"Migi" and "Sushki" will fly to Africa. Rudyard Kipling wrote: “The day will be tragic for the world when the British Empire ceases to expand.”

Competition always stimulates technological progress. In the Soviet Union, despite the planned economy and the state monopoly on the means of production, competition also took place, although not in all sectors. The design bureaus that developed defense systems fought mercilessly for primacy and the right to be called the best. Examples of such competition are the best interceptors that entered service Soviet Army approximately at the same time, in the 80s, namely the MiG-29 and Su-27. Photos of airplanes lead citizens uninitiated in the intricacies of aircraft construction to think about their similarity. In fact they represent different classes fighters. The Su-27 is a heavy interceptor, and the MiG-29 is a light one. And in some sense, each of them is the best.

A Tale of Two Fighter Classes

Already in the fifties, a division of interceptors into two categories arose. In case of war, one of them had to fight in maneuverable air battles, called by pilots “dog fights” or “carousels”. In this situation, small fighters with low mass and a large wing area could count on success. The second class of interceptors was intended to destroy enemy strategic bombers and missiles. This required high speed, maximum ceiling, powerful long-range weapons and an effective on-board radar. Heavy interceptors captured the target and struck it at long distances. They were created and adopted into service in countries with nuclear weapons and aspiring to regional or global leadership.

Which is better - light or heavy?

But all this did not mean that these two classes of fighters would not have to meet in the skies. Quite the opposite. For example, two very dissimilar opponents, the light and maneuverable MiG-21 and the heavy F-4 Phantom, met in the skies of Vietnam, and the pilots of each of them sought to realize the design advantages of their aircraft, depending on the situation.

The ratio of heavy and light fighters in the arsenal of the air forces of leading countries is usually 3 to 7. It happens that it is 2 to 8, and even 1 to 9. But more expensive and technologically complex machines, that is, heavy interceptors, constitute a quantitative minority of the military aviation fleet. There is a completely logical explanation for this. First, most combat missions do not require excessive technical superiority. Secondly, it is easier to find a foreign buyer for a cheap and efficient aircraft than for an expensive and complex one. Not all countries in the world are concerned about containment nuclear threat, and the military air fleet they need it, sometimes even simply for status reasons, like Switzerland, for example. And not all countries have a defense budget that allows them to purchase expensive “toys” that also require special pilot training and expensive maintenance.

Considering that not all states need a heavy interceptor, and knowing the general statistics, we can conclude that out of every hundred interceptors currently flying in the earth’s atmosphere, ninety-three are light.

Even a quick comparison of the MiG-29 and Su-27 leads to the conclusion that the Mikoyan fighter has a higher export potential than the Sukhoi.

Our eternal struggle between good and even better

At the end of the 70s, two Soviet aviation design bureaus fought to ensure that their fighters received a defense order. Each of them had their advantages and, of course, disadvantages. The Su-27 was favored by its better flight characteristics, powerful on-board radar and large payload. The MiG-29 was distinguished by its lower cost, unpretentiousness, ability to take off and land at poorly prepared airfields, while also having very good performance characteristics. It would be logical to launch both aircraft into production, giving the quantitative advantage to the Mikoyans, but the Soviet Ministry of Defense decided to build more Sukhoi. Comparison of MiG-29 and Su-27 was made according to formal characteristics, without taking into account practical experience in using machines of various classes. General designer Mikhail Petrovich Simonov managed to convince the leadership of the USSR Ministry of Defense of the unconditional superiority of his aircraft.

Then a general restructuring happened, and there was less money in the state treasury, which forced the government to significantly cut defense spending. The MiG faded into the background; in the 90s, the program received half as much funding as the Su. The Mikoyanites had to do something to save their brainchild from complete oblivion.

Battle over Lipetsk

The leadership of the Mig design bureau, represented by General Designer R. A. Belyakov, insisted on a demonstration training battle. M.P. Simonov objected, arguing that everything was clear, “Sukhoi” was better, and that’s all. But the Mikoyanites were supported by S. Askanov, who led combat use aviation, and battles took place. To Simonov’s chagrin, a comparison of the MiG-29 and Su-27 showed in practice a clear underestimation of the competing vehicle. In eight out of ten fights, the 29th won, and at all distances. The powerful Sukhoi radar did not provide any advantages due to the smaller geometric dimensions of the MiG. Simonov managed to convince the management to introduce unilateral restrictive conditions for the opponent, reducing the permissible angle of attack for him. The results for the Su-27 were the best, but it was not always possible to escape persistent and successful attempts to catch its tail. The comparison of the Su-27 and MiG-29 was declared not entirely correct due to the better flight training of the former pilot. So this experiment did not lead to any fundamental decisions.

War in Africa

As expected, the MiG-29 found foreign buyers. He ended up in the ranks of the Air Forces of Iraq, India, Ethiopia, Yugoslavia and many other countries that had a chance to try him out in action. in the world was changing rapidly, and sometimes the same type of aircraft ended up in service with opposing sides. After the separation of Eritrea from Ethiopia, a conflict arose between the two countries on territorial grounds. Then, in 1999, the Su-27 had to fight against the MiG-29. It is known about three air battles that took place on February 21, 25 and 26 and ended in victory for Ethiopian pilots who shot down three Eritrean MiGs (one was not counted, but, having received damage, did not return to base, according to intelligence data).

