Comparison of Russian and US fighters in reality. Review of aircraft based on exercise results

I read a very interesting (for me at least) article in the magazine Aviation and Cosmonautics No. 10 October 2015 “Who will be in the crosshairs.”

In the article, the author compares the combat (almost combat) characteristics of US and Russian fighters (in service with India and Malaysia). Many of the facts presented in the article have been published before, but there are also new items. And so the text itself...

CE-30MKI at RAF Coningsby, Exercise Indradanush 2015

Since the end of the Cold War, international exercises have acquired a new aspect; they often involve military equipment, which in the event of war may end up on opposite sides of the front line. They are carried out, among other things, so that the combat capabilities of aircraft, information and combat systems, etc. can be compared.
The US Air Force is an indispensable participant in such exercises. For Americans, the latest modifications of Russian-made fighters are of particular interest, and therefore it is no coincidence that joint American-Indian exercises are being held, although relations between the United States and India are not allied.

The results of exercises are usually interpreted within fairly broad limits.
At the same time, each side tries to present its participation from the most advantageous side. At the same time, no one can ignore the fact of SuZOMKA’s crushing superiority. Another thing is that this advantage was demonstrated almost exclusively in close maneuverable air battles. The conduct of close rather than long-range missile air battles is determined by the exercise scenarios. None of the participants are eager to reveal the real characteristics of airborne radars and demonstrate the features of their operation in combat mode. However, this restriction applies even to many exercises conducted by the air forces of NATO countries.

Nevertheless, the results of the exercises give a good idea of ​​the capabilities of the fighters and the level of combat training of the pilots. The Indian Air Force can be proud of its pilots. To no lesser extent, the success of the Indians was ensured by Russian aviation technology. However, one should not delude oneself - Indian Air Force pilots have won numerous conditional victories in close combat, but they still have to fly to close combat... Thus, the MiG-31 crews of the Russian Air Force do not practice close maneuver combat at all, without any complexes about this.

However, first things first...

The Indian Air Force took part in the first international exercise (after several decades) in 2003. It was the Indo-French Garuda exercise held in India. France was represented by Mirage 2000 fighters, India - Su-30. In June 2005, six Indian Su-ZOKs flew to the French Istres Air Force base to participate in the Garude II exercise. This was the first time in modern Indian history that combat aircraft were transferred to the territory of another state. Exercise Garuda III was held again in 2007 in India. In 2010, the Su-30 visited Istres for the second time; it was a full-fledged Indian version with OVT - Su-ZOMKI. In addition to the French Mirage 2000, Rafale and Indian Su-ZOMKI, F-16s of the Singapore Air Force, IL-78MKI of the Indian Air Force, KS-135 and E-3 of the French Air Force took part in the Garuda IV exercises. The next exercise “Garuda V” took place in the summer of 2014 in India. From France, nine Rafale fighters took part in them, from the Indian Air Force - Su-ZOMKI, MiG-21 and MiG-27, as well as Il-78 and A-50.

The Garuda exercise received widespread press coverage. Broad, but somewhat one-sided: a lot of beautiful photographs, information about the aircraft that were involved in the exercises. Otherwise, the information resembled a sacramental phrase from the times of the unforgettable N.S. Khrushchev: “Hindi Rus' bhai bhai” - Hindus and Russian brothers, with the difference that the French played the role of Russians.

It probably all comes down to the composition of the participants. The Garuda exercise is primarily an Indo-French exercise and Singapore was represented only once - as an "invited guest". France and India are allies; a strategic partnership agreement was concluded between these two states in 1998. Most likely, for this reason, information about the results of the exercise remains purely internal, even ten years after the Garuda I exercise. A completely different situation has developed regarding the US-Indian exercises.

For the first time, US Air Force and Indian Air Force pilots met during an exercise in February 2004 in Gualior, India.
The exercise was named Sore India 2004. From the US Air Force, six F-15C fighters from the 19th Fighter Squadron of the 3rd Tactical Fighter Wing stationed at El Mendorf Air Force Base (Alaska) took part in the exercises. From the Indian Air Force, the Mirage 2000, MiG-21 Bison, MiG-29, Su-ZOMK/K fighters (without thrust vector deflection system) and MiG-27 fighter-bombers took part in the exercises.
The Sore India 2004 exercise was not comprehensive, but consisted of separate offensive and defensive air battles. The combat scenario generally corresponded to that which the Americans practice in DACT training: one-on-one and group battles of a small number of technically more advanced fighters against a larger number of technically less advanced fighters. Group battles usually involved four F-15Cs against 10-12 Indian Air Force aircraft of the same type.

According to the offensive scenario The Americans intercepted Indian Air Force attack aircraft escorted by fighters.
According to defensive- protected a ground facility from attack by Indian aircraft.
The results of the exercises were quite unexpected for both sides: the Indian pilots, to their surprise, not to mention the Americans, simply defeated the enemy. According to average statistical estimates (although there is probably no more truth about the results of training battles in open sources than about real battles; all interested parties exaggerate or downplay the results), the ratio of conditional losses was 9:1 in favor of the Indian Air Force!

According to the commander of the 3rd Air Force Wing, Colonel Mike Snowgrass, the level of training of the Indian pilots and their aircraft turned out to be much better than expected: “The enemy was not only numerically superior, the Indian Air Force pilots had excellent command of their aircraft and were very well trained in tactical terms . The Indians flew various fighters, including the French Mirage 2000, Russian MiG-27 and MiG-29, but the most effective were the Su-ZOMK and the Russian-upgraded MiG-21.”

In long-range battles out of visual visibility, the F-15C and Su-30 detected each other using radar at approximately the same distances, but Indian pilots were more often the first to carry out conditional launches of the R-27 missile launcher and, accordingly, were more likely to win.
In maneuverable combat The Su-30, even in the version without engines with OVT, completely outperformed the F-15C, not least due to its larger fuel reserve, thanks to which the Indians could turn on the afterburners more often than the Americans and for a longer period of time.

If the results of the F-15C battles against the Su-30 were generally expected, then The MiG-21 “Bison” truly surprised the Americans!
In long-range missile battles active jamming devices installed on the Bison disrupted the capture of the Iglov radar.
In close combat The Bison gained an advantage in maneuverability over the F-15C due to its higher angular speed of turning and higher thrust-to-weight ratio.
The Americans knew about the “killer” combination of the helmet-mounted target designation system and the R-73 missile launcher from their experience in combat with the MiG-29, but did not expect to “find” it on the MiG-21. In addition, the Indians in several cases used “semi-silent” interception tactics: the airspace and guidance of the Bison group was carried out by the Su-30 crew, while the MiGs attacked in radio silence, without turning on their radars.
The Americans had to publicly agree with the fact of the successful transformation of a 2nd generation fighter, which is the classic MiG-21, into a 4th generation fighter.

The Americans cited the lack of information support from AWACS aircraft as one of the reasons for their loss at Sora India 2004 - the entire combat tactics of the US Air Force and US Navy aviation are built on providing information support to pilots by the crews of E-3 and E-2 aircraft. At Sora India 2004, the F-15C pilots had to rely only on themselves when searching for targets and assessing the situation in the air, for which they were completely unprepared. The Americans had to draw a disappointing conclusion regarding radars with AFAR and AIM-120 missiles - both of them quite easily take the latest electronic warfare systems out of the game (however, the conclusion regarding radars with AFAR and AIM-120 missiles was made “calculatively”, because the F-15s had conventional radars and fired AIM-7 Sparrow missiles).

Here's a completely unexpected conclusion: for a confident victory over the Indian Air Force in Indian airspace, the US Air Force must have one and a half times numerical superiority!

F-16C at the Indian Air Force base Kalaikunda, exercise "Cope India 2005". In the background is a MiG-27UPG.

It is not surprising that the results of the Sore India 2004 exercise were discussed not only in the Pentagon, but also in the US Congress. Congressmen, in light of the not very positive results for the United States, proposed to immediately finance the urgent modernization of the F-22 and F-35 fighters. Then there was a real battle for funding for further serial production of the F-22, and the F-35 program was hanging by a thread. That is why, almost for the only time in their history, the Americans officially admitted their inconvenient score in air battles. It is clear that they gave a long list of objective and subjective reasons to explain this indicator.

