take. They themselves original ideas no. They synthesize different Russian-American ideas and even succeed in something.

But they still have not mastered the engine. They just can't make a good engine for a fighter. Based on ours, buying ready-made. At the last air show in Zhuhai, our specialists were completely amazed by the abundance of systems aviation armament developed by the Chinese. They presented an impossible number of calibers of air-to-air, air-to-surface missiles. Everything that they peep somewhere, they do. It is not very clear why so many types? It would probably be possible to optimize the type, limit it to three or four calibers. And God knows how much they built.

But, in principle, they are catching up. They invest many times more than we invest. They are well aware that the main thing is technology. That is why they invest in them. And they try to take technological solutions everywhere, including from us, because we have friendly relations with them. Here they are buying Su-35 from us. But at the same time they also buy the entire technological backlog. They try to get the most out of technology.

- Another trendy topic is hypersound. How revolutionary is this?

- From my point of view, we have an unhealthy hype in this matter. They say that hypersound is some kind of quality that can be considered a milestone in the construction of aviation. What is hypersonic technology? Few people think. First, we have long mastered hypersonic speeds on ballistic missiles, mastered the materials, the dynamics of hypersonic flight. While working on guided ballistic missile gliders, we practically passed all the control in the upper layers of the atmosphere on hypersonic. There speeds are even greater than Mach 5-6. So to some extent we have the necessary minimum. But through ballistic missiles. And why, I think, look for another way?

We have mastered ballistic missiles. They are not that overpriced. I think that an aircraft, if built from the very beginning as a hypersonic aircraft, will be much more expensive than a ballistic missile. On the other hand, if you do not make many blocks, but one block, then it will be just a few tons in size. And it will be used as a hypersonic cruise missile, delivered to the upper atmosphere using liquid or powder rocket engines, by ballistic means.

The second way to master hypersonic speeds is to build a supersonic ramjet engine, in which the combustion inside the chamber is supersonic. As for the prospects for creating an aircraft with a supersonic ramjet engine, it must be remembered that today all "straight-through" combustion is subsonic. The physics of hypersonic combustion is still unclear. Some very thin experiments were done by TsIAM. And continues to do so. Somehow they even made such a racket with the designer Grushin. Have taken anti-aircraft missile and put a ramjet engine on the final stage. And she seemed to be working there for a few seconds. Until now, when they analyze these records, they will not understand whether there was a burning or not. The Americans have the same. There are no special successes. They made the same cruise missile with a ramjet engine. There were a lot of unsuccessful launches. In the end, they flew through something. I think even a few minutes. And they seem to say that the combustion was supersonic after all.

The design of a hypersonic aircraft is determined by this very "straight line". Such an aircraft has an elongated duck nose, a wedge-shaped air intake to compress the air flow as much as possible. All this is calculated on great heights. When talking about speeds of Mach 5-8, then all this is achievable at altitudes of 20 km or more. And below you won’t get any hypersound.

Will such an aircraft be invulnerable to air or missile defense? I don't think. We are doing PRO. And we are not working on the principle that there are several "serifs" of the ballistic trajectory of a missile; on their basis, we predict the further trajectory of a missile or warhead and destroy them somewhere on the descending branch. We and the Americans are building missile defense systems in such a way as to be able to act everywhere - both in the space zone and when entering the atmosphere, where maneuvers are just possible. And here no forecasting works anymore, continuous tracking is necessary in the lower layers, when it is already approaching the goal. In all modes, they find their own solutions. True, they are also still experimental, research, somewhere experienced.

To say that we or the Americans have created a 100% missile defense system is bold. Because the main thing vulnerable spot PRO is low performance. You see, when the enemy makes a difficult target, that is, in space, roughly speaking, inflates dozens of simulators of warheads from aluminum foil - and it costs nothing to do - it turns out to be a whole swarm. And somewhere there, inside this swarm, warheads that cannot be identified. When the swarm enters the atmosphere, all these "bubbles" of course deflate. But there are heavy target traps and warheads. No one has yet been able to select it. A volley of ballistic missiles was fired, each carrying a dozen warheads and a dozen more decoys. There is a swarm of targets, and the enemy's missile defense systems get the effect of information degradation. You start processing information about targets, time is running out, the speeds are fantastic when entering the atmosphere ... So far, neither the Americans nor we have defeated this information degradation.

And when the Americans talk about the aim of their missile defense system at destroying single missiles, for example, the DPRK or Iran, I believe them, because I understand that they are not capable of more. They do not expect such difficult targets from Iran, they understand that these will be some kind of single launches. Moreover, the economy of Iran or the DPRK does not allow to build big park ballistic missiles. It is very difficult to build missile defense against Russia. But they certainly work against Russia.