Reasons for the defeat of Eritrean pilots

One could conclude that the Su-27 is completely superior if not for two significant circumstances. In two cases, the wingmen of the Eritrean pairs turned around after missile launches by Ethiopian planes and chose to flee. And in all three episodes, the winners were separated from death by a matter of seconds. The Ethiopians, trained in Soviet flight schools and better qualified, were able to realize the design advantages of their interceptors to a greater extent than the Eritrean pilots. In addition, they turned out to be more courageous. It is difficult to judge how objective the practical combat comparison of the MiG-29 and Su-27 turned out to be. The characteristics of aircraft do not always directly affect the result; there are often cases in history when a well-armed enemy is defeated by a brave enemy.

Germans

German Air Force pilots had the opportunity to verify high quality Soviet aircraft not only during the Great Patriotic War, but also after 1989. They are accustomed to piloting very good vehicles in service with NATO countries (F/A-18A, F-16A, Tornado, etc.), with characteristics corresponding to the level of the Su-27. After the unification of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic, the MiG-29 was adopted by the Luftwaffe. German pilots were completely delighted with its controllability, maneuverability, cabin ergonomics and other qualities that made the aircraft a pilot's favorite. They are still part of the Air Force of the Bundesrepublic. It is quite possible that other types of our interceptors would have been highly appreciated by NATO experts, but historical realities did not give them the opportunity to compare the MiG-29 and Su-27. Photos on the planes and fuselage personify the curious inconsistency of modernity.

Objective parameters

Large-scale clashes between armies armed exclusively with Soviet and Russian technology, hasn't happened yet, and that's good. Consequently, there are no objective statistics to judge the superiority of a particular aircraft model. Nothing, a comparison of the Su-27 and MiG-29 can be made using the available flight characteristics of the two interceptors. The main parameters of the two aircraft are shown in the table.

INDICATOR	MiG-29	Su-27
Speed, km/h	2450	2500
Rate of climb, m/sec	330	300
Radius of combat use, km	2100	3900
Thrust, kG	2x5100	2x12500
Ceiling, m	17000	18500
Curb weight of the aircraft, kg	15240	23000
3000	8000
Length, m	17,32	21,9
Wingspan, m	11,36	14,7
Height, m	4,73	5,93
Wing area, sq. m	38	62

In terms of mass speed, combat radius and ceiling, the Su-27 has the advantage. Comparing the MiG-29 with this aircraft in terms of climb rate reveals the superiority of the lighter interceptor in close maneuver combat. Both samples are built using a twin-engine design, which indicates their high survivability and reliability.

Cabins

There's another one important point, which should be used to compare the MiG-29 and Su-27. A photo of the cockpits reveals almost their complete identity. Despite the fierce competition between design bureaus, development engineers were able to find common language in the interests of domestic combat aviation. Pilot training can be carried out more successfully, and retraining will be reduced to mastering the characteristics of the behavior of the aircraft in critical modes. The similarity in the location of controls and controls has a positive effect on the export attractiveness of both types of aircraft.

Further development

Currently, comparing the MiG-29 and Su-27 no longer makes much sense. These aircraft are being replaced by their modifications, including deeply redesigned versions that have their own designations. The next step in improving the MiG-29 platform was the MiG-33 (or MiG-29M), featuring updated aerodynamics, a larger fuel tank and a HOTAS control system. An even more modern modification is the MiG-35.

The Sukhoi Design Bureau is also not standing still. Su-34 and Su-35 presented further development platform T-10, the ancestor of which was the Su-27. The results of these large-scale works will have to be compared.

American Military Analytical Review The National Interests reports on the Pentagon's acquisition of combat aircraft in the former Soviet republics and Eastern Bloc countries that 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 (in fact, long removed 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, purchased by companies close to the Pentagon, undergo technical testing, and then are used as mock enemy aircraft during combat exercises.

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

NI experts come to the conclusion that the United States was so impressed and at the same time concerned by the combat successes of the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria that the Americans want to evaluate the capabilities of Russian fighter aircraft first-hand and are preparing for upcoming air battles with our pilots.

This is indeed an alarming bell, forcing one to think about the increased chances of a military confrontation between Russia and the United States during the current worsening of relations, which humanity has become unaccustomed to since the end of the famous “Carribean crisis.”

On the other hand, there is nothing 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 events began to occur in the skies over Vietnam. air battles between the US Air Force and the North Vietnamese Air Force. And, contrary to American propaganda, the score in these battles was not at all in favor of the USAF hawks. For every Vietnamese MiG-17 or MiG-21 shot down, there were four Skyhawks or Phantoms piloted by the Radiant Jedi.

The command of the American Naval Air Force was the first to realize it. In 1969, at the Miramar military base, the training center training carrier-based aviation pilots for the air war over Vietnam in order to reverse the situation with losses. Since the teachers of the Vietnamese pilots were Soviet air aces, there was no point in wasting time on trifles - American pilots studied the tactics of the Soviet Air Force in practice, and for added credibility, they began to draw red stars on the planes of the imaginary enemy.

It should be noted here that in peacetime During military exercises, it is not customary to clearly and unambiguously identify the enemy. Usually the symbols “blue”, “green”, “purple” are used, and some conventional fascist is drawn on the shooting targets. But the Americans were so stung by air losses over Vietnam that they openly identified the enemy.

The experience of deck crews from the Miramar base was a success, and in 1970 the losses American aviation over North Vietnam decreased noticeably. As a result, the methodology was generalized and extended to the entire US Air Force. In 1972, the 64th Aggressor Fighter Squadron was formed at Nellis Air Force Base, equipped with aircraft that looked like Soviet aircraft.

Usually these were F-5 Tiger training fighters, but then the Americans began to lease the Israeli Kfir (the French Mirage III, which had been stolen from the drawings by Israeli intelligence and the French Mirage III was “creatively rethought” by the Israeli military industry), to which the Americans assigned their own designation F-21A, hinting at imitation of MiG-21. And to avoid any 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 the Aggressor squadron did not enlist whipping boys, but the best pilots of the US Air Force, paying tribute to the skill and training of Soviet military fighter pilots.