The Sore India 2004 exercise had an impact on the implementation of US military aviation programs, but the system of combat training for Air Force pilots has certainly not changed! Meanwhile, Colonel Snowgrass, in one of his interviews, spoke specifically about the shortcomings of the training system: “Our training against the “red” aviation is probably not good, since the enemy is better than we expected.... We have always believed in the superiority of our equipment over any other, We believed in a war with an enemy technically inferior to us, and therefore the “aggressors” imitated the corresponding ones.”

The Americans noted the differences in the Indian Air Force pilot training system. While the Americans fought with potential adversaries in exercises, adapting to their tactics, the Indian Air Force focused on its pilots fully mastering all the combat capabilities of their aircraft and imposing their tactics on the enemy.

The Americans made conclusions, but as subsequent events showed, mostly on paper.
In 2005, the second US-Indian exercise Sore India 2005 took place. Conducted in November 2005 in the area of ​​the Kalaikunda airbase, pcs. West Bengal, the two-week exercise by the US Air Force this time involved 12 F-16C Block 50 fighters from the 13th Fighter Squadron of the 35th Fighter Wing stationed in Japan at Misawa Air Base. The Indian Air Force, along with the Mirage 2000, MiG-21 Bison and MiG-27, fielded its most advanced fighter jets, Su-ZOMKI, powered by OVT engines. Another important feature of these exercises was the use of AWACS aircraft by both sides. The US Air Force was represented by one E-ZS from the 961st AWACS squadron.

In preparation for the 2005 exercise, six Indian Air Force pilots completed familiarization training, including flying the F-16, at Misawa Air Base, and two US Air Force pilots were given the opportunity to fly the Su-ZOMKI in India. The result turned out to be almost similar to the results of the 2004 exercises - the Indians beat the Yankees. The Americans made another surprising discovery - Indian Air Force pilots use information coming from AWACS aircraft faster and more efficiently.

In the summer of 2008, the Indian Air Force took part in Exercise Red Flag for the first time. The Indian Air Force command sent six Su-ZOMKIs from the 20th Lighting squadron, two Il-78MKI tankers and one Il-76MD transport aircraft of the Indian Air Force to participate in the exercises. Route length 19000 km (!) ran through the countries of the Middle East, the Mediterranean, the Atlantic and a good half of the United States. The flight, of course, was carried out with intermediate stops in Doha (Qatar), Chorlu (Turkey), Mont-de-Marsan (France), Lajes (Azores), Bangor (Maine, USA) and took 11 days. Between each intermediate landing, one refueling was carried out in the air; they flew across the Atlantic with two refuelings.

The Indians arrived at the Mountain Home airbase. Idaho in mid-July. Here, for three weeks, work was carried out to coordinate the procedures for conducting flights, which are different in the Indian and US Air Forces. As the commander of the 20th Squadron of the US Air Force, Lieutenant Colonel George Thomas, put it: “In India they fly almost the same as here, but the terminology and jargon for radio communication are completely different.”
The three weeks of preliminary training included more than just radio practice. In addition to Indian Air Force aircraft, F-15C and F-15E from the 85th Test and Evaluation Squadron from Eglin Air Force Base and eight F-16s from the 18th Aggressor Squadron from Alaska flew to Mountain Home. The “testers,” like the Indians, were to take part in the Red Flag exercises, and the “aggressors” were to conduct air battles against the Su-30 and F-15.

Joint training flights of fighter jets of the US Air Force and the Indian Air Force began on July 21. One-on-one and pair-on-pair air combat was practiced. In addition to guests, F-15 fighters from the “home” 366th Fighter Wing took part in these battles. Officially, these air battles were precisely training sessions to agree on flight rules, although in reality they were real training battles. Their results were discussed with much more fervor than the activities of Su-ZOMKA during the subsequent Red Flag exercises. Each last flight of the flight shift, a mixed Indian-American crew flew on one of the Su-ZOMKIs; accordingly, the seat in the rear cockpit of the F-15E was occupied by an Indian Air Force pilot.
A limited contingent of the Indian Air Force flew to Nellis Base on August 9, 2008.

When agreeing on the exercise scenario, the operating modes of the Bars radar installed on the Su-ZOMKI became the subject of heated discussions. The American side, hoping to obtain as much information as possible about the most modern sight of the Russian design, insisted on using combat modes, but the Indians categorically refused to disclose all the operating parameters of the Su-ZOMKI radar. However, the Indians’ agreement to operate the radar in training mode was already progress, since during the 2007 exercises in the UK, the radars of Su-ZOMKI fighters were not turned on at all!

Also, the Indian Air Force command prohibited the use of active and passive jamming means during exercises in the United States, although this ban seriously complicated the lives of pilots. The Su-ZOMKI airborne defense system, in addition to jamming, is capable of “opening” the air defense system, which is of great importance for victory in the Red Flag exercises. Another Indian restriction was the refusal to simulate battles using the R-77 missile launcher, an analogue of the American AIM-120 AMRAAM missile launcher.
There is more than enough speculation about the results of the Red Flag exercise in the media and on the Internet, but official information is practically reduced to zero. The Americans, naturally, tried to get as much information as possible about Su-ZOMKI.

US Air Force spokesman Colonel Terence Fornoff released the following conclusions based on observations of Indian pilots and their equipment:

The Indian Air Force is experiencing problems with Russian-made engines;
- Indian pilots are prone to “fratricide” - a “friendly” plane was shot down;
- the interval between takeoffs in the Indian Air Force is 60 seconds, twice as long as in the Air Forces of many developed countries;
- F-15 is capable of shooting down Su-ZOMKI;
- in close combat, the Indian Air Force does not pose a serious threat to the US Air Force.

The Indian side categorically disagreed with the conclusions voiced by the US Air Force colonel.
- According to the Indian version, Su-ZOMKI during training at Mountain Home not only did not lose a single battle to the “aggressors” of the 18th squadron, not a single “drying” was even close to the F-16’s kill zone in close combat, although several battles ended in vain: the fighters were unable to take the position necessary to guarantee the destruction of the target.

During the Red Flag exercise, several Su-ZOMKIs were conditionally shot down, but mainly tasks to destroy ground targets. However, during the exercises, the “dryers” still took part in several group air battles. In one of these battles, the “blues”, which included Indian Su-ZOMKIs, shot down 21 aircraft of the “reds” (the majority of victories were won by Indian pilots).

Regarding the so-called engine problems: more than 90% combat readiness of the Su-ZOMKI during the exercises speaks for itself, and do not forget that before the exercises the planes flew around half of the globe! During the exercise, Su-ZOMKI flew 850 hours, which is equivalent to operating six fighters of this type at home (in India) for four months.

- The “destruction” of one’s fighter actually took place, but it is a consequence of the ban on the use of Su-ZOMKI on-board information systems in full and in combat modes- Indian pilots exchanged information exclusively by voice, via radio. In this case, the Indian side could not resist the “hairpin”: “The Americans’ information systems worked great, but they shot down several ‘friendly’ targets.”

The Indian side explained the 60-second interval simply. When taking off at 30-second intervals, the likelihood of damage to the engines by objects lifted from the runway by the jet of gases from the engines of the fighter taking off ahead increases. As a rule, such objects leave nicks on the turbine blades. The defect is eliminated during repairs, but the repairs of all engines until 2015 were carried out in Russia. During repairs, the Indian Air Force had to rent (and pay rent) another engine from the manufacturer, in Russia. Replacing the power plant with Su-ZOMKIs located in the USA was generally excluded, since Russia categorically prohibited the import of even spare engines into the United States.

Finally, the most intriguing comment from the Indians regarding the fact that the Americans stated that it was not a problem for the F-15 pilots to shoot down the Su-ZOMKI: “We fought with the Raptors - dudes. They were shot down with the first attack, and then they started again. It's like that every time. The F-15 won't be able to do anything at all. ... The angular speed of the Raptor turn is 28 degrees/s; for the Su-ZOMKA this figure, when using a deflected thrust vector, is significantly higher than 35 degrees. As an F-15 pilot, Fornof knows how difficult it is to fight the F-22 in this aircraft. If Su-ZOMKI potentially beats the Raptor like a knife cuts butter, what will it do to the F-15?”