The summary is this: I believe that hypersound for military purposes as a mode has been mastered at the expense of ballistic missile gliders. The planning block carries charges and can work on ground targets. And it also has a homing mode. At lower altitudes, it also goes from hypersonic to subsonic or supersonic. There will be no hypersound at low altitude. Therefore, to say that some kind of qualitatively new weapon is emerging, which confuses the missile defense system and in general becomes the main type of weapon, is rather an exaggeration. Maybe I'm wrong, but I intuitively do not believe in the emergence of a hypersonic weapons paradigm. We are dealing with the usual increase in the speed of missile weapons.

- Maybe the emergence of hypersonic aircraft is the prospect of the XXII century?

- What for? In the civilian segment, it can be clearly said that it is not needed. There is no need for such super-mobility. In military affairs, speed has always helped. But this means that you need to fly somewhere at an altitude of 20-30 km with a hypersonic ramjet engine, and then you will still go down with a decrease in speed.

- There is such an idea: the plane takes off on a conventional engine, rises, switches to hypersonic flight mode due to special engines, and lands again on a conventional engine.

- So what? We can also fly at hypersonic speeds at altitudes of 20-30 km. But without any engine. And due to the accumulated energy - due to a ballistic missile.

- So all this is still in the realm of science fiction?

- This is a very complex physics of supersonic combustion. Imagine, this is the supersonic movement of the air mass inside the combustion chamber. There may be local all sorts of jumps and stuff. And such turbulence can arise! And how there, in this turbulence, combustion occurs, how efficient it is is a big question. But they work.

— Combat aviation can no longer be imagined without attack drones. Are we lagging behind in this area?

- The question arises: why do we need attack drones, if there are cruise missiles? These are the same drones, only disposable. Does it need to be reusable? After all, returning the drone back is a difficult task. Because again it is necessary to ensure landing, etc. Is this justified? Not so expensive, this cruise missile. It is most often expensive because of the warhead, if it is nuclear. But now there are non-nuclear ones. Our long-range aviation is now armed with cruise missiles long range- 2-3 thousand km. Few foreign strike drone gives such a range. So I would not talk about some kind of catastrophic lag in our field of unmanned strike systems.

“But a drone can loiter for a long time, and then strike at the right moment. A rocket can't do that, can it?

- You can make such a rocket. Another issue is that there was simply no need. When you are building a missile to hit already known targets, why come up with some kind of barrage there? Long-range aviation, which has these missiles, works mainly on stationary, previously reconnoitered targets. Or if some kind of naval target is quickly detected, then the program can be rebuilt. This is not a revolutionary issue. At least now, when modernizing the Tu-160, new ones have such modes aviation facilities defeats - a function of the operational detection of some targets and retargeting.

- And yet we have a backlog in drones?

- First of all, this is a lag in intelligence. And it is significant. For example, in Syria, you can hang a drone over a target that is being attacked by long-range aircraft from somewhere in the Mediterranean or Caspian Sea - and check the results of the strike. It's a reconnaissance operation. The devices themselves are cheap. This is an aircraft model. We have 3rd year students who can do it. But they can conduct reconnaissance at the tactical level. That is, to serve the ground forces up to the battalion and company. You can give battalion and company commanders such devices, and they will be able to reconnoiter the situation within their zone of responsibility. We purchased similar devices in Israel and mastered licensed production.

There are also tasks of suppressing air defense, which are within the power of drones. They can raid a swarm of drones and confuse air defenses. They can carry traps, put interference, passive and active. This is also the quantity that turns into quality. That is, they can create a very difficult environment for air defense. And to give the opportunity for attack aircraft to break through behind the cloud of drones. True, a new question arises: how to manage this swarm? How to make it a managed system? They will begin to collide there, it is necessary to observe some kind of flight density, etc.

- In long-range aviation, is a generation change a distant prospect?

Why is it distant? We even defended an advance project for a promising long-range aviation complex - PAK DA. Our culture of long-range aircraft has always been high. The classic long-range aircraft is the Tu-22M3, which does not belong to strategic aviation. This is a long-range bomber-missile carrier. It is used where massive bombing is needed. The aircraft can cause serious damage to the enemy. It can work in parallel with front-line aviation. For example, in Syria, Su-34 front-line bombers and long-range Tu-22M3 bombers are now working together. But at the same time, the Tu-22M carries about 20 tons of bombs, which is much more than the ammunition of the Su-34.

I personally observed the actions of the Tu-22M when it pours out the entire set of aerial bombs, usually 500-kilogram ammunition. God forbid the spectacle. Because everything is being destroyed, a large area defeat. One raid of such an aircraft can solve the problem of destroying an enemy airfield. He may not have much accuracy, because the bombs are ordinary, unguided. But when he covers a large area with such carpet bombing, he will, of course, disable the airfield. For objects where area damage is required, they are effective and necessary.