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

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

The signal that Nenka was included in the sale of military aircraft 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 Su-27 crash 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 remaining military equipment of the three Soviet military districts. What the Ukrainian Air Force was became known during the Crimean Spring, when, through the joint efforts of “polite” and Crimean militias, the Ukrainian military was first isolated in places of deployment, and then sent outside the peninsula.

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

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

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

The explosions of Molot mortars and the accidents of Soviet Soviets finished off in Yuzhny showed how degraded Ukrainian craftsmen bring to fruition complex and not-so-technical equipment. rocket engines for American missiles. Needless to say, the tests of the “unique” Alder missiles, announced with great fanfare by Turchinov, were met with 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 home-made materiel.

Apparently, the Americans themselves did not have much hope for 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 down to the tactical coloring.

In general, the Pentagon’s practice of buying up aviation assets 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 planes and newer American aircraft resold by Ukrainian hustlers as much as you like as Russian 4++ and fifth generation fighters, but this does not mean that the “aggressors” will be able to fully master the modern air combat tactics of Russian pilots.

Throughout the 1990s, the Americans so diligently hammered into the public consciousness that in the field of high technology Russia was forever lagging behind, that confrontation with the facts of its Armed Forces modern aviation, precision weapons And unique means Electronic warfare was a real shock for them. And we can certainly say that the old Soviet weapons obtained by hook or by crook will not be able to become an anti-shock drug for the Pentagon.

Rudyard Kipling wrote: “The day will be tragic for the world when the British Empire ceases to expand.” The singers of the new “empire” – the American one – see reality in approximately the same way. They just put this idea into different words

The Kremlin assessed the new US national security strategy and drew conclusions. Russian Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov called the wording in the Trump doctrine “quite impressive.”
According to the text, Washington’s main threats are the “revisionist powers” ​​Russia and China, as well as “rogue countries” Iran and North Korea, and also international terrorism.
Donald Trump said Moscow and Beijing "are seeking to challenge American influence, values ​​and wealth." We'll talk about this later...
The Kremlin noted that the American doctrine is “imperial in nature.” According to Peskov, even after a quick reading of the document, especially those parts that mention Russia, Washington’s reluctance to abandon a unipolar world becomes obvious. However, it was not Trump who came up with all these imperatives. All US presidents have said the same thing over the past hundred years. Just in a more diplomatic manner. Over time, enemies changed (Russia is an exception; it was almost always on this list), circumstances and allies changed, but the doctrine that the United States is the “navel of the earth” remained unchanged. Why exactly this way and not otherwise?
We will have to start from afar - from the times of the British Empire. There is no other way to explain what the current US imperial ambitions are based on. And what political and philosophical doctrine are they based on?
Bernard Shaw wrote at the end of the 19th century about the aggressive nature of the British Empire: “under the pretext of exploration and colonization, the flag follows the filibuster, trade follows the flag, and missionaries cover the rear.” However, Shaw, being British himself, was disingenuous: traders and missionaries, of course, came for filibusters and flags, but all power in the “explored” territories was maintained exclusively military power and punitive authorities.
And most importantly: the British in these territories established laws that automatically made them a privileged class. The Aborigines turned into the tenth grade. They were tolerated only so that they would help the British siphon wealth from the depths of Aboriginal territories, turned into colonies by right of force. Aborigines were also needed to buy glass beads in exchange for gold bars. If you think about it, the whole joke about the beads is a story about an arrogant and unceremonious scoundrel for whom there are no ethical standards. But many people think that this story is a praise of intelligence and enterprise. Oh? Next time, this “entrepreneur” will rob his own father completely. Don't believe me? Read Dickens more carefully. And this was in the order of things. Just a statement of fact, without any moralizing.
This Anglo-Saxon axiom of the right of the strong was formulated by Winston Churchill: “The whole history of the world is concentrated in the following proposition: when nations are strong, they are not always just, and when they want to be just, they are often no longer strong”...
Thanks to the British Empire, lords, bankers, and industrialists created their monstrous fortunes. And there was an incalculable amount of wealth - the sun never set on the British Empire!
Rudyard Kipling wrote: “The day will be tragic for the world when the British Empire ceases to expand.” Yes, it was truly a tragedy. Centuries of rule created such chaos in the colonies that interethnic, religious and other conflicts inevitably broke out there after the British left. By the way, they continue to this day in many former colonies.
Now the British Empire has become simply Foggy Albion. But the flag of the Anglo-Saxon imperial doctrine did not fall - it was picked up by the United States. Here it is necessary to note one feature that is characteristic specifically of the Anglo-Saxon empires: as soon as the empire stops expanding, its degradation and collapse begins...
Now let's go back to December 2017. US Defense Secretary James Mattis described Trump's new National Security Strategy as "clear and comprehensive." And he emphasized that the power of the US armed forces allows American diplomats to always act “from a position of strength.”
Well done! Mattis is not just a “loyal Trumpist,” he is a true warrior of the Anglo-Saxon empire. And the bearer of her mentality, which I talked about above. And diplomacy must be done with fists, as Mattis correctly noted.
Now about why Russia is “enemy number one” for the United States. Everything is much simpler than it might seem to some conspiracy theorists and inveterate fans of the “beacon of democracy.” It’s just that Russia is preventing the Americans, like the British before, from creating a single world order with a single government that will sit in Washington (formerly in London).
In an open battle with the Russians, the Americans are still afraid to prove their genius and exclusivity - Russia’s powerful nuclear triad is in the way. But in Washington they hope that over time they will succeed. In the meantime, these are minor dirty tricks with far-reaching consequences: sanctions, color revolutions at hand in Russia, hybrid wars. Moreover, the Americans accused Moscow of starting a hybrid war. I just want to immediately exclaim: “I don’t believe it!” After all, the Americans themselves always say that they are the first in everything. This means that when it comes to hybrid wars, they have the palm. However, this is how it really is.
What can we expect from overseas strategists in the near future? I thought, for example, that Poroshenko would be replaced, but he failed. They will continue to consolidate Europeans in an anti-Russian direction. “Polovtsian dances” will also continue around the DPRK. And not just because of some North Korean missiles. And also because there are Russia and China nearby, according to the American classification of national security threats - No. 1 and No. 2...
And again we return to the British, again to Churchill and Shaw. The first formulated the axiom of might. And the second, in one of his plays, wisely warned: “Beware, all of you who would like to become Pompeii! War is a wolf, it can come to your door! And Shaw made the right discovery: “there are crazy people in the madhouse too”...

