13.06.2019
Sushki and Mogi defeated American aircraft in almost all training battles. "MIGs" and "Drying" from under the floor for "Aggressor" Rudyard Kipling wrote: "Tragic for the world will be the day when the British Empire stops expanding." Approximately the same way they see
The scientific director of the State Research Institute of Aviation Systems (GosNIIAS), responsible for system research of military aviation, the development of combat algorithms and the 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 Russian long-range aviation. How is the role of military aviation changing in modern armed conflicts? Was the Italian general right? 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 more local conflicts have shown 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? — Combat aviation is now undergoing a generational change. What are the trends here? Is our 5th generation aircraft inferior to the American F-22 and F-35? 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 plane. 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 had a very good missile, 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, 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 a 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 a 3rd generation aircraft - the F-4 Phantom, which was born before 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 rocket medium range 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? — What other new qualities have been achieved? - The fourth generation is the MiG-29 and Su-27? 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? 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 are winning 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? 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 carrier-based aviation, and for marines. 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? - Did you manage to get away from these shortcomings on the T-50, take into account their experience? 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 in any new car. - Now you can often hear talk about the 6th generation of combat aviation. What will it be like? - 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? - Now there is an accumulation and expectation of some kind of revolutionary breakthrough technical solutions? 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? — Is this the 1.44 project? 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. 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? 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. They took an 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, wedge-shaped air intake to compress the airflow as much as possible. All this is calculated at high altitudes. 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 anti-aircraft or missile defense? 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 vulnerability of missile defense is low performance. Understand when the enemy does difficult goal, that is, in space, roughly speaking, it inflates dozens of simulators of warheads from aluminum foil - and it costs nothing to do it - it turns out 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're dealing with a habitual increase in speed missile weapons. - Maybe the emergence of hypersonic aircraft is the prospect of the XXII century? - There is such an idea: the plane takes off on a conventional engine, rises, goes into the mode hypersonic flight due to special engines, and lands again on a conventional engine. - So all this is still in the realm of science fiction? - Combat aviation can no longer be imagined without attack drones. Are we lagging behind in this area? “But a drone can loiter for a long time, and then strike at the right moment. A rocket can't do that, can it? - And yet we have a backlog in drones? 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. Truth rises. new question: 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? 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 it 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: 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. When it comes to strategic nuclear strike, then at least one rocket will always pass through. And that will be enough. - Will the PAK DA project be postponed due to the resumption of production of the Tu-160? 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?
- Already in the Second World War, it became clear to everyone that without ensuring air supremacy, a ground operation cannot 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.
- 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 earth are not very much decided there.
- 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 of aerial reconnaissance. The concept of "network-centric fighting”, where intelligence data is decisive. The importance of electronic warfare is also growing.
— We are carefully analyzing this topic at GosNIIAS. We have prepared an information collection “Fighters of the 5th generation of the USA and China - combat aviation complexes 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 that an aircraft has a certain life cycle - for example, 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.
- Yes, on the MiG-23 we somehow equalized a little with the enemy fighter.
- 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 a passing rocket air combat X-60, 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.
- Certainly. We sold these aircraft widely, including to India, China, and Vietnam. Indians, by the way, are very demanding and meticulous. They also had American systems to some extent, 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 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.
- 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 can appear. But there, maneuverability is already beginning to work for us. And they don't have it.
“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 area from the side of the 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.
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.
“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.
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.
— Yes, we like to fantasize.
- 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.
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.
- 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 handed over the developments on our aircraft to the Chinese and whether they were handed over at all, but outwardly the Chinese J-11 was made structurally according to the MiG scheme.
- 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. Working on guided ballistic missile gliders, we have practically gone through all the management in upper layers atmosphere in hypersound. 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?
- 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.
- 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.
- This is a very complex physics of supersonic combustion. Imagine this supersonic movement 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.
- The question arises: why are attack drones needed 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 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 drones give such a range. So I would not talk about some kind of catastrophic lag in our field of unmanned strike systems.
- 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, with the modernization of the Tu-160, new aviation weapons have such modes - the function of prompt detection of some targets and retargeting.
- 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.
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 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.
“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.
The first attempt was when the United States, under the pretext of Assad's possession of chemical weapons, set out to mix Syria with bloody sand through missile strikes. But the Kremlin at the last moment pulled Syria out of the American "noose", offering to destroy chemical weapon 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 kick Assad out of Damascus. For this, the United States, after all, fostered “opposition” detachments in Syria, pumping them with money and weapons.