Today, a concept has emerged: not to introduce long-range aircraft into the enemy's air defense zone. It must work outside this zone, and the weapon enters the zone. If such an aircraft carries a lot of weapons, then the principle of information degradation in the enemy’s air defense begins to work again. Not entering the enemy's air defense zone, but launching a missile there, we dictate the direction of the strike, moment and density. And if we reconnoiter the enemy's air defenses well, then we will always find a bottleneck and throw a grouping down this throat. If we are talking about a strategic nuclear strike, then at least one missile will always pass. And that will be enough.

- Will the PAK DA project be postponed due to the resumption of production of the Tu-160?

- I believe that the Tu-160 aircraft is a masterpiece that remains unsurpassed to this day. It contains interesting ideas. For example, a rotary wing. The hinge where the wing rotates is made of titanium. Vacuum welding was needed, and vacuum chambers were built at the Kazan plant. There is a very high vacuum - 10 to the minus sixth power. There was a whole problem to make such a camera. The aircraft has large weapon bays. It was created when there were no cruise missiles yet. And when the first X-55 cruise missiles were built, they were first hung on the Tu-95, there are also compartments there, but small ones, and there was an external suspension. And for the Tu-160, the Kh-55 missiles were small. They occupied only half of the compartment. Half the compartment was empty. Now they are laying in the project of the modernized Tu-160M ​​the so-called long-range Kh-BD missile. Its range is classified. It is known that its predecessor, the Kh-101 missile with a conventional charge, has a range of 3,000 km. At new rocket the range will be much longer.

It was decided to upgrade the Tu-160 into the so-called Tu-160M2 variant. It will be built at the Kazan Aviation Plant. At the same time, we are modernizing the fleet of Tu-95MS and Tu-22M3. The Tu-160 and Tu-22M have unified solutions in terms of weapons. According to half-life modeling, we have all the stands ready. We are waiting for the hardware. We work on layouts, on experimental samples. Therefore, this modernization will pass, and we will create some necessary grouping.

Now what to do with PAK YES? According to him, the ideology is very blurred. The military were not too lazy and wrote everything they think. This includes a strategic bomber, an operational-tactical missile-carrying bomber, even a long-range interceptor and a possible platform for launching spacecraft, etc. In addition, there are economic issues. Tu-160 is very expensive. The military decided to make the new aircraft cheaper, but larger in number. It should replace three aircraft at once: the Tu-22M3, Tu-95MS and Tu-160 lines. The decision was made as follows: the preliminary design was credited, they came to the conclusion that it was necessary to build.

- Is the task feasible?

“I don’t think there is anything fantastic there. It can be done. The question is when. In addition, the state has no money, and this program is expensive.

Last Friday, Vladimir Putin spent in Algiers. It was the first visit of the head Russian state to the North African Republic. However, it is remarkable not only for this circumstance. The main thing is that Algeria's debt to Russia will be written off after the conclusion and execution (this is the key word - this is what Russian experts focus on) by the Algerian side of contracts for the purchase of Russian industrial products and military equipment.

The visit was being prepared in a difficult situation, and until the very last day it was not clear whether it would take place at all. The reason is that preliminary negotiations on the forms and methods of settlement by the Algerian side before Russia were difficult. "We are now not in such a financial state as to just 'forget' about $4.7 billion," one of the high-ranking officials told Izvestiya on the eve of the visit, assessing total amount Algerian public debt.

Already during the visit, the conversation between Vladimir Putin and Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika at the Muradiya Palace lasted 3 hours and 15 minutes instead of the scheduled hour. Then - multilateral negotiations. As a result, 4 documents were signed, the main of which is an agreement on trade, economic and financial relations and on the settlement of Algeria's debt to Russia on previously granted loans. According to the document, Algeria will purchase industrial products from Russia for an amount equal to or greater than the amount of debt written off (that is, at least $ 4.7 billion).

"This public debt former USSR, like many others formed as a result of political decisions Soviet leadership, was considered irrevocable, and the current agreement in Algeria on the terms of debt settlement can be considered a breakthrough," one of the experts commented on the situation to news agencies.

Military-technical cooperation between the two countries can be considered key. "Over the past 2-3 months, we have signed contracts worth 7.5 billion dollars for the supply of almost all types of weapons," Sergey Chemezov, general director of the Rosoboronexport company, said on the sidelines of the Muradiya palace. new technology, and only a small proportion of contracts - for the modernization and repair of old equipment. "

"Now we have a leading position in the Algerian market and we supply products only for real money," the general director of Rosoboronexport emphasized.