The Russian Air Force has remarkable machines for gaining air supremacy: the lightweight MiG-29, the ageless MiG-31, the all-conquering Su-27 with many modifications and the future T-50 aircraft. We will tell you 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 out of developed socialism: chopped edges, huge air intakes and nozzles the size of an elevator cabin.

However, you should not judge by appearance. Just as an elderly boxing champion can easily beat up a pack of the young and daring, so the 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) takes off to intercept, they don’t joke with it.

Under the sharp nose lies the phased array antenna of the Zaslon system - because of its outstanding capabilities, 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. Information about the targets of the interceptor in automatic mode exchanges with the Russian "Awax", the A-50 early warning aircraft. Four Mig-31s are capable of controlling a front 800 kilometers long.

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

MiG-29

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

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

Thanks to a larger fuel supply, the MiG-29SMT was able to make long flights. The pilots called its predecessor a “short-range aircraft” - in the sense of flying around the airfield.

Like a tyrannosaurus in the Mesozoic, Sukhoi's plane is an absolute master in the sky. It was created simultaneously with the MiG-29 as a heavy air superiority fighter. A powerful system for detecting and tracking targets, good protection against enemy missiles, and 10 hardpoints for its own weapons allow the aircraft to conduct a single deep search for the enemy.

Externally, the Su-27 differs from the MiG large sizes, protruding wingtips and a developed tail boom in which the brake parachutes are located. In addition, many versions of the fighter have a front horizontal tail to improve stability in flight.

The deck version (Su-33) has folding wings and a brake hook. Created on the basis of a training twin, the Su-30, a two-seat guidance and target designation fighter, became the world's first aircraft with super-maneuverability. Its engine nozzles can deflect 16 degrees in any direction and 20 degrees in a plane.

The outstanding aerobatic performance of the Su-27 is regularly demonstrated in demonstration flights. In particular, the fighter performed the Cobra aerobatic maneuver for the first time. It was named 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 bringing the Su-27 out of a spin.

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

The wide and flat fuselage of the “plane of the future” resembles a racing car. The engines are further spaced to the sides, small vertical fins are angled at 26 degrees, and there are two rows of weapon compartments in the wide bottom. The T-50 can also carry weapons on an external sling, but at the expense of stealth.

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

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

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

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

— Was the Italian general right?

- Yes, you know, it doesn’t turn out very well... I see, even Syria showed it. We dominate the air there, but without ground forces and correct actions on the ground, not much can be resolved there.

Let's return 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 ones: fighters, bombers, attack aircraft. The bombers were front-line, long-range. But last wars, mostly local conflicts, showed the advantages of multirole 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 according to the concept of multifunctionality.

— What tasks does combat aviation solve today?

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

— 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 people understand it this way: they say, there is a certain life cycle the aircraft has, say, 25 years of operation. And every 25 years you need to create something new, and this is a change of generations. It is both true and not true. In fact, each new generation marks the emergence of fundamentally new combat qualities of the aircraft. The first generation of our jet aircraft is the MiG-15, MiG-17. There was a move away from the propeller, which set an insurmountable aerodynamic speed limit. Aviation switched to jet engine, providing a qualitative leap in speed.

The first generation aircraft 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 with each other for the first time. The second generation of aviation is associated with the development of supersonic speeds. We reached supersonic speed for the first time with the MiG-19, and then the MiG-21 was built as supersonic. We reached speeds of Mach 2. This changed the entire appearance of the aircraft. Delta-shaped wings, sweep, in a word, supersonic aerodynamics appeared. 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, the prototype of which was 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, I think, 82 mm. She had a large elongation, so she did not require artificial stabilization. She simply stabilized herself in flight with her plumage. True, at the same time it turned on a roll. The thermal homing head was made so that it was rotated by the incoming air flow. And she simultaneously scanned the space due to this. The rocket had powder charge. It was also used as an energy generator to power on-board systems. In short, there was a good integration of rocket design and control principles. The result was a cheap missile with a fairly good range. As a result, we reproduced, adapted and put the American missile into service. It played a very important role in the development of other types of missiles - for example, anti-tank missiles and some guided anti-aircraft missiles. That is, this trophy turned out to be very useful for us. I don’t know what the fate of the rocket’s author is, but I would think that he should have a monument erected 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 glitch. Nikita Khrushchev caused great harm to our front-line aviation when he said that everything would be decided by missiles, the war would only be 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 had a 3rd generation aircraft - the F-4 Phantom, which was born before the Vietnam War. And we had the MiG-21 - a 2nd generation aircraft. Our MiG-21s, by the way, did not lose much to the F-4s. They were superior in speed. But the “phantoms” already had a medium-range missile with a homing head. The range has been increased. The locator worked against the background of the earth, that is, against planes that were flying below. This was an advantage. Our homing heads could only work in contrast, against the sky.