For 4 years of civil war in Syria, Assad's army was very worn out, but did not give up. And then the United States prepared a new general offensive of the Syrian "opposition" for this autumn. The blitzkrieg to Damascus was supposed to be supported by ISIS militants (terrorist formations banned in the Russian Federation). Until now, the Americans have been lazily hollowing out the "proposed areas of deployment" of ISIS from the air. But it turned out badly. Obama's military adviser was forced to admit that "the effectiveness of airstrikes against ISIS tends to zero." But missile strikes could be suddenly (or “by mistake”) transferred to the cities controlled by Assad.
The United States has already begun to put together a coalition of European countries for a final attack on Syria and even a possible final cleansing of Damascus by NATO infantry. But Europe politely refused. And then Washington came up with a plan according to which the 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 charitable foundations have begun funding the passage of migrants from the Middle East to Europe. Turkey, a staunch US ally in NATO and the fight against Assad, has suddenly opened its border cordons to refugees flowing through its territory. And human rights activists from the United States and Britain began to coordinate the flow of people from Turkey to Germany on Twitter. All this happened and is happening under the breaks American missiles, which began to fall more often in Iraq and Syria not on ISIS troops, but on settlements.
And here is the flow of refugees. Here are the statements of the US State Department and European politicians that Assad is to blame for this humanitarian catastrophe, which it is time to end.
It would seem that the ground has been prepared. The special operation was supposed to start from a week to a week. And then suddenly - bam! Dozens of Russian military transport aircraft began to land on Syrian airfields with military equipment, flour and medicines. And from the sea with the same cargo, ships under the flag of Russia began to approach. This was as much of a surprise to Washington as snow in the desert. Analysts of the CIA and the Pentagon believed that Russia, busy fighting sanctions and supporting the Donbass, is now not up to Syria at all. Therefore, the moment was chosen to attack Assad. An-no: US intelligence did not have time to recover, as the Russians smartly, at the Stakhanovite pace, began to strengthen their deployment points in Syria. In Tartus (at a long-established service point for the Russian Navy), military sailors settled. At the airport in Latakia - Air Force and Air Defense specialists. The Russians have begun training their Syrian counterparts on land, at sea and in the air.
In fact, today we can talk about a combined naval and air base of Russia on the coast of Syria. It can no longer be erased with an American eraser on a tactical map. Syrian strategic facilities are covered by the world's best anti-aircraft missile systems Air defense - With 300 and "Shells". Modernized MiG-29 and even MiG-31 fighter jets appeared in the Syrian Air Force, in the cockpits of which Syrian pilots trained in Russia sit.
And most importantly, this Russian-Syrian foothold will not allow ISIS to break through to the sea. After all, having received ports, ISIS would have gained 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 beach is busy. And Assad's army began to push ISIS along the entire front. Russia failed to be withdrawn from the Great Syrian Game. Moscow made that strong move that again put the United States at a disadvantage. Prevent the Russians from supporting Syrian army in the fight against ISIS means to take the side of terrorists. Attacking Russian MiGs with American F-16s or bombing an airfield in Latakia is even worse. Because this is war. Moreover, not Syrian-American, but, perhaps, already American-Russian. Washington definitely does not need this. No head of Assad is worth the conflict of nuclear powers. Therefore, the United States and Europe, perhaps, only one thing remains - to come to terms with the presence of Russia in Syria and, together with it, as a united front, fight against the GI.
The 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 Russian videoconferencing.
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 flown to the United States, repurchased 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 of various shades of 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 disturbing, 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, at the military base Miramar was organized The educational center training carrier-based pilots for the 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 the loss of American aircraft over North Vietnam decreased markedly. 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 the squadron "Aggressor" did not enroll boys for whipping, but the best pilots 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 cars or their closest allies for them, then in post-Soviet times everything changed. And already former Soviet republics, Ukraine and Moldova, first of all, began to provide services to the United States by 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 its remaining military equipment. three Soviet military districts. 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 only suitable 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” Alder missiles, announced with great pomp 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 airbase 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 noticed that over the past 30 years, Russian military aviation made a huge leap forward. You can paint the old ones resold by Ukrainian dealers as much as you like. Soviet aircraft and newer American vehicles for 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 by Russian pilots.