According to various sources, contracts for the supply of 40 MiG-29SMT fighters, 28 Su-30MK fighters, 16 Yak-130 combat training aircraft, eight divisions of S-300 PMU anti-aircraft missile systems and about 40 T-90 tanks have almost been initialed. Experts say that military contracts are unprecedented for the new Russia - there have been no such arms deliveries since Soviet times.

In addition to the economic and military-technical aspects, there is also a political aspect. Russia is increasingly becoming a serious player in Arab world. This role needs to be confirmed and consolidated by practical steps.

• Discuss in the conference
• Code for your blog

The Russian Air Force has wonderful machines for gaining air supremacy: the light MiG-29, the ageless MiG-31, the all-conquering Su-27 with many modifications and the aircraft of the future T-50. We will talk about the features of each.

MiG-31

Of the fighters currently in service with the Russian Air Force, the MiG-31 interceptor has the longest experience. It was created in the 70s of the last century on the basis of the MiG-25 fighter built in the 60s. The design of the aircraft is straight from developed socialism: chopped edges, huge air intakes and nozzles the size of an elevator cabin.

However, don't judge by appearances. As an elderly boxing champion can easily throw a pack of young and daring, so MiG is still ahead of the rest in many respects. All NATO pilots know these planes, and if a Foxhound (that's the name of the plane in the alliance) rises to intercept, they don't joke with it.

Hidden under the sharp nose is a phased antenna array of the Zaslon system - because of its outstanding abilities, the MiG-31 was nicknamed the "flying radar". The modern modification of the interceptor is capable of detecting 24 targets at a distance of up to 320 kilometers and simultaneously firing at 8 of them. The interceptor automatically exchanges information about targets with the Russian A-50 early warning aircraft. Four MiG-31s ​​are capable of controlling an 800-kilometer front.

The design of the main landing gear is interesting: their front wheels are shifted to the center of the aircraft in order to reduce pressure on the ground when working from polar airfields.

MiG-29

Light single-seat MiG-29 fighters can be seen at the performances of aerobatic teams - for example, Swifts fly on them. Modern streamlined shapes, engines hidden under the airframe, an abundance of weapon suspension points under the wings: the aircraft was conceived to cover ground operations and had to carry a large arsenal.

Now fighter regiments are switching to the modification of the MiG-29SMT. It differs from the original version in modern electronics, an aerial refueling boom and an additional fuel tank behind the cockpit - because of this hump, the fighter has become like a well-fed crucian.

Due to the larger fuel reserve, the MiG-29SMT was able to make long flights. The pilots called its predecessor "a short-range drive aircraft" - in the sense, to fly around the airfield.

Like a tyrannosaurus in the Mesozoic, the Sukhoi plane is the absolute master in the sky. It was created simultaneously with the MiG-29 as a heavy air superiority fighter. Powerful target detection and tracking system, good protection from enemy missiles, 10 suspension points of their own weapons allow the aircraft to conduct a single deep search for the enemy.

Externally, the Su-27 is different from the MiG large sizes, protruding forward wingtips and a developed tail boom, which houses the braking parachutes. In addition, many versions of the fighter have front horizontal tail surfaces to improve stability in flight.

The deck modification (Su-33) has folding wings and a brake hook. Created on the basis of a training "spark" Su-30 - a two-seat fighter for guidance and target designation - became the world's first aircraft with super-maneuverability. The nozzles of its engines can deviate 16 degrees in any direction and 20 in the plane.

The outstanding flight characteristics of the Su-27 are regularly demonstrated in demonstration flights. In particular, the fighter for the first time performed the figure aerobatics"Cobra". She received the name in honor of the Honored Test Pilot of the USSR Viktor Pugachev, who demonstrated the Cobra at the Le Bourget air show in 1989. However, the author of the figure is Hero Soviet Union Igor Volk, who involuntarily performed it in Zhukovsky while practicing the removal of the Su-27 from a spin.

The most recognizable of modern Russian fighters- T-50 (PAK FA). True, while it can be seen infrequently, but from 2015 the aircraft will begin to be mass-produced and enter the troops.

The wide and flat fuselage of the "aircraft of the future" resembles a racing car. The engines are even more spaced apart, the small vertical keels are 26 degrees apart, and there are two rows of weapons compartments in the wide bottom. The T-50 can also carry weapons on an external sling, but at the expense of invisibility.

For the sake of invisibility, a refueling rod and a cannon are hidden in the body of the PAK FA. Even nozzles - swivel, like those of the Su-30 - when passing through the air defense zone from round ones, they will become flat to hide from radars and infrared sensors massive hot turbines.