At this time, work began on our 3rd generation aircraft, the MiG-23, which was superior in flight properties to the Phantom. By the way, the F-4 is a two-seater aircraft with a crew of a pilot and a weapons operator. And on the MiG-23 there was no weapons operator, there was only a pilot. But the main operations were automated. At this time, an American Sparrow rocket was brought to our institute, also obtained somewhere as a trophy. There were enthusiasts to copy. They began to insist that the rocket must be reproduced. 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 a colossal onslaught from Sparrow supporters. Its Soviet analogue, by the way, was built, but it never went into production.

— That is, in the third generation the gap with the Americans was eliminated?

— Yes, on the MiG-23 we somehow matched the enemy fighter a little.

— What other new qualities have been achieved?

— These are variable wing geometry, a locator and homing heads operating against the background of the earth, short-range missiles. To some extent, Sidewinder also started them. But we built the X-60 close-in missile, which was significantly smaller than the Sidewinder. She was very maneuverable. By the way, the Americans never made such a rocket. Then, on its basis, we built the K-73 rocket, which to this day does not have foreign analogues. Therefore, we are guaranteed to win in close battles, 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 the 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 battles with the participation of Su-27 and MiG-29 and American fighters. The Americans lost in almost all close air battles. They won only one fight, I don’t know for what reason. Probably the pilot was gaping. 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 up” the enemy and had the opportunity to launch weapons. And at the same time, we also solved the issue of super-maneuverability. The MiG-29 and Su-27 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 development line of the Su-27, and, finally, the Su-35, which implemented some of the features of the 5th generation aircraft, including locators with an active phased array antenna and synthetic aperture. That is, multichannel has appeared. This is very important. Multi-channel for air targets and at the same time multi-channel for ground targets. In this case, the locators obtain super-resolution in the radar range. In this, by the way, the Americans were pioneers in the F-18. But we later figured out all these principles. This was also a revolutionary leap when slot 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 up to a thousand or more of them in the antenna. And the radiation is centralized. Such systems appeared on the Su-30 and Su-35. All principles of signal processing, all principles of combat mode control for a phased array, whether active or passive, are the same. They are easily rebuilt. Just in an active array and a transmitter in each module. This is microelectronics, and in high-frequency microelectronics we were a little behind. As soon as we eliminated this backlog, the modules performed 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 5th generation F-22 Raptor aircraft was inferior to us. The same Indian Air Force achieved test battles of the F-22 and Su-35. And Raptor lost. Because the Americans relied on stealth. We relied on super-maneuverability. This is the difference and we won.

— But do stealth planes have their advantages?

— From my point of view, invisibility and stealth technologies are not exactly far-fetched, but overrated qualities. Because when two planes are flying towards each other in a duel situation, then this very stealth really plays a role. Whoever is discovered later gains tactical superiority. 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 battles. No one flies alone anymore. Maybe within a group fight these close-range duel situations can arise. But maneuverability is already starting to work there. But they don't have it.

You get the stealth effect within a very narrow range. A little higher is your plane - and its radar already sees the enemy’s “pancake” 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, can stealth be reduced, as they say, down to the reflective surface of a “tennis ball.” I think the “tennis ball” may not work, but an effective dispersion area of ​​less than a square meter can indeed be achieved. When we are now building our 5th generation aircraft, we, of course, also strive to solve this problem of stealth, but while maintaining super-maneuverability.

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

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

“I think they made a huge mistake.” The F-22 Raptor was conceived as an aircraft superior in efficiency to the Su-27. This task was set. There were no cost restrictions. And that's why the Raptor was very expensive from the very beginning. They 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 USA. 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 area from the side Arctic Ocean. Actually, they do not perform other functions. In the full sense, it has not become multifunctional. The tactical and technical specifications contain the conditions for working against ground targets, but the grouping that has been created is designed only for air-to-air mode. And only now, taking into account the events in Syria, it suddenly became clear that they cannot use the F-22 there. There you have to work on the ground. Then they seem to have modified some kind of batch so that the planes could destroy targets on the ground. In general, the Raptor, from my point of view, has not achieved superiority over our aircraft. The Su-35 is superior to it. In principle, they received nothing from this project.

And with the F-35, they generally made a strategic mistake. They decided to build a universal aircraft for both the Air Force, the Navy, and the Marine Corps. To operate from the deck, the aircraft must have a short takeoff and vertical landing. However, it must be configured as a basic structure. By the way, when the United States was building the 4th generation, they also set this task, but it didn’t work out. And so the F-18 line, the F-15 line and another F-16 line appeared. That is, three different aircraft. The F-16 was built for NATO, for mass sale to its allies. F-15 - mainly for myself. The F/A-18 is a carrier-based aircraft. And suddenly, on the 5th generation, they again decided to create universal car. They made the design. The plane was single-engine, unlike ours, twin-engine. For deck take-off and landing, increased power supply and additional side nozzles for stabilization are needed. The result was cuttlefish. The engine took up almost the entire volume of the aircraft.

Although they set the goal for the cost of the aircraft to be no more than $30 million, it immediately jumped to somewhere around $100 million. That is, they were almost equal in this indicator to the F-22. And then all the troubles of working out began. In my opinion, they worked on this plane for 11 years, if not more. And there are still a lot of restrictions. The installation batch has been released. I think they are already offering it for sale. But they are still working on this plane. 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, the volume of the weapons and fuel compartments was lost. And due to this, they lost range and combat load. The result was a worse car than the 4th generation aircraft. Many shortcomings were also revealed. Most likely this program will be stopped.