Throughout the 1990s, the Americans so diligently hammered into the public consciousness that in the region high technology Russia has lagged behind forever, that a collision with the facts that it has Armed Forces modern aviation, high-precision weapons and unique means EW was a real shock for them. And it can certainly be argued that the old Soviet weapons, obtained by hook or by crook, cannot become an anti-shock drug for the Pentagon.
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.
Under pointed nose the phased antenna array of the Zaslon system is hiding - 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 heavy fighter gaining air supremacy. Powerful system detection and tracking of targets, 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 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 the Hero of the 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 the nozzles - swivel, like those of the Su-30 - when passing through the air defense zone, they will turn from round ones to flat ones in order to hide massive red-hot turbines from radars and infrared sensors.
Original taken from max_sky to the Air Force Museum in Monino: Combat aviation - 2
The end of the review of military combat aircraft - today the most common aircraft in service are currently MiGs and Sushki. Previous parts can be seen at the links at the bottom of the report. Follow the link - satellite exposure - http://wikimapia.org/#lang=ru&lat=55.832563&lon=38.184561&z=18&m=b 
1. Starting with MiGs
MiG-9 (I-301) - 01 red - Russia (USSR) - VVS /1947/
MiG-9 (NATO classification - Fargo, originally - Type 1) - the first Soviet jet fighter to take to the air. Developed in the Design Bureau of Mikoyan and Gurevich, made its first flight on April 24, 1946. In 1946-48. 602 aircraft were built. On November 15, 1947, he passed the acceptance tests (test pilot of the Batyutsky plant). December 20, 1947 transferred to the USSR Air Force. The last flight in the service of the USSR Air Force was made on May 9, 1952 (pilot Solovyov). Flight time 133 hours. May 12, 1960 transferred to the Air Force Museum in Monino. The Design Bureau of Mikoyan and Gurevich was restored to flying condition for the filming of the film “They conquer the sky”, which was released in 1963. Specially for the filming of the film, lightning and onboard 01 red were applied. During the filming of the film, he made high-speed runs with approaches to the Chkalovskaya a/d a/b (test pilot L. M. Kuvshinov). It was the last MiG-9 in the USSR since the 1960s. 
2. MiG-15UTI - 03 red - Russia (USSR) - VVS /1954/
MiG-15 (product C, aircraft I-310, NATO codification: Fagot) is a Soviet fighter aircraft developed by the Design Bureau of Mikoyan and Gurevich in the late 1940s. The most massive jet combat aircraft in the history of aviation, which was in service with many countries of the world. MiG-15UTI - a modification of a two-seat training fighter for the training of the flight personnel of combat units. UTI was built in large series in the USSR, Czechoslovakia and presumably in China. The training MiG-15 was used to train pilots of the MiG-15, MiG-17 and MiG-19, was widely exported and survived its basic version in service for a long time .. On July 26, 1954, it passed acceptance tests (test pilot Dotsenko). On August 3, 1954, it was transferred to the GK-NII of the USSR Air Force. Pilot-cosmonauts Yu. Gagarin, V. Tereshkova, A. Nikolaev, G. Beregovoy, A. Leonov trained on it. The last flight was made on May 5, 1973. May 21, 1973 transferred to the Air Force Museum in Monino. 
3. MiG-17 - 01 red - Russia (USSR) - VVS /1952/
MiG-17 (Fresco according to NATO classification) is a Soviet fighter developed by the Design Bureau of Mikoyan and Gurevich in con. 1940s The model was intended to replace the MiG-15. It was in service with many countries of the world and was used in a number of armed conflicts, including combat operations in Vietnam and the Middle East. The operator was LII them. Gromov. Decommissioned 23 April 1954. Made 160 flights, lasting 86 hours. Transferred to the Air Force Academy. Yu. A. Gagarin, to the department number 35, as a teaching aid. July 20, 1961 transferred to the Air Force Museum in Monino. 
4. MiG-19PM (PML) - 11 red - Russia (USSR) - VVS /1957/
It was operated in several military units of the USSR Air Force. Flight time 964 hours. June 19, 1973 transferred to the Air Force Museum in Monino. MiG-19 (Farmer according to NATO classification) is a second-generation Soviet single-seat jet fighter developed by the Design Bureau of Mikoyan and Gurevich in the beginning. 1950s The first Soviet mass-produced supersonic fighter was widely used in the USSR air defense system and delivered abroad. Comparable to the American F-100 Super Saber fighters, although it also opposed the later F-4 Phantom II in Vietnam. 