The intrigue of this quote The point is that the Raptors did not seem to take part in the Red Flag 2008 exercise at all.
According to unofficial data, the Americans did not want to show off their newest fighter, both to the Indians and to the French, who first displayed their Rafales at Red Flag. However, battles between the F-22 and the Su-ZOMKI cannot be ruled out either. Thus, the Americans were silent for a long time about the battle between the F-22 and the Rafale, but when in 2012 the French showed a video of the Raptor in the sight of the Rafale, they were forced to enter into a debate on the topic of who shot down whom and how.

The American fighters did not impress the Indian pilots, but they learned an important lesson from Red Flag about the need to organize an “information battlefield.” Deputy Commander of the Indian Air Force, Air Marshal Nike, noted: “Today we will not be able to hold out for long against a worthy enemy without network-centric means.”

In July 2015, the Indian Air Force once again surprised the West.

Four Su-ZOMKIs (ten flight crews: 15 pilots and five SUV operators) from the 20th squadron of the Indian Air Force flew to the UK at Coningsby airbase to participate in the joint exercise “Indradanush 2015” (“Rainbow”) support aircraft S-17, S-130 and Il-78. The exercises took place from July 20 to July 31. From the British Air Force, Typhoon FGR.4 fighters from No. 3 Squadron RAF took part in the exercise.

In the initial phase of the exercises, one-on-one and pair-on-pair air battles were carried out. Then - one “Typhoon” against a pair of Su-ZOMKI and vice versa. The culmination was four-on-four, eight-on-eight battles and an air battle between four Su-ZOMKI and six Typhoons, which performed the task of covering two S-130 transports, which, according to the scenario, were to drop a real parachute landing behind the lines of a mock enemy, against ten “aggressors” , in the role of which were “Typhoons”. Flights were carried out twice a day.

In air battles, the Indian Air Force defeated the British with a score of 12:0! Following the US Air Force, it was the Royal Air Force's turn to experience shock. In this case, the situation is even more serious. The Typhoons were flown by pilots who took part in “policing missions” over the Baltic. NATO countries constantly keep their fighters at the airfield in Siauliai, ostensibly to protect the airspace of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. These aircraft regularly take off to intercept and escort any aircraft of the Russian Air Force and Naval Aviation that appear over the Baltic Sea.
During such interceptions, “DACT training” takes place with the participation of Russian Su-27s. DACT winners are not always the cool guys with nicely painted airplanes. For example, there is information that their command did not recommend that NATO pilots approach the peeling-to-the-primer "dryers" from Besovets... In the skies of their native England, the Typhoon pilots had the opportunity to find out what awaits them in the event of a meeting with much more advanced ones than the Su -27 Russian-designed fighters.

The British media, much more objective in comparison with the American ones, especially noted that the Su-ZOMKI and the Typhoon FGR.4 belong to the same generation. Both fighters are equipped with radars with AFAR and IR sighting systems. Their maneuvering characteristics are generally similar - the Typhoon's turning radius is smaller, but the Su-ZOMKI, due to the use of OVT, is faster able to change its position in the horizontal and vertical plane.

Exercise Indradanush 2015 was not the first time Indian Su-ZOMKIs appeared in Europe.
In 2007, Indian fighters took part in joint exercises at Waddington airbase, but then only single air battles were carried out with severe restrictions due to the requirements of the Indian side. In fact, these were pure “dog fights” without the use of radar, medium- and long-range missile launches. In the 2015 exercises, the restrictions were much less stringent, although again mainly close maneuver combat was carried out.

The objectivity of the British SI is objectivity, but the British called the information released by the Indian Air Force representative about the score 12:0 “the usual bravado of fighter pilots,” although they recognized the Su-ZOMKI as a terrible weapon in experienced hands. An RAF official was more reserved: “Our analyzes do not confirm this (Indian) information. RAF pilots and Typhoon aircraft performed well in training exercises with the Indian Air Force. Both sides gained useful experience from the exercise, which will be taken into account in future exercises.”
Not only India
Perhaps the most intriguing exercise in recent years was the joint US-Malaysian Air Force exercise Sore Tai-fan 2014, held in June 2014 in Malaysia. For the first time in history, in head-to-head battles, albeit training ones, the F-22 officially came together on one side, and the Su-ZOMKM and MiG-291\1 on the other.

Aircraft that took part in Sora Thai-fan 2014: Hornet, MiG-29, SU-30MKM and Hawk of the Malaysian Navy, American F-22 and F-15.

From the Malaysian Air Force, four Su-ZOMKM from the 11th squadron of the Malaysian Air Force, four MIG-29N from the 17th squadron, two F-18Ds from the 18th squadron, four Hawks from the 6th and 15th squadron took part in the exercises. th squadrons, as well as several transport aircraft and helicopters. The US Air Force was represented by six F-22 Raptors from the 19th and 199th squadrons of the 154th Fighter Wing stationed in Hawaii, eight F-15Cs from the 131st Fighter Squadron of the 104th Fighter Wing of the National Guard (the site of the permanent stationed at Barneys Air Force Base, Massachusetts) and transport aircraft.

According to the exercise scenario combat operations were practiced over the waters of the South China Sea adjacent to the coast of Malaysia. The US and Malaysian air forces alternately acted as attackers and defenders. In one of the training missions, eight F-15Cs were trained to intercept two Malaysian C-130s and one American C-17, which had fighter cover in the form of four Su-ZOMKMs, six F-22s, two MiG-29s and two F-18. As usual, air battles became mandatory in such exercises, which were carried out in one-on-one and pair-on-pair scenarios, as well as a pair of Malaysian Hawks against one US Air Force fighter.

Hokies and Raptor taxi to the start

These exercises aroused great interest in aviation circles around the world, however, none of the parties that took part in Sora Taufan 2014 provided official information about the results of the exercises. However, just a month after the completion of the exercises, “leaks” appeared in the press about the Raptors allegedly “shot down” by the Malaysians. Interestingly, one F-22 was shot down... by a Hawk! It is not difficult to guess which party allowed or deliberately organized the leak of information.

Moreover, even before the completion of the exercises, the Malaysian press published a photograph taken from the cockpit of an American F-15 using a camera mounted on the pilot’s aircraft. The photo shows a MiG-29 attacking an F-22 on a collision course. It can be seen that the F-22 was clearly within the range of the MiG cannon. According to the commentary on this photo, the MiG-29 pilot carried out an attack in radio silence mode following guidance from the F-15 pilot - the same one who took the photo.

A short note about the air battle between the Su-ZOMKM and the Raptor was published in the Malaysian magazine Life&Times at the end of July 2014:

***
“Mogwai” (call sign of the Su-ZOMKM pilot) detected the enemy to his right. The planes approached at a speed of about 900 knots (1665 km/h). The fighters missed each other very quickly, but Mogwai instinctively turned the stick towards itself and to the side, putting his huge fighter into a left turn. The overload pressed the pilot into the seat, he craned his neck, trying not to lose sight of the enemy. The silhouette of a US Air Force F-22A Raptor fighter appeared in the sight. The pilot constantly worked with the throttles, all the time “Mogwai” visually recorded the enemy, but with one eye he followed the speed value that was displayed on the HUD. On a turn, Su lost speed and energy, and a “dog fight” always requires constant monitoring of energy.

Two fighters fought a classic battle in a horizontal plane at an altitude of 4600 m above the training ground. “Mogwai” and “Smegs” (SUV operator’s call sign) piloted the Malaysian Air Force’s newest and most advanced multi-role fighter aircraft, the Sukhoi Su-ZOMKM “Super Flanker”. The nozzles of the two Lyulka AL-31FP engines deviated at a crazy angle and Mogwai began to lift the nose of its fighter towards the central part of the Raptor fuselage.