— Did the T-50 manage to avoid these shortcomings and take into account their experience?

“And we have never attempted such impossible tasks.” We were aware of the possible limitations from the very beginning. We still had experience in creating vertical take-off and landing aircraft - both the Yak-38 and the Yak-141. Although the latter did not go into production, it was built. We understood that these were incompatible things - ground-based and deck-based aircraft. In addition, for us, the “ship” is not so relevant, taking into account the fact that we have one aircraft carrier with a group of 30 aircraft, and the United States has over 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 - stealth and super-maneuverability. Plus radar with an active phased array antenna. The aircraft is designed for group operations and meets the requirements of network-centric military operations. This is what distinguishes the T-50 from 4th generation vehicles. But it hasn’t been done yet, and it’s difficult to say what it will finally be like. 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 are no technical specifications. There is no clear concept. There have not been any quality points accumulated that indicate the possibility of building a new aircraft. Everything they understood was invested into the T-50. So far they haven't come up with anything smarter. But I think we'll come up with something. We can say in advance that it will be manned. And then some people have 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 manned aircraft. It is not clear that some super-revolutionary technical solution has appeared among the same Americans. Some unformed sketches. There will still be a pilot on a combat aircraft for a long time, because human intelligence has not yet been discovered.

— It turns out that you, scientists, are ahead of us in this matter by our military leaders, who declare that the 6th generation is about to happen?

- Yes, we like to fantasize.

— Are you currently accumulating and waiting for some revolutionary breakthrough technical solutions?

- Certainly. Something is being looked at. For example, now the role of composites has increased sharply. And the share of composites in construction is growing. So maybe the 6th generation will be purely composite. This is not excluded. Because composite technology is improving. We can talk about electronic components. Radars are being improved all the time. Now they are switching to gallium nitride in microwave emitters. Transmitters are becoming more powerful. Now the module's radiation power is within 5 watts, maximum 7 watts. And if you switch to nitrides, it will be 20 watts. This is more powerful radiation, which means the radar parameters will improve and the dimensions will decrease. On-board 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 clear light in sight. Now the task is to ensure import substitution and switch to everything domestic. Let's move on... We just pay for it all in terms of size.

We now have in 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 problem is easily solved. There is no need to redo the entire computing part. Modularity opens up the possibility of expanding functions. And, probably, the number of functions will grow. And there will probably be more of them in new cars than in 5th generation aircraft.

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

— What can you say about Chinese experiments with the 5th generation?

— The Chinese are very dynamic in copying other people's ideas. They later started working on the 5th generation, but they also already have this plane flying. It’s not very clear in what capacity, but it flies. They again copied the design made by the MiG company.

— Is this the “1.44” project?

- Yes. The engine was proposed by designer Viktor Mikhailovich Chepkin from the Lyulka Design Bureau. Later, a modification of this engine was installed on the 5th generation Sukhov aircraft. True, for now this is the engine of the so-called first stage. The second stage engine, 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 them at all, but purely externally, the Chinese J-11 was made structurally according to the MiG design.

By the way, that project didn’t work out for us. After the collapse of the USSR, in the early 90s, all funding was suspended. And then, when they began to more or less restore the aviation industry under Putin, Sukhoi took revenge. Belyakov left the MiG Company, but the same energetic designer was not found in the company. In the Sukhoi Design Bureau there was also a designer named Simonov, who to some extent laid the foundation for the T-50 project. But Poghosyan played a big role, of course. Therefore, they seized the initiative. But this is a completely different plane. This is not what the MiG Design Bureau created. And the Chinese followed that path. But at the same time they have something American projects they take it. They themselves original ideas No. They synthesize different Russian-American ideas and even succeed in some ways.

But they still haven’t mastered the engine. They just can’t make a good engine for a fighter. They are based on ours, buying ready-made ones. At the last air show in Zhuhai, our specialists were completely amazed by the abundance of aircraft weapons systems developed by the Chinese. They presented an impossible number of calibers of air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles. Whatever they see somewhere, they do. It’s not very clear why there are so many types? It would probably be possible to optimize the type, limiting 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 money than we invest. They understand well that the main thing is technology. That's why they invest in them. And they try to take it everywhere technological solutions, including ours, since we have with them friendly relations. So they buy Su-35s from us. But at the same time, they also buy the entire technological backlog. They are trying to get as much technology as possible.

— Another fashionable topic is hypersound. How revolutionary is this?

— From my point of view, we have an unhealthy hype on this issue. 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 about it. Firstly, we have long mastered hypersonic speeds using ballistic missiles, mastered materials, and the dynamics of hypersonic flight. While working on controlled glide units of ballistic missiles, we practically went through all the control in the upper layers of the atmosphere at hypersonic levels. The speeds there 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're not that super expensive. I think that the aircraft, if built as hypersonic from the very beginning, will be much more expensive than a ballistic missile. On the other hand, if you make not many blocks, but one block, then it will be exactly the size of several tons. And it will be used as a hypersonic cruise missile, delivered to the upper atmosphere using liquid or powder rocket engines, ballistically.