5. MiG-21S - 93 red - Russia (USSR) - VVS /1964/
The MiG-21 (NATO-classified Fishbed) is a Soviet multirole fighter aircraft developed by the Mikoyan and Gurevich Design Bureau in the mid-1950s. The most widespread supersonic combat aircraft in the world. It was mass-produced in the USSR (from 1959 to 1986), as well as in Czechoslovakia, India and China, and was used in many armed conflicts.
This copy is the second machine based on type 94. Additionally equipped with:
- 7th tank of increased capacity (120 l);
- keel with a toe of increased area;
- surface antennas of the station "Oak", ARK-10, MRP-56P;
- ARK-10 station with a range counter;
- infrared sight "Gem" - SMC-1;
- radio altimeter RV-UM;
- front rack with wheel KT-102;
Decommissioned 29 October 1970. Flight time 2284 hours. June 20, 1971 transferred to the Air Force Museum in Monino. 
6. Experienced MiG-21 - Russia (USSR) - Air Force. Analogue aircraft A-144 (MiG-21I/2) /1970/
The operator was MAP LII them. Gromov in Zhukovsky. Had the color scheme of the USSR Air Force. The first flight was made on January 27, 1970 (test pilot I. Volk). It was intended for fine aerophysical studies of "tailless" schemes, for which the wing of the aircraft was pasted over with silk threads. The aerodynamic layout of the wing repeats the shape of the bearing surface of the Tu-144 supersonic passenger liner. During tests at the LII, the shape of the influxes was changed - with a constant sweep of 78 ° and an ogive shape. The last flight was made on August 14, 1979 (test pilot I. Volk). A total of 311 flights lasting 200 hours were performed. In 1980, it was transferred to the Air Force Museum in Monino. Brought to the Air Force Museum in Monino from LOO MAP. 
7. Fighter MiG-23 - 231 blue - Russia (USSR) - VVS
The MiG-23 (NATO codification: Flogger) is a Soviet multirole fighter with a variable sweep wing. The third experienced MiG-23. Almost 10 years separate it from the MIG-23MF variant. 
8. MiG-25RB (02B/RBN) - 25 red - Russia (USSR) - VVS
MiG-25RB - single-seat all-altitude operational reconnaissance aircraft - bomber. MiG-25 (according to NATO classification: Foxbat - flying fox) is a Soviet single-seat supersonic high-altitude interceptor designed by the Mikoyan-Gurevich Design Bureau. 
9. MiG-25PD (84D/84DS/PDS/PDSL/PDZ) - 04 red - Russia (USSR) - VVS
high altitude interceptor 
10. MiG-27 - 01 red - Russia (USSR) - VVS
The MiG-27 (NATO classification - Flogger-D) is a supersonic fighter-bomber with a variable sweep wing. Designed to strike at moving and stationary ground and air targets. Can carry tactical nuclear weapons. Some modifications, in terms of the combination of characteristics, are still able to compete with the latest domestic and Western attack aircraft. Due to the difficult economic situation since 1993 in Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, almost all MiG-27s and its modifications were decommissioned and transferred to storage bases, where, due to lack of funding, they were left without the necessary maintenance. First Chechen War again aroused interest in this aircraft (the lead designer of the machine, A. A. Popov, personally went to the storage bases several times to determine the possibility of "resuscitation" of the MiG-27, especially the MiG-27K), but the "twenty-sevenths" from the storage bases for the most part were no longer airworthy. At present, it is the main fighter-bomber of the Air Forces of India, Kazakhstan and Cuba. 
11. MiG-29 (9-12) - 01 (901) blue - Russia (USSR) - VVS
Before us is the first prototype of the MiG-29 fighter - aircraft No. 901. MiG-29 (product 9-12, according to NATO codification: Fulcrum - fulcrum) is a fourth-generation Soviet / Russian multi-role fighter developed by the MiG Design Bureau. The car was lifted into the sky by test pilot Alexander Fedotov. 
12. MiG-29 - 03 blue - Russia (USSR) - VVS
Front line fighter. 