- “Mogwai” saw “Raptor” in front of it, which is also equipped with a thrust vector deflection system, but only in one, vertical, plane. The symbols of “capturing” a stealth aircraft appeared on the HUD. Now “Mogwai” was waiting for a sound signal to be heard in the headphones, allowing the use of weapons, or for the target to be framed by a mark for aimed shooting from a cannon. From the back seat “Smegs” commented on the situation: “Makan dial Makan dia, beb! Lagi! Lagi! Lagil" His work was partly tactical (situation analysis), partly commanding (controlling the actions of the pilot), in addition, "Smegs" provided "Mogwai" with an additional pair of eyes.

In this one-on-one battle, only short-range missiles and cannons were allowed. The Raptor's armament consisted of an AIM-9M Sidewinder missile launcher and an onboard six-barreled M-61 A Vulcan cannon of 20 mm caliber. "Super Flanker" carried super maneuverable
UR Vympel R-73. In addition, the Su-ZOMKM had a single-barrel 30-mm GSh-301 cannon.

MiG-29 over the F-22 raptor!During exercises in Malaysia.

This was the second fight after takeoff from Malaysian Air Force Base Butterworth. In the first, luck favored the guys from the Sukhoi cockpit. Since there was enough fuel left in the tanks of both fighters after the first battle, the exercise director allowed another fight...

The situation in an air battle changes quickly, and the advantage of one crew is short-lived. The pilot has only one to two seconds to aim a burst from a cannon.

Just as the Mogwai was about to fire its cannon, the Raptor pilot banked the plane and at the same time raised its nose, performing a high-G maneuver. Clearly visible strands of air turbulence came off the Raptor's wings. The American turned on the afterburners, and a blue flame burst out of the nozzles of the Pratt & Whitney F-119 engines. He went up almost vertically, like an angel yearning for heaven.

“Rasak! Pacak! Dia rasak, bail,” shouted “Smegs.” "Rasak" means "go up" in Malaysian Air Force pilot jargon. Mogwai was a fraction of a second late. “Raptor” managed to accelerate before “Mogwai” moved the throttles to the “Zone 5” position, turning on the afterburners. But it was impossible to catch up with Raptor.

F-22 and F-15 on exercises in Malaysia

After the flight, Malaysian Air Force pilots shared with Life&Times their impressions of the two-week Sore Taufan exercise: “Objectively, there are no winners or losers in such exercises. It is more important for us to gain new experience. ... They (the exercises) allow us to test the quality of our training and flight organization,” said the Super Flanker pilot. Fighter pilots use energy manoeuvring charts (EM charts) when planning air battles. “We have EM charts for the F-15, but we did not know anything about the Raptor, since such information is classified. Now we have learned something and are able to plan battles taking into account the shortcomings of this fighter,” added the Sukhoi pilot.

The opportunity to go head-to-head with the world's only 5th generation fighter in service has caused excitement among Malaysian Air Force pilots. Many people wanted to test this fighter. Although the results of the exercise are classified, it is known that several Malaysian pilots performed excellently in battles with the Raptor.

While Malaysian Air Force pilots have already encountered F-15s in previous exercises, Sore Taufan 2014 was the first time the Raptors appeared in Southeast Asia.

F-15 and MiG-29 during exercises in Malaysia

The creation of this article was provoked by regular disputes and measurements of various “organs” in topics about our aviation. In general, the audience for these discussions can be divided into those who believe that we are hopelessly behind, and those who, on the contrary, are subject to unprecedented enthusiasm and firmly believe that everything is wonderful. The argument basically boils down to the fact that “nothing flies with us, but everything is cool with them.” And vice versa. I decided to highlight several theses around which frequent debates flare up, and give them my assessment.
For those who value their time, I give conclusions at the very beginning:
1) The US Air Force and the Russian Air Force are approximately equal in both quantitative and qualitative terms, with the US having a slight advantage;
2) The trend for the next 5-7 years is to achieve almost complete parity;
3) PR, advertising and psychological warfare are the favorite and effective method of conducting US military operations. An enemy who is psychologically defeated (by lack of faith in the power of his weapon, hands, etc.) is already half defeated.
So, let's begin.

Is the US Air Force/Navy/Guard the most powerful aircraft in the world?

Yes this is true. The strength of the US Air Force as of May 2013 was 934 fighters, 96 bombers, 138 attack aircraft, 329 transport aircraft, 216 tankers, 938 training aircraft and 921 other aircraft.
For comparison, the strength of the Russian Air Force as of May 2013 is 738 fighters, 163 bombers, 153 attack aircraft, 372 transport aircraft, 18 tankers, 200 training equipment and 500 other aircraft. As you can see, there is no “monstrous” quantitative superiority.
However, there are nuances, the main one of which is - US aviation is aging, and there is no replacement for it .

Su-35
Yes, that's right, the US has 141 in service F-22A. We have Su-35S - 18 pieces. PAK FA - undergoing flight tests. But you need to consider:
a) Airplanes F-22 discontinued due to 1) high cost (280-300 units. $ versus 85-95 Su-35); 2) they overlooked the issue of the tail unit (it fell apart when overloaded); 3) glitches with the fire control system (fire control system).
b) F-35, with all his PR, very far from 5th generation . And there are plenty of shortcomings: either the EMDS will fail, or the airframe will not work as it should, or the control system will malfunction.
c) By 2017, the troops will receive: Su-35S - 95 units, PAK FA - 60 units .
d) Comparing individual aircraft outside the context of their combat use is not correct. Combat is high-intensity and multi-modal mutual destruction, where much depends on specific topography, weather conditions, luck, training, coordination, morale, etc. Individual combat units do not solve anything. On paper, a conventional ATGM will destroy any modern tank, but in battle conditions everything is much more prosaic.
Their 5th generation is many times superior to our PAK FA and Su-35S?
This is a very bold statement.
and if F-22 And F-35 so cool, why are they: 1) So carefully hidden? 2) Why don’t they allow EPR measurements to be taken? 3) Why aren’t there demonstration dogfights or at least simple comparative maneuvering, like at air shows?
b) If you compare the performance characteristics of our and American aircraft, you can find a lag in our aircraft only in terms of EPR (in Su-35S) and detection range (20-30 km). 20-30 km in range is bullshit for the simple reason that the missiles that we have are superior to the US ones AIM-54, AIM-152AAAM in range by 80-120 km . I'm talking about RVV DB, KS-172, R-37. So, if the radar F-35 or F-22 have a better range against unobtrusive targets, then how will they shoot down this target? And where is the guarantee that the “contact” will not fly “low”?
c) There is nothing universal in military affairs. An attempt to create a universal aircraft capable of performing the functions of an interceptor, bomber, fighter and attack aircraft leads to the fact that universal becomes synonymous with mediocre . War recognizes only the best models in their class, tailored to solve specific problems. Therefore, if an attack aircraft, then - Su-25SM, if a front-line bomber, - Su-34, if interceptor, - MiG-31BM, if a fighter, - Su-35S.
G) “America spent $400 billion in R&D to create the F-35, and $70 billion for the F-22. Russia spent only $8 billion to create the T-50. Doesn’t anyone realize that if Russia would spend $400 billion on a research project, they would probably produce an aircraft capable of conquering the world in a second…”(c) War is not a comparison of who has X longer. What is more important is who will have the best X in terms of price/quality ratio.
Does the US have significant superiority in strategic air forces?
This is wrong. The US Air Force operates 96 strategic bombers: 44 B-52N, 36 B-1B and 16 V-2A. B-2- exclusively subsonic - carries only free-falling bombs from nuclear weapons. B-52N- subsonic and old, like a mammoth. B-1B- is not currently a carrier of nuclear weapons (START-3). Compared with B-1, Tu-160 has a 1.5 times greater take-off weight, 1.3 times greater combat radius, 1.6 times greater speed and a greater load in the internal compartments. By 2025, we plan to commission a new strategic bomber ( PAK YES), which will replace Tu-95 And Tu-160. The United States has extended the service life of its aircraft until 2035.
If you compare their ALCMs (cruise missiles) with ours, then everything turns out quite interesting. AGM-86 ALCM has a range of 1200-1400 km. Ours X-55- 3000-3500 km, and X-101- 5000-5500 km. Those., Tu-160 can shoot at enemy territory or AUG without entering the affected area, and then calmly leave at supersonic speed (for comparison, the maximum operating time at full thrust with afterburner for the F/A-18 is 10 minutes, for the 160th - 45 minutes ). It also raises deep doubts about their ability to overcome a normal (non-Arab-Yugoslav) air defense system.
Summing up , I want to note once again that modern air warfare is not about individual battles in the air, but about the work of detection, target designation and suppression systems. And look at the plane (be it F-22 or PAK FA) like a proud, lonely “wolf” in the sky - no need. There are a lot of all sorts of nuances around in the form of air defense, electronic warfare, ground-based RiRTR, weather conditions, flares, LTC and other joys that will not allow the pilot to even reach the target. Therefore, there is no need to compose sagas and sing hymns to single fantastic winged ships that will bring laurels of victory to the feet of those who created them and destroy everyone who dares to “raise a hand” against their creators.