The second way to master hypersonic speeds is to build a supersonic ramjet engine, which has supersonic combustion inside the chamber. As for the prospects for creating an aircraft with a supersonic ramjet engine, we must remember that today all ramjet engines have subsonic combustion. The physics of hypersonic combustion is still unclear. CIAM did some very crude experiments. And he continues to do so. Once he and designer Grushin even made such a racket. They took an anti-aircraft missile and installed a ramjet engine at the final stage. And she seemed to be working there for a few seconds. Until now, when they analyze these records, they still won’t understand whether there was a fire or not. The Americans are the same. There are no particular successes. They made the same cruise missile with a ramjet engine. There were a lot of unsuccessful launches. Eventually they flew over something. In my opinion, even a few minutes. And they seem to say that there was supersonic combustion after all.

Design hypersonic aircraft is determined by this very “straight line”. Such an aircraft has an elongated duck nose, wedge-shaped air intake to compress the air flow as much as possible. All this is calculated for high altitudes. When they talk about speeds of Mach 5-8, then all this is achievable at altitudes of 20 km or more. And below that you won’t get any hypersound.

Will such an aircraft be invulnerable to air or missile defense? Don't think. We are engaged in missile defense. And we don’t work according to the principle that there are several “serifs” ballistic trajectory missiles, on their basis the further trajectory of the missile or warhead is predicted and destroyed somewhere on the descending branch. We and the Americans are building missile defense in such a way as to be able to influence it everywhere - both in the outer space zone and when entering the atmosphere, where maneuvers are possible. And here no forecasting works anymore; continuous monitoring is necessary in lower layers, when it is already approaching the target. In all modes they find their own solutions. True, they are also still experimental, research, and in some cases experimental.

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 out of aluminum foil - and this costs nothing to do - a whole swarm results. And somewhere there, inside this swarm, are combat units that cannot be identified. When the swarm enters the atmosphere, all these “bubbles” are, of course, deflated. But there are heavy target traps and combat units coming. Nobody knows how to select this yet. A salvo of ballistic missiles was fired, each carrying a dozen warheads and a dozen more decoys. A swarm of targets appears, and the enemy’s missile defense systems experience the effect of information degradation. You begin to process information about targets, time is running out, the speeds are fantastic when entering the atmosphere... So far, neither the Americans nor we have overcome this information degradation.

And when the Americans talk about the focus of their missile defense on destroying single missiles, for example, North Korea or Iran, I believe them, because I understand that they are not capable of more. They do not expect such complex 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 the construction big park ballistic missiles. It is very difficult to build a missile defense system against Russia. But they probably also work against Russia.

The summary is this: I believe that hypersound for military purposes as a mode has been mastered through the glide units of ballistic missiles. The glide unit carries charges and can work against ground targets. And it also has a homing mode. At lower altitudes it also goes from hypersonic to subsonic or supersonic. There will no longer be any hypersound at low altitude. Therefore, to say that some qualitatively new weapon is appearing, which baffles 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 a prospect for the 22nd century?

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

— There is an idea: the plane takes off on a conventional engine, rises, goes into hypersonic flight mode using special engines, and lands again on a conventional engine.

- So what? We also know how to fly at hypersonic speeds at altitudes of 20-30 km. But without any engine. And due to the accumulated energy - due to 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 supersonic movement air mass inside the combustion chamber. There may be all sorts of local races and so on. And such turbulence can arise! And how does combustion occur there, in this turbulence, how effective is it? big question. But they work.

— Combat aviation It is no longer possible to imagine without attack drones. Are we keeping up in this area?

— The question arises: why are attack drones needed, if there are cruise missiles? These are the same drones, only disposable. Do I need to make reusable ones? After all, getting the drone back is a difficult task. Because again we need to ensure landing, etc. Is this justified? It's not that expensive, this cruise missile. It is most often expensive due to the warhead, if it is nuclear. But now there are non-nuclear ones too. Our long-range aviation is now armed with cruise missiles long range— 2-3 thousand km. Few foreign attack drones provide such a range. So I would not talk about any catastrophic lag in the field of unmanned attack 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 question is that there was simply no need. When you are building a missile to destroy already known targets, why come up with some kind of loitering? Long-range aviation, which has these missiles, operates mainly against stationary, previously scouted targets. Or if some naval target is quickly detected, then the program can be rebuilt. This is not a revolutionary question. At least now, with the modernization of the Tu-160, new aviation weapons have such modes - the function of prompt detection of some targets and retargeting.

— And yet we still have a lag 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 turns out to be an intelligence operation. The devices themselves are cheap. This is an aircraft model. Our 3rd year students know how to do this. But they can conduct reconnaissance at the tactical level. That is to serve ground forces down 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 area of ​​responsibility. We purchased similar devices in Israel and started licensed production.

There are also air defense suppression tasks that drones can do. They can launch a swarm of drones and confuse the air defense. They can carry traps, cause interference, passive and active. This is also the quantity that turns into quality. That is, they can create a very difficult situation for air defense. And give the opportunity to attack aircraft to break through after the cloud of drones. True, a new question arises: how to control this swarm? How to make it so that it is a managed system? They will start colliding there, we need to maintain some flight density, etc.

— Is generation change a distant prospect in long-range aviation?

- Why distant? We even defended a preliminary design for the promising long-range aviation complex - PAK DA. Our culture of long-distance aircraft has always been high. The classic long-range aviation aircraft is the Tu-22M3, which does not belong to strategic aviation. This is a long-range missile-carrying bomber. It is used where massive bombing is necessary. The plane can cause serious damage to the enemy. Can operate in parallel with front-line aviation. For example, in Syria, front-line Su-34 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 significantly more than the ammunition capacity 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 a spectacle. Because everything is destroyed, a big area defeat. One raid of such an aircraft can solve the problem of destroying an enemy airfield. It may not have much accuracy, because the bombs are ordinary, unguided. But when he covers with such carpet bombing large area, he, of course, will disable the airfield. For objects where area damage is required, they are effective and necessary.