13. MiG-29 - 51 blue - Russia (USSR) - VVS 
14. MiG-29 - 70 blue - Russia (USSR) - VVS
15. MiG-29KVP (9-12LL) - 18 blue - Russia (USSR) - VVS
MiG-29KVP carrier-based fighter (prototype)
MiG-29KVP (MiG-29-918) - an experimental aircraft for practicing springboard takeoff and arrest landing on ground complex"Thread" in the interests of creating a shipborne fighter MiG-29K. Converted in the summer of 1982 from the 7th flight copy of the MiG-29 type 9-12. August 21, 1982 test pilot A.G. Fastovets performed on it the first takeoff from the T-1 ground springboard. 
16. MiG-31 - 202 blue - Russia (USSR) - VVS
The MiG-31 (NATO codification: Foxhound - "Fox Hound") is a two-seat supersonic all-weather long-range interceptor fighter. Developed in OKB-156 (now OAO RSK MiG). The first Soviet combat aircraft of the fourth generation. Chief designer Gleb Lozino-Lozinsky. The MiG-31 is designed to intercept and destroy air targets at low, extremely low, medium and high altitudes, day and night, in simple and difficult weather conditions, when the enemy uses active and passive radar interference, as well as heat traps. A group of four MiG-31 aircraft is capable of controlling airspace with a frontal length of 800-900 km. 
17. MiG-31 - 96 blue - Russia (USSR) - Air Force / 1979 /.
It was one of the first serial MiG-31s (it had external adjustable doors for the jet nozzle of the D-30F-6 engines). The first flight was made on September 11, 1979 (test pilot P. Ostapenko). The second flight was made on September 14, 1979 (pilot A. Fastovets). Later, during the acceptance tests, pilots Gruzevich, Pukito, Orlov, Popov flew on it. In January 1984, he was transferred to the USSR Air Force in military unit 03139 (ShMAS of air defense aviation). In the 1990s, after the transfer of military unit 03139 outside Moscow, it was transferred to the Air Force Museum in Monino. 
18. MiG-105.11 EPOS ("Lapot") - 7510511101 - Russia (USSR) - Air Force / 1974 /
A flight analogue of an experimental manned orbital aircraft. This aircraft was created at the Mikoyan Design Bureau as part of the Spiral project. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B8%D 1%80%D0%B0%D0...
“The construction of an analogue began in 1968, and the assembly was completed in 1974. To ensure the take-off of ed. 105-11 from the airfield, the skis on the main landing gear were replaced with wheels. On October 11, 1976, test pilot A.G. air, having made a flight from one unpaved runway to another.A flight of 19 km took place at an altitude of 560 m. The following year, we began flying on a suspension from the Tu-95KM aircraft. The first detachment from it in the air at an altitude of 5000 m The turbojet engine and landing at the airfield Fastovets completed on October 27, 1977. A total of 8 such flights were made.Then, for the second stage of testing, the wheel chassis was replaced with a ski one. 
In 1978, subsonic flight tests, ed. On its last flight in September 1978, the aircraft was damaged on landing. Since 1976, the design of a fundamentally different type of aerospace aircraft, Buran, began in the USSR, and by 1979 all work on the Spiral theme and edition 105 had been discontinued.
Work on the Spiral (except for analogues of the BOR - an unmanned orbital rocket plane) was finally stopped after the start of the development of a larger-scale, less technologically risky, which seemed more promising and in many respects repeated the American Space Shuttle program of the Energia-Buran project. Minister of Defense A. A. Grechko did not even give permission for orbital tests of the almost finished EPOS, drawing a resolution according to various sources “We will not engage in fantasies” or “This is fantastic. You have to do the real thing." The main specialists who previously worked on the Spiral project were transferred from A. I. Mikoyan Design Bureau and Raduga Design Bureau by order of the Minister of Aviation Industry to NPO Molniya. 
19. E-152M - E166 - Russia (USSR) - Air Force
E-152 - Soviet experimental fighter-interceptor. Two prototypes of the E-152-1 (E-166) and E-152-2 aircraft and one E-152A with two R11F-300 engines were put into construction. Based on the interception systems tested on the E-150, E-152, E-152A aircraft, the MiG-25 serial aircraft was created. 
20. Now let's move on to Su. Su-7B - 25 red - Russia (USSR) - VVS /1960/.
January 29, 1962 transferred to VVIA them. N. E. Zhukovsky as a textbook. Flight time 13 hours. November 2, 1968 transferred to the Air Force Museum in Monino. Su-7 (according to NATO codification: Fitter) - fighter-bomber OKB im. Sukhoi. Su-7B is a serial version of the aircraft. 