Throughout its history, humanity has been constantly modernizing its methods of conducting military operations. Soon after the conquest of airspace, it became obvious that this environment could be effectively used in solving ground-based military tasks. According to experts, the use of combat aircraft can radically change the course of military operations on the ground. Today, the aviation of Russia and the United States is considered one of the most powerful.

There is constant unspoken competition between these two states. Information about the best combat aircraft of the Russian Federation and the United States is presented in the article.

"Ilya Muromets"

This legendary Russian combat aircraft was created on the eve of the First World War. During the war years, 76 such aircraft were produced. "Ilya Muromets" is the world's first heavy bomber. This aircraft model was systematically modified during production. The released versions of Ilya Muromets were assembled into a special squadron. These heavy bombers could transport bombs that weighed 1,500 kg, which was considered unheard of at the time. As a defensive weapon, the combat aircraft was equipped with machine guns. Depending on the modification, their number varied from 2 to 6.

This combat aircraft became an aviation legend during World War II. “Concrete plane”, “black death”, “plague”: this is what German pilots and infantrymen called the Soviet attack aircraft. Serial production of the Il-2 began in 1941. In total, Soviet industry produced 36 thousand combat vehicles. In order to lighten the design of the aircraft, the developers introduced an innovative solution: unlike previous aircraft, the Il-2 did not have armor installed on top of the body. Now its location has become the actual power circuit of the aircraft. However, despite this innovation, the IL-2 did not become more secure. Just a few months after the start of the war, the Soviet Union suffered heavy losses in the number of these combat vehicles.

About the MiG-15 fighter

This combat aircraft was created by Soviet aviation designers in the late 40s. Models of this fighter were produced in many countries. Before the advent of the MiG-15, Soviet aviation was considered obsolete. In order to carry out air strikes on the territory of the Soviet Union, the Americans assembled an armada of strategic bombers. The appearance of the MiG-15 in the skies over Korea created a real sensation among American and European strategists. Only the American-made F-86 Saber could compete with the Soviet fighter. However, according to experts, the US fighter was still inferior to the MiG-15.

B-17

This legendary US combat aircraft was released in 1934. The B-17 is an American serial all-metal strategic bomber. He gained worldwide fame during the Great Patriotic War. Using this combat vehicle, the Americans successfully bombed German cities. The B-17 was also used in Pacific battles.

The bomber was equipped with four engines and could reach speeds of over 500 km/h. At first, the service ceiling of the B-17 did not exceed 10 thousand meters. Later, this figure was increased to 12 thousand meters. The combat aircraft was equipped with a 12.7 mm machine gun, which posed a serious threat to enemy fighters. High reliability is considered a characteristic feature of this bomber. American aviation documents indicate cases where a B-17 with a punctured fuselage returned back to base using only one working engine.

Su-27

On the basis of this Soviet fighter produced in 1980, Russian combat aircraft Su-30...35 and other models are being created today. The Su-27 is the pinnacle of Soviet aviation. This fighter is used today by the air forces of Russia, India and China. Despite the fact that this fighter has not yet had to meet with a serious enemy, experts regard it as one of the best and most promising fourth-generation combat aircraft in the world. There are many positive reviews about the latest modifications based on the Soviet Su-27.

American "Eagle"

Despite the fact that the F-15 Eagle was built ten years before the Su-27, today it is considered one of the best fourth-generation fighters. "Eagle" is used by America, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Japan. The F-15 Eagle has proven itself to be a true killer of enemy fighters. He has over a hundred victories in air battles. The Eagle carried out its combat missions in the skies over Yugoslavia, Syria and Iraq. The American command in its official statements claims that US aviation has lost only ten such fighters in the entire history of the F-15 Eagle. However, it is not possible to verify the accuracy of this information, since the leadership of the US Air Force has never provided the public with the wreckage of the downed fighters.

F-22 Raptor

This is a modern fifth generation combat aircraft. It has supersonic speed even with the afterburner turned off. Stealth technology is used in the manufacture of the aircraft.

The American fighter is equipped with the most modern on-board electronics and phased array radar. The price of the fighter is much higher than the cost of other US Air Force combat aircraft. It amounts to 350 million dollars. Russia and China are also developing the latest fifth-generation combat aircraft.

TTX

• Design work began in 1996.
• Country of origin: USA.
• In service with the Air Force since 2005.
• The length of the aircraft is 18.92 m.
• Wingspan: 13.56 m.
• The fighter weighs 19,700 kg.
• The F-22 is capable of reaching a maximum speed of 2,410 km/h and a cruising speed of 1,963 km/h.
• Price of one aircraft: $350 million.

PAK-FA

The T-50 is Russia's new combat aircraft. It is a promising aviation complex for front-line aviation. The car has a futuristic shape. In this way, the T-50 is very similar to the F-22. The T-50 made its first flight in 2010.

A year later it was seen by the general public. The MAKS air show became the venue for the display of the modern Russian fighter. Today, this combat aircraft is under development. According to experts, very soon the T-50 will join the ranks of Russian aviation. Before comparing the Russian PAK-FA and the American F-22, it is necessary to have an understanding of fifth-generation aviation and know how it differs from previous combat aircraft.

The most promising and best aircraft models are those that are very invisible to the radar and infrared wavelengths. In addition, fifth generation fighters must meet the following criteria:

• Be multifunctional.
• Have high maneuverability and supersonic cruising speed. Such a speed should be available without switching to afterburner.
• Be distinguished by the ability to conduct close combat operations from all angles and using multi-channel firing of high-range missiles.
• Equipped with the most modern and advanced electronics.

Compared to the F-22, the PAK-FA is larger in size. The T-50's wingspan is also larger, which is why aviation experts believe that the Russian fighter is more maneuverable. The maximum speed of the PAK-FA is higher than that of the American fighter. However, the F-22 has a higher cruise rating. The T-50 also has a longer practical range and a lower take-off weight. However, the Russian combat aircraft is not as stealthy as the F-22.

Since one of the requirements for fifth-generation aircraft is the presence of the most modern electronics, at this point the Russian combat vehicle is inferior to the American one. This is due to the fact that this area in aircraft manufacturing is quite problematic. This was known back in the years of the Soviet Union. According to military experts, a similar situation is now observed in Russia. Thus, the radar, weapons and aerodynamic properties of the T-50 are no worse than those of the F-22, but the electronic equipment leaves much to be desired. Photos of combat aircraft are presented in the article.

Characteristics of the T-50

• The beginning of design work is the 80s.
• Country of origin: USSR.
• The aircraft entered service in 2014.
• Length - 22 m.
• Wingspan - 14.2 m.
• The combat aircraft weighs 17,500 kg.
• The T-50 has a maximum speed of up to 2600 km/h, cruising speed: 1400 km/h.
• The price of one aircraft is 250 million dollars.

About the Russian Su-47 "Berkut"

For the needs of the Russian Air Force, employees of the P. O. Sukhoi Experimental Design Bureau designed a prototype of the fifth-generation Su-47 Berkut combat aircraft.

Wanting to provide the aircraft with high maneuverability and new combat capabilities, the designers equipped it with forward-swept wings and improved the control system in the cockpit. The aircraft is made of high-quality composite materials.

Today, the Berkut is in a state of refinement because it does not meet all the requirements for fifth-generation combat aircraft: the Su-47 cannot reach supersonic speed without using afterburner. To correct this shortcoming, the designers are going to use a new engine for the combat vehicle in the future, for which a variable thrust vector is provided. Equipped with such an engine, the Berkut will easily overcome the supersonic barrier without using afterburner. The Su-47 was first tested in 1997. In total, only one copy was made, which today is used as a test one.