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

— In connection with the resumption of Tu-160 production, will the PAK DA project be postponed?

— I believe that the Tu-160 aircraft is a masterpiece that remains unsurpassed to this day. It contains interesting ideas. For example, a rotating 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 there - 10 to the minus sixth power. There was a whole problem making such a camera. The plane has large weapon bays. It was created when there were no cruise missiles yet. And when the first Kh-55 cruise missiles were built, they were first hung on the Tu-95, there were also compartments there, but small, and there was an external sling. And for the Tu-160, the Kh-55 missiles were small. They only occupied half the compartment. Half the compartment was empty. Now the so-called X-BD long-range missile is being included in the project of the modernized Tu-160M. Its range is classified. It is known that its predecessor, the X-101 missile with a conventional charge, has a range of 3 thousand km. The new missile will have a much longer range.

A decision was made 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 semi-natural modeling, all our stands are ready. We are waiting for the equipment. We work on mock-ups and experimental samples. Therefore, this modernization will take place, and we will create some kind of necessary grouping.

Now, what to do with PAK DA? According to him, the ideology is very vague. The military were not lazy and wrote everything they thought. This is a strategic bomber, and 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 plane cheaper, but larger in quantity. It should replace three aircraft at once: the Tu-22M3, Tu-95MS and Tu-160 line. The decision was made: they read the preliminary design and came to the conclusion that it was necessary to build it.

— Is the task feasible?

“It seems to me that there is nothing fantastic there.” It can be done. The question is when. In addition, the state does not have money, and this program is expensive.

The first attempt was when the United States intended, under the pretext that Assad had chemical weapons, to mix Syria with bloody sand using missile strikes. But at the last moment, the Kremlin pulled Syria out of the American “loop” by offering to destroy chemical weapons under international control. Putin saved Syria from war. And Obama received a resounding political slap in the face. But he did not leave plans to throw Assad out of Damascus. For this purpose, the United States nurtured “opposition” units in Syria, pumping them with money and weapons.

In 4 years civil war in Syria, Assad’s army was badly battered, but did not surrender. And then the United States prepared a new general offensive by the Syrian “opposition” for this fall. The blitzkrieg to Damascus was also supposed to be supported by ISIS militants (terrorist groups banned in the Russian Federation). Until now, the Americans have been lazily bombing ISIS’s “alleged deployment areas” from the air. But it turned out badly. Obama's military adviser was forced to admit that "the effectiveness of airstrikes against ISIS is approaching zero." But missile strikes could suddenly (or “by mistake”) be transferred to cities controlled by Assad.

The United States has already begun to put together a coalition from European countries for the final attack on Syria and even the possible final clearing of Damascus by NATO infantry. But Europe politely refused. And then Washington came up with a plan according to which snickering Europe itself would want to put an end to Syria and Assad. It was decided to flood the European Union with hordes of refugees.

US charities have begun to finance migrants from the Middle East to Europe. Türkiye, a staunch ally of the United States in NATO and the fight against Assad, suddenly opened its border cordons to refugees passing through its territory. And human rights activists from the USA and Britain began to coordinate the flow of people from Turkey to Germany on Twitter. All this happened and is happening under the explosion of American missiles, which began to fall more often in Iraq and Syria not on ISIS troops, but on populated areas.

And here you have a flood of refugees. Here are statements from the US State Department and European politicians that Assad is to blame for this humanitarian catastrophe, and it is time to end him.

It would seem that the ground is prepared. The special operation was supposed to begin from week to week. And then suddenly - bam! Dozens of Russian military transport planes with military equipment, flour and medicine began to land at Syrian airfields. And ships flying the Russian flag began to arrive from the sea with the same cargo. This was as much a surprise to Washington as snow in the desert. CIA and Pentagon analysts believed that Russia, busy fighting sanctions and supporting Donbass, had no time for Syria right now. That is why the moment was chosen to attack Assad. But no: US intelligence did not have time to come to its senses when the Russians quickly, at a Stakhanov pace, began to strengthen their deployment points in Syria. Military sailors settled in Tartus (at a long-established maintenance center for the Russian Navy). At the airfield in Latakia there are air force and air defense specialists. The Russians have begun training their Syrian colleagues on land, at sea and in the air.

In fact, today we can talk about a combined Russian naval and air bridgehead on the coast of Syria. You can’t erase it with an American eraser on a tactical map. Syrian strategic targets are covered by the world's best anti-aircraft guns missile systems Air defense - With 300 and "Shells". The Syrian Air Force now has modernized MiG-29 and even MiG-31 fighters, with Syrian pilots trained in Russia in their cockpits.

And most importantly, this Russian-Syrian bridgehead will not allow ISIS to break through to the sea. After all, having received ports, ISIS would have found a second wind. Islamic terrorists would start trading smuggled oil by sea in exchange for weapons. And the United States, for its part, “looked after” this coast for the Syrian “opposition.”

But now the coast is occupied. And Assad’s army began to push back ISIS along the entire front. Russia could not be withdrawn from the Great Syrian Game. Moscow made a strong move that once again put the United States at a disadvantage. To prevent the Russians from supporting the Syrian army in the fight against ISIS means siding with the terrorists. Attacking Russian MiGs with American F-16s or bombing an airfield in Latakia is even worse. Because this is already a war. Moreover, not Syrian-American, but perhaps already American-Russian. Washington definitely doesn’t need this. No Assad’s head is worth a conflict between nuclear powers. Therefore, there is, perhaps, only one thing left for the United States and Europe - to come to terms with Russia’s presence in Syria and, together with it, as a united front, to fight the GIL.