21. Su-7B - 17 red - Russia (USSR) - VVS
Experimental modification on the ski chassis S-26 b / n 17 red (3610) was converted from the serial Su-7BM (1961) in 1963. The operator was the Sukhoi Design Bureau. A tank with an alcohol-glycerin mixture was installed, which was pumped under high pressure to the titanium runners and came out through the holes in them, reducing the friction of the skis on the concrete. To stop, as brakes, a special mechanical device was used. He tested skis that allow landing on the ground and on concrete. The first flight with a ski chassis was performed in 1963 (test pilot I. S. Ryabchikov). In April 1966, he completed state tests. The last flight was made on February 22, 1971 (pilot Poltoranov). June 19, 1981 was transferred from the factory to them. P. O. Sukhoi to the Air Force Museum in Monino. 
22. Su-7BKL - 15 red - Russia (USSR) - VVS /1965/
February 11, 1966 transferred to the USSR Air Force. April 26, 1966 made the last flight (pilot Bureiko). After a ground accident, it was under repair, after which it was declared fit for use on the ground as a training aid. In December 1975, it was transferred to the VVIA named after N. E. Zhukovsky as a teaching aid. Later transferred to the Air Force Museum in Monino.
Based on the results obtained during the testing of the S-2.5 and S-2.6 aircraft, the Sukhoi Design Bureau developed a new modification of the Su-7. In 1962, C-2.2-4 took to the skies. The machine, which was a modified serial Su-7B (serial number 03-05), became the predecessor of the Su-7BKL (S-2.2KL). In its design, a new wheel-ski chassis, accelerators and a two-dome braking parachute system were used. The new chassis has become universal. A wheel of increased diameter was placed on the front support (as on the C-2.6), and small metal skis were installed on the main ones, next to the pneumatics. When taking off from concrete runways, the skis did not work, their suspension did not allow them to touch the runway. They entered into business when the wheel was deepened into soft ground, taking on part of the load and preventing the pneumatics from falling through. 
23. Su-9B - 68 red - Russia (USSR) - VVS /1959/
September 24, 1959 transferred to the USSR Air Force. The last flight was made on September 15, 1960 in Monino (pilot Garov). Flight time 30 hours 25 minutes, made 52 flights. In September 1960, it was transferred to the VVIA named after N.E. Zhukovsky as a textbook. September 1, 1969 transferred to the Air Force Museum in Monino.
Su-9 (NATO codification: Fishpot) is a Soviet single-engine all-weather fighter-interceptor. One of the first domestic aircraft with a delta wing and the world's first fighter-interceptor, created as an integral part of a single interception complex. 
24. Su-11 - 14 red - Russia (USSR) - Air Force / 1962 /
The first test flight was made on August 13, 1962. April 27, 1963 transferred to the USSR Air Force. Made 283 flights, flight time 199 hours. July 17, 1973 transferred to the Air Force Museum in Monino. Su-11 (NATO codification: Fishpot) is a Soviet fighter-interceptor developed in the early 1960s. 
25. Su-15T - 11 red - Russia (USSR) - VVS
The second prototype of the T-58 D-2, the first flight on May 4, 1963. The Su-15 (NATO: Flagon) is a Soviet fighter-interceptor developed in the early 1960s. For a long time it formed the basis of the USSR air defense and took part in many incidents related to the flights of foreign aircraft over the territory of the USSR. The most famous such incident involving the Su-15 occurred in 1983, when the Su-15, piloted by Gennady Osipovich, shot down a South Korean Boeing 747 passenger plane. 
26. Su-17 - 24 blue - Russia (USSR) - Air Force
Between 1995 and 1999, it was transferred by the Russian Air Force to the Air Force Museum in Monino. Su-17 (Fitter-B according to NATO codification) is a Soviet fighter-bomber developed in the first half of the 1960s. The first Soviet aircraft with a variable geometry wing. For three decades it was in service with the Air Forces of the USSR and Russia, it was widely exported and used in a number of armed conflicts. 
27. Su-17M3 - 93 red - Russia (USSR) - VVS /1-76/
The operator was the Sukhoi Design Bureau. Produced in November 1976. From January 1977 to October 1979 he was tested. The last flight was made on October 24, 1979 (pilot V. Ilyushin). Flight time 200 hours. Later it was transferred to the VVIA named after N. E. Zhukovsky as a teaching aid. In October 1989, transferred to the Air Force Museum.