About the characteristics

• Wingspan - 16.7 m.
• Su-47 length: 22.6 m.
• Height: 6.4 m.
• The aircraft is equipped with a 2TRDDF D-30F6 engine.
• Su-47 speed: 1400-2200 km/h.
• It has a practical range of up to 3300 km and a ceiling of up to 18 km.

F-15E Strike Eagle

This long-range combat aircraft was developed by the American company McDonnell Douglas in the 1980s. The F-15E Strike Eagle is an all-weather, multi-role fighter whose mission is to isolate a war zone.

Escort and radio-electronic support are not required for this aircraft. The fighter has a dark camouflage paint scheme. Fuel tanks are located along the air intakes. The aircraft was used by the US Air Force to perform combat missions in countries such as Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. With the help of the F-15E, important targets were attacked from long distances and airspace patrols were carried out. In addition, the F-15E was used to provide close air support to coalition forces. At the moment, this combat aircraft is in service with the US Air Force and is also produced for export to other countries.

Prospects

Today, aviation engineers of the design bureau named after. Mikoyan is developing a fifth-generation fighter based on the MiG-35 combat aircraft. The designers plan to create an aircraft that will surpass the T-50 in its characteristics and will be used to perform expanded tasks.

In addition, in the future, aviation designers plan to replace the M-160 and Tu-95 aircraft with a promising long-range aviation complex. Work on a new strategic bomber is being carried out at the Design Bureau named after. Tupolev since 2009. The customer for the new aviation combat vehicle since 2014 is the Russian Ministry of Defense. At the moment, very little is known about the type and characteristics of the future aircraft. Presumably, this aircraft will be subsonic, designed as a “flying wing”. The first release is planned for 2020. Serial production will begin in 2025. Similar work within the framework of the Next Generation Bomber project is currently underway in the United States. According to available data, the American aircraft will be subsonic and designed for a huge range (presumably 9 thousand km). The United States will allocate half a billion dollars to produce one aircraft.

Finally

Aviation is the leading branch of the armed forces for Russia and the United States. The United States is the first country in the world to use stealth aircraft and fifth-generation fighters. Today, American fighters and strategic bombers, numbering at least 5,600 aircraft of various types, are successfully used to fight ISIS militants.

After the collapse of the USSR, Russia became the owner of the bulk of the former state's aviation. The country is armed with 1,500 combat aircraft. However, most of them are outdated. The collapse of the USSR had a negative impact on the aviation industry in Russia. Many projects remained unrealized. Russian designers today have to make up for lost time.

Combat aviation occupies one of the leading places in modern warfare.
Using only combat aircraft, modern countries can topple regimes, destroy enemy economies and infrastructure, and constrain enemy ground operations; and the entry of even one aircraft carrier seriously changes the balance of power in the region.

F-22 is the only 5th generation production fighter
But the real ratio of the aviation capabilities of the United States and Russia, despite all the Kremlin’s assurances, shows an incredible lag in both quantitative and qualitative terms.
In terms of technology, Russia lags behind by decades, and in quantitative terms by several times.
The Observer, based on data collected by Flight Global, analyzed the real capabilities of US and Russian aviation.

Three times superiority
In terms of the number of combat aircraft, the United States has continued to hold the leading position for many years now. The Pentagon, based on the results of 2015, has 2,785 combat aircraft. The closest competitor is China, which has 1,528 units. They are already followed by Russia, which has 1,438 combat aircraft.
But when assessing Chinese combat aviation, it is necessary to take into account the fact that every fourth Chinese combat aircraft is modified copies of Soviet aircraft from the 50s and 60s. True, their production is still ongoing or was completed several years ago.

In turn, Russia is also at the stage of a critically needed renewal of its aircraft fleet, which were developed in the 70-80s. Now it is partially modernized. Thus, since the beginning of the 2010s, the Kremlin has launched a large-scale program to improve the combat qualities of vehicles by installing new engines, electronics and weapons with new types of missiles.
If we directly compare all US and Russian fighters, the Pentagon has an almost threefold advantage in numbers. But it should be noted that in the United States, almost all fighters have the ability to launch high-precision strikes against ground targets. In Russia, this capability is available only to modified fighters and is mainly assigned to the Su-24 and Su-34 front-line bombers, as well as the Su-25 attack aircraft.

Another critical aspect of the air war remains the increased mobility of US aircraft. The Pentagon not only has a huge number of air bases around the world, but also the largest aircraft carrier fleet, which includes 10 aircraft carriers.
In addition, the US Air Force operates the largest fleet of aerial tankers and airborne early warning aircraft, which significantly enhance aviation capabilities.

The current state of Russian aviation is driven by the chronic lag of the USSR from the United States in the aviation sector. With the collapse of the Soviet country, it only worsened, creating an additional 10-15 year gap in technology between the countries.
Now Russia's fighters at its enterprises are up to generation 4+, the level that American aircraft reached in the 80-90s of the last century. At the same time, the United States was already developing the fifth generation F-22 fighter. Similar developments in Moscow were disrupted by the collapse of the USSR and the deep economic crisis of the 90s. Development was able to resume only in 2002.
During this time, the United States not only began production of its F-22, but also completed its serial production, producing about 200 units.

Its Russian counterpart PAK-FA, designated T-50, is only now undergoing flight tests, which have been ongoing since 2010. And if the Kremlin’s initial plans by 2020 envisaged the creation of 52 T-50 fighters, now the contract has been reduced to 12 units. At the same time, the development itself is divided into two stages - in addition to the economy, problems with the development of a new engine and the lack of new missiles for the T-50 also affected.
“Before 2017, the first stage of creating the T-50 fighter with a transition engine will be completed. Until 2020, the latest standard engine and new weapons will be tested,” said the general director of the Tactical Missile Weapons Corporation, Boris Obnosov, as reported by RIA Novosti.

Things are even worse in Russia with the project of the new PAK-DA strategic bomber, which should replace the honorary veterans of the Tu-95, which made its first flight under Stalin, and the newer Tu-160. But now the Kremlin is trying not to remember this project, which, according to initial plans, was supposed to “get off the ground” in 2020.
As of 2015, it is known from Russian media reports that work is now in the state of “reconstruction and technical re-equipment of the production base” for the production of prototype PAK-DA aircraft. Considering the fate of the T-50, it is quite possible to assume the real time frame for completing the project.
At the same time, judging by the preliminary description, when choosing a preliminary design design, the “flying wing” scheme won. “Due to the huge wingspan and design features, the PAK-DA will not be able to overcome the speed of sound, but will be invisible to radars,” Izvestia wrote, citing a source in the Russian Air Force.
Thus, the PAK-DA will most likely be an analogue of the famous American “stealth” B-2, which made its first flight back in 1989. At the same time, work is already underway in the United States to create a new machine based on it.

Race of generations
To be fair, it is worth noting that the development of new generation aircraft faces certain difficulties not only in Russia. Even in the United States, the government was forced to reduce purchases of B-2 bombers to 21 units. The cost of one B-2, excluding development costs, reached $1.1 billion. The F-22 fighter costs less, but also an astronomical amount - 150 million, excluding development costs. These aircraft received the status of the most expensive aircraft in their classes throughout the history of aviation.
Even the new American project of the F-35 light fighter, which was created as a cheaper version of the F-22, ran into high costs. At the same time, the developer Lockheed Martin does not disclose the full cost of the aircraft, publishing only data on the cost of the aircraft without an engine. Thus, the basic version of the F-35 without an engine costs $98 million, and the most expensive one, with the ability to take off and land vertically, costs $116 million, without an expensive dual propulsion system.

Such limited data, as well as the massive rejection of the F-35 by foreign customers, forced Western journalists to conduct their own research into the cost of the F-35. As a result, they estimate the average price to be $150 million for the base version. And 200-300 million dollars for the most expensive one.
It is worth noting that for $150 million you can buy 3-5 4+ generation F-16 fighters, depending on the configuration. And, as practice shows, the capabilities of the F-16 are quite sufficient to solve most combat missions during modern local wars. And stealth technologies cannot always provide absolute invulnerability; they increase operating costs and impose restrictions on the amount of ammunition.

War 4+
In this situation, aircraft of previous generations remain the main, although not decisive, striking force in both the United States and Russia.
For the United States, this is a huge fleet of F-15, F-16 and F-18 fighters, and A-10 attack aircraft. For Russia - MiG-29/35, Su-27/35 fighters, Su-25 attack aircraft, Su-24 front-line bombers and the Su-34 that replace them. Their main difference, without going into a comparison of missile weapons, is only bringing Russian vehicles to the level of their American counterparts.

The same concept, especially in the light of the vague prospects of the F-35, is followed by NATO countries. Their budgets also do not include astronomical amounts for the purchase of supernova aircraft.
As a result, the current state of aviation is at a stage where technology makes it possible to create more advanced equipment, but the leadership of countries either does not have the money for it or does not see the need for it. At the same time, the United States is in the most advantageous position, retaining the opportunity to respond to the appearance of even the serial Russian fifth-generation fighter T-50 with its modification of the F-22 to the 5+ generation level. And also having a huge infrastructure that allows the Pentagon to use aviation anywhere in the world.
Let us recall that Obozrevatel has prepared a series of materials about the real state of Russia’s nuclear forces.
About the real state of ballistic missiles, some of which have already exhausted all possible factory terms of use, and whose performance is tested experimentally: by launching and observing whether they fly or not, read in the first part of the series of materials.
The second article raised the topic of modernization of submarine forces and the state of Russian strategic aviation.
At the same time, Putin actually has only 60 seconds to press the “red button” in the event of a nuclear attack by the United States. The third part of the series of materials was devoted to the state of the missile strike warning system.

There is an important thing in modern warfare - air supremacy. It is, of course, not a panacea (as can be seen from the examples of Libya 2011 or Yugoslavia 99), i.e. does not guarantee victory in the war... but we can definitely say that without it it is extremely problematic to successfully conduct military operations.
Concepts for gaining air supremacy have changed along with the capabilities of technology and changing concepts of war.
Today, the fifth generation fighter is considered the most advanced “air fighter” in military science.
Let's talk about them.

What is the fifth generation and “what do they eat it with”?

The concept of the fifth generation is somewhat different in different countries and aircraft manufacturers. This is understandable - everyone wants their aircraft to be “enlisted” in the prestigious fifth generation. To summarize, the following main criteria can be identified:
- stealth in the radar and infrared range (including internal weapon suspension);
- cruising supersonic flight speed;
- improved avionics (onboard radio-electronic equipment) with increased control automation and radar (radar station) with AFAR;
- availability of a circular information system;
- all-aspect shelling of targets in close air combat (close air combat).
The Russian military added one more criterion to this (implemented, however, already on 4++ generation fighters):
- super maneuverability.
Plus, the Russian military has repeatedly said that the cost of a fifth-generation aircraft should be lower than that of the previous generation aircraft.
In the West, this demand initially seemed to be visible, but was later hushed up. There, the cost of a flight hour when switching to the 5th generation, on the contrary, increases.
In fact, if you look carefully, not a single one of the presented aircraft meets all the criteria at the same time.
The distribution of various aircraft by generation can be assessed from this picture:

Contenders

By 2011, the only 5th generation fighter adopted for service was the F-22 Raptor (2001), created under the ATF (Advanced Tactical Fighter) program.
In a relatively high degree of readiness are: the Russian T-50 (PAK FA program - Advanced Aviation Complex of Frontline Aviation), the American F-35 Lightning II (JSF - Joint Strike Fighter program) and the Chinese J-20.
Already implemented “in hardware”, but it is at the beginning of the journey and in general is just a technology demonstrator of the Japanese ATD-X Shinshin.


Some are inclined to classify the European Eurofighter EF-2000 Typhoon and the French Dassault Rafale as fifth-generation fighters (as they supposedly meet the criteria)... but these are very big optimists. Because there are questions ranging from “symbolic” supersonic cruising (without suspended weapons) to stealth.


Trinity from NATO. From top to bottom: EF2000 Typhoon, F-22 Raptor, Rafal
By the way, about stealth.

A small digression that will be useful to us later.
A quantitative measure of stealth is considered to be the ESR (Effective Dispersion Surface), which shows how well radio waves are reflected from the aircraft. The value can vary significantly even with a slight turn of the aircraft. The frontal EPR of 4th generation fighters (such as F-15, Su-27, MiG-29, etc.) is usually within 10-15 m².
By the way, when reading the characteristics of a radar, pay attention to the purpose with which ESR the detection range is indicated. Otherwise, some manufacturers like to write fantastic numbers (without stipulating that such a range is achievable only against targets with a huge RCS, like a passenger airliner or an ancient heavy bomber).

So - the manufacturers of the Eurofighter and Rafale claim an EPR of less than 1 m², which is comparable to the EPR of our PAK FA / T-50 (the average EPR of which is 0.3-0.5 m²). This is quite surprising, considering the titanium PGO (front horizontal tail) and the external suspension of the weapons of both Europeans... and the Rafale, in general, has a fuel refueling rod sticking out in front.
Serial Eurofighters, by the way, still have not received the CAESAR AFAR radars promised in 2013 (as part of the Tranche 3 batch).
In addition to the above aircraft, there are several other contenders for the title of fifth-generation aircraft that are in development or demonstration concepts: the Chinese J-31, the Indian FGFA (based on the Russian PAK FA program) and AMCA (program suspended in 2014), the Turkish TF- X, Korean-Indonesian KF-X/IF-X and Iranian Qaher F-313.
We will not consider them (as well as the Japanese) in this material because they are still green. We will give the Japanese a separate post. :)


Japanese ATD-X

“Not a pound on the ground” - Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor (USA)

This motto guided the developers from Lockheed Martin when finalizing the YF/A-22 prototype, which won the YF-23 prototype from Northrop/McDonnell Douglas within the ATF program - Advanced Tactical Fighter.
The original TTZ (tactical and technical assignment) of 1981 for the ATF program provided for the aircraft to operate as a striker, but already in 1984 the Pentagon updated the requirements for the ATF program, practically eliminating operation in the air-to-surface mode.


The F-22 was created mainly to combat the Soviet Su-27 and Mig-29 fighters and was supposed to gradually replace the F-15 fighters.
The Air Force initially requested 1,000 units. But in 1991, a more modest figure was announced - 750 cars. In January 1993, the program was again “cut down” to 648 aircraft, and a year later - to 442 units. Finally, in 1997, the Air Force reduced its purchase plans to 339 fighters... They eventually built 187 production ones. The last aircraft rolled off the assembly line at the Marietta (Georgia) plant in December 2011.
Of the criteria for a 5th generation aircraft, the Raptor fails in two positions: all-aspect fire and the presence of a 360-degree information system.
Its aerodynamics certainly suffered for the sake of stealth, but was not sacrificed to it, like the F-117 Nighthawk or B-2 Spirit. In addition, the aircraft received a controlled thrust vector (though only in the vertical plane), expanding its capabilities.


There are many stories about the Raptor's stealth. The information fighters “praises of American weapons” are very fond of repeating on military forums and everywhere where they can and where they can’t, about the Raptor’s ESR equal to 0.0001 m².
But the general designer of the T-50 aircraft, Alexander Davidenko, says: “The F-22 aircraft has 0.3-0.4 m². We have similar visibility requirements.”
What is the salt here and why is there such a huge difference? Is someone lying?
The funny thing is that maybe everyone is telling the truth. It’s just that Americans like to write maximum values ​​without even indicating them in small print and under an asterisk... and, apparently, they write not the average value of the aircraft’s RCS, as we do, but the minimum, from an ideal angle.
The F-22 with a powerful radar with AFAR was positioned as a mini-AWACS. But then there was a problem.
The fact is that the aircraft’s communication system only provided for the exchange of data within the F-22 group, among themselves and with a special repeater drone. The Raptor could only receive information from other aircraft. Therefore, the F-22 pilot would have to practice the role of AWACS, directing other fighters to targets, either by voice or through a special repeater drone (of which 6 were built).
In addition, when the radar is on, it will unmask the aircraft, reducing its stealth to nothing.
The Raptor's layout with S-shaped air intake channels and a weapons compartment between them determined the modest dimensions of the weapons compartments ("tailored" for Air-to-Air missiles) and a small set of weapons for destroying ground targets: two 450-kg GBU-32 JDAM bombs or eight GBU-39 bombs, weighing 113 kg.
Among the air-to-air missiles, the F-22 can carry 6 AIM-120 AMRAAM medium-range missiles in the ventral weapons bays and one AIM-9 infrared homing missile in two side compartments. Total: 8 missiles.
In addition to the 8 internal ones, the F-22 also has 4 external hardpoints, but the suspension on the external nodes negates its advantages - it deprives the aircraft of low radar signature and affects aerodynamics and maneuverability.