Su-17 is a Soviet fighter-bomber developed in the first half of the 1960s. The first Soviet aircraft with a variable geometry wing. For three decades it was in service with the Air Forces of the USSR and Russia, it was widely exported and used in a number of armed conflicts. 
28. Su-17UM3 - 56 red - Russia (USSR) - VVS 
Training version of the Su-17M3 fighter-bomber
29. Su-17M4 - 05 blue - Russia (USSR) - VVS 
30. Su-24 - 61 red - Russia (USSR) - VVS
Attack aircraft T6-1. An experimental machine of the Sukhoi Design Bureau for testing the design of a combined power plant and a short takeoff technique using lifting engines, created on the basis of the first prototype Su-15 aircraft. One of the first flight prototypes of the Su-24. 
31. Su-24 - 54 red - Russia (USSR) - Air Force / 1974 /
Produced in March 1974. May 7, 1974 transferred to the military unit of the USSR Air Force for testing. January 30, 1976 made the last flight (pilot Gorlova). Flight time from the beginning of operation 98 hours 43 minutes. On February 18, 1976, it was transferred to the VVIA named after N. E. Zhukovsky as a teaching aid. In October 1989, transferred to the Air Force Museum.
The Su-24 (according to NATO codification: Fencer - “Fencier”) is a Soviet and Russian front-line bomber with a variable sweep wing, designed to deliver missile and bomb strikes in simple and difficult weather conditions, day and night, including at low altitudes with aimed destruction of ground and surface targets. 
32. Su-24M - 09 white - Russia (USSR) - VVS
Front-line bomber Su-24M. Su-24 (product T-6, according to NATO codification: Fencer (Fencer)) is a Soviet and Russian front-line bomber with a variable sweep wing, designed to deliver missile and bomb strikes in simple and difficult weather conditions, day and night, including on low altitudes with targeted destruction of ground and surface targets. 
33. Su-25 - 66 red - Russia (USSR) - Air Force / 1982 /
T-8 (prototype of the Su-25 attack aircraft). Produced in April 1982. May 24, 1982 transferred to the Sukhoi Design Bureau for testing. The first attack aircraft T-8 (Su-25) with boosters in the transverse control channel. Passed strength tests. Later converted to Su-25K. Until 1989, he passed test flights. June 21, 1989 completed the last flight (pilot Komarnitsky). In total, he made 662 flights, lasting 445 hours. September 15, 1990 transferred to the Air Force Museum in Monino. Delivered by land.
Su-25 (according to NATO codification: Frogfoot) is a Soviet armored subsonic attack aircraft designed for direct support of ground forces over the battlefield day and night with visual visibility of the target, as well as the destruction of objects with given coordinates around the clock in any weather conditions. In the Russian troops he received the nickname "Rook". The Su-25 first took to the air on February 22, 1975. Aircraft of this type have been in operation since 1981, have taken part in many military conflicts and will remain in service with the Russian Air Force until 2020. 
34. Su-25 - 09 blue - Russia (USSR) - Air Force 
35. Su-27 (T-10) - 10 blue - Russia (USSR) - Air Force
In the late 1960s in a number of countries, the development of promising fourth-generation fighters began. The United States was the first to start solving this problem, where back in 1965 the question of creating a successor to the F-4C Phantom tactical fighter was raised. As an adequate response, the USSR launched its own program for the development of a promising fourth-generation fighter, which was launched in 1969 by the Sukhoi Design Bureau. It was taken into account that the main purpose of the created aircraft would be the fight for air superiority. The tactics of air combat included, among other things, close maneuvering combat, again recognized at that time as the main element in the combat use of a fighter.
In 1975-76. it became clear that the original layout of the aircraft had significant drawbacks. Nevertheless, a prototype aircraft (named T-10-1) was created and took to the air on May 20, 1977 (pilot - Vladimir Ilyushin). In one of the flights, the T-10-2, piloted by Evgeny Solovyov, fell into an unexplored region of resonant modes and collapsed in the air. The pilot died.
At this time, data about the American F-15 began to arrive. Unexpectedly, it turned out that the machine did not meet the technical requirements for a number of parameters and was significantly inferior to the F-15. For example, the developers of electronic equipment did not meet the weight and size limits assigned to them. Also, it was not possible to realize the specified fuel consumption. The developers faced a difficult dilemma - either to bring the car to mass production and hand it over to the customer in its current form, or to undertake a radical reworking of the entire machine. It was decided to start creating the aircraft practically from scratch, without releasing a car that lagged behind its main competitor in terms of its characteristics. The aircraft subsequently created was called the Su-27. 
36. Su-35 (Su-27M/T-10M) - 701 blue - Russia (USSR) - VVS
Su-35 (Su-27M, factory code T-10M) (according to NATO codification: Flanker-E) is a Russian multipurpose highly maneuverable all-weather fighter of the 4++ generation. Main combat use— multi-role fighter long range.
Developed at the Sukhoi Design Bureau as further development Su-27. The general designer of the Su-35 is Mikhail Petrovich Simonov. The first flight was made on June 28, 1988 (prototype T-10M-1). The flight of the first production aircraft took place on April 1, 1992. In the first half of the 1990s, 12 prototypes were produced, subsequently the program was suspended in favor of the development of the Su-37 (subsequently, this program was curtailed due to the crash of the prototype). In 2005, a decision was made to resume the development of the Su-35, the updated fighter received the Su-35BM index. 
37. The exposition also features an American bomber B-25 - 50 yellow
North American B-25 Mitchell North American The B-25 Mitchell is a twin-engine, all-metal, five-seat medium-range bomber.
The Mitchells were supplied under lend-lease to the RAF and were intended primarily to replace Douglas Boston and Lockheed B-34 Venture aircraft. They were supposed to be used mainly for daytime raids. The first 23 Mitchell B-25Bs were delivered to the British in May and June 1942. At first, the aircraft were sent to Nassau in the Bahamas, where a training squadron was formed in which British pilots were trained. In the second half of 1942, B-25Cs began to arrive in the UK, and teams trained in the Bahamas began to return to their homeland and enter combat service. After the issues of docking American aircraft and British armament, bomber squadrons began to carry out combat missions. The first sortie took place on January 22, 1943, when aircraft from the 98th and 180th bomber squadrons of the Royal Air Force attacked an oil storage facility in Ghent. 
The use of aircraft continued with increasing intensity during 1943 and 1944, and they played a particularly prominent role in the Allied tactical missions during the invasion of France in June 1944. As the Allied forces moved deeper into continental Europe, squadrons equipped with Mitchells were redeployed to Belgium and France. On May 2, 1945, B-25s took off on their last combat mission in the European theater when 47 aircraft attacked military depots near Potsdam. A total of 886 aircraft were delivered to the UK. These aircraft retired fairly quickly after the war, but the last three examples (B-25Gs) are known to have served with the Meteorological Research Office at Farnborough until at least 1950.
In addition to the British pilots, Dutch, Polish and French squadrons were formed under the unified command of the Royal Air Force. After the end of World War II, the Dutch and French squadrons returned to their countries and were allowed to take their fighting vehicles with them. 
38. Next to him - another military transport aircraft - Li-2T - 39 yellow - Russia (USSR) - Air Force / 1945 /
Li-2T b / n 06 yellow (18418809) The operator was the USSR Air Force. Tail number unknown, probably only 39. Manufactured in January 1945. In January 1959, transferred to the Air Force Museum in Monino. Later, for the filming of the film, it was repainted in the Aeroflot color scheme. 
During the filming of the film, the engines were started. Later repainted in the USSR Air Force color scheme. Seen in September 1991 in Monino. Later, a model of the UTK-2 turret was installed to imitate the military version of the Li-2VP. Converted to sanitary variant. Open for visiting today open doors Air Force Museum in Monino. Li-2 is a Soviet military transport aircraft, the production of which was started in Khimki (Moscow region) at plant No. 84 as PS-84 (under license, the prototype is the American Douglas DC-3). 
39. Bartini VVA-14 - CCCP-19172 - Russia (USSR) - Air Force /1972/
VVA-14 (Vertical take-off amphibian, later modified into 14M1P ekranolet) - an experimental Soviet apparatus (seaplane, bomber and torpedo bomber), designed by Robert Bartini, Soviet aircraft designer of Italian origin. It was created as an apparatus that has the ability to take off and land on water, both as an ordinary aircraft and as a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft. It was created in 1972. Due to the difficulties in developing the necessary engines for vertical take-off, the last modification (14M1P) was carried out - turning the device into an ekranolet (1976).
Well, in the final post I will show the most rare aircraft of the Second World War ...