New Air-to-Air missiles (AIM-9X and AIM-120D) were planned to be integrated when upgrading aircraft to the Block-35 level (Increment 3.2. program - Addendum 3.2). Modernization under this program was supposed to begin in 2016 and provided for the renewal of only 87 aircraft (less than half of the fleet).
By the way, the synthetic aperture mapping mode (SAR), promised from the first day of production (as well as some other capabilities), was received by the Raptor radar only in Increment 3.1..
Despite the fact that the aircraft has been in service for more than 10 years and is constantly being modernized, it has still not reached the level of technical specifications of 1984 (which included the use of the entire range of F-15 weapons, operation from a 600-meter runway, reducing the time between repairs and simplifying the system maintenance from 3-level to 2-level), and the original TTZ of 1981 generally provided for dense work on the ground.
In addition, after being put into service, the aircraft presented many surprises.
These are the sensational problems with the on-board oxygen regeneration system. And the problem with the ejection seats. And the discovery in 2009 of unstable operation of the aircraft’s electronic systems and cooling of computing components in conditions of high humidity (it is unknown whether this defect was corrected; they say that since then the F-22 has no longer been used in humid climates). And an unreliable coating made of RPM (radio-absorbing materials), which has to be renewed almost before every flight. And curious errors with the software: in February 2007, the US Air Force decided to take these fighters outside the country for the first time, transporting several machines to Kadena Air Force Base in Okinawa. A flight of six F-22s that took off from Hawaii, after crossing the 180th meridian - the international date line - completely lost navigation and partially lost communications. The fighter jets returned to the Hawaii Air Force base, visually following the tanker aircraft. The cause of the problem was a software error that caused the computer to malfunction when the time changed.
Just since 2005, when the Raptor was officially put into service with the US Air Force, dozens of accidents of varying complexity have occurred with fighters, including five major ones (5 aircraft were lost), as well as two plane crashes that claimed the lives of two pilots.
Currently, the F-22 is the most expensive fighter in the world.
One Raptor cost the US budget more than $400 million (production cost + R&D cost + modernization cost).
Someone believed that if you cast it from gold and calculate the cost... the gold one will come out cheaper. :)

Gorynych baking pancakes - Sukhoi Design Bureau T-50 (Russia)

While some people are arguing about what index the production aircraft will receive in the Russian Air Force (the letter “T” is the name of the prototypes of the Sukhoi Design Bureau): Su-50, Su-57, or something even cooler... Others are breaking their spears about its names in the NATO classification - the funniest option was born from “PolarFox” (Arctic fox), when they remembered that NATO fighters are named with “F” and increased it to “FullPolarFox” (Full Arctic fox). :)
Meanwhile, the plane has already acquired a playful nickname “Gorynych” - after a spectacular jet of flame from an engine that caught a surge at MAKS-2011. This is better than, for example, the “Penguin,” as aviation fans dubbed the F-35.


When developing the T-50 as part of the PAK FA program, KnAAPO designers took a different path from their American colleagues. A compromise was found between stealth geometry and aerodynamics (in favor of the latter).
The main complaints about the stealth of the T-50 are the straight channels of the air intakes (in which the compressor blades are visible, which are a very good reflector of radio waves) and non-flat round nozzles.
Although there is still a big question - what should you choose: an S-shaped air intake (not showing the engine blades to the enemy) with a drop in engine power and small weapons bays... or a normal straight air intake, covered by a radar blocker with normal engine power and large weapons bays? Looking at the final result, we can conclude that the second option (with priority to flight characteristics and large weapons bays) was justified.
In many ways, this is probably why, even with less powerful engines of the first stage, the PAK FA surpasses its opponent in flight characteristics.


Even according to foreign data:
Maximum speed: 2440 km/h for the T-50 versus 2410 km/h for the Raptor.
Flight range: 3500 km for the T-50 versus 2960 km for the Raptor.
Although we will not know the exact numbers very soon.
Are these numbers realistic?
Considering the reduction in the midsection and take-off weight of the aircraft (compared to the same Su-35S) with increased engine thrust - quite. Moreover, during the tests in 2013, information was leaked (unconfirmed, of course - no fools) that: “with a full load of fuel and weight-and-size weapon models, the 4th side (054) took off from 310 meters and reached a cruising speed of 2135 km/h and maximum - 2610 km/h, while there was still potential for acceleration, and also climbed to 24,300 meters - they were not allowed further.”
What will happen when instead of Product 117 with a maximum afterburner thrust of 14,500 kg, a second-stage engine with an afterburner thrust of 18,000 kg is installed?
Plus, our fighter, due to its all-angle thrust vector (controllable thrust vector), has super maneuverability and can do the most incredible things in the air, like the Su-35. Including "pancakes" oven. :)
The second serious advantage of the T-50 over the F-22 is its avionics.
The Russian fighter is much closer to meeting the penultimate criterion (the presence of a circular information system), because unlike the Raptor, which was left with only one radar... Sukhoi carries several of them!
The N036 radar includes five AFARs:
1) N036-01-1 - frontal (main) AFAR, 900 mm wide and 700 mm high, 1522 transceiver modules.
2) N036B - two side-view AFARs.
3) N036L - two L-band AFARs in the wing tips.


But, in addition to radars, the T-50 also has an optical-electronic locator "OLS-50M" (such a ball on the nose in front of the cockpit), which allows you to detect targets and use weapons against them, without turning on the radar at all. These are just simpler - they were installed on the Su-27 and MiG-29, giving our aircraft a significant advantage in air combat.


The third advantage is that the T-50 is better armed than its competitor.
In addition to the traditional 30mm cannon, the aircraft can carry missiles and bombs on 6 internal and 6 external hardpoints.
Missile weapons are represented by a much wider range.
Air-to-Air missiles (URVV).
Short range:
RVV-MD (K-74M2) - modernized R-73.
K-MD (“product 300”) is a new short-range missile for close-in highly maneuverable air combat and missile defense.


Medium range:
RVV-SD (“product 180”) - modernization of the R-77 missile.
RVV-PD (“product 180-PD”)
Long range:
RVV-BD (“product 810”) is a further development of the R-37 missile.
In addition to Air-to-Air weapons, the T-50 can carry a wide range of Air-to-Surface weapons.
These include adjustable aerial bombs KAB-250 and KAB-500 of various modifications.
And a new multi-purpose missile for ground work, the X-38M (with various types of seeker and warhead).
And anti-radar missiles Kh-58USHK and Kh-31P/Kh-31PD (on external sling).
And anti-ship X-35U, X-31AD (in the future, an aviation version of Onyx/Brahmos).
And much more. Our gunsmiths promised the PAK FA 12 new types of weapons developed specifically for it.


Information about the cost of the aircraft, like many other data, is kept secret by the Russian Ministry of Defense. In foreign sources there is a figure of $54 million (at the current exchange rate - divide by two) per plane. The cost of FGFA for India was announced at around $100 million. Therefore, the figure for the internal cost of the aircraft is similar to the truth.
Production of serial fighters for the Air Force should begin this year. So we will soon find out, at least, the official “proper name” of the aircraft and stop calling it “T-50”. We wait!

“Budget” thunder without lightning - Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II (USA)

If the F-22 was created to gain air superiority and mainly fight against Soviet modern fighters, then the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) program, born as a cheap answer to all questions, provided for the creation of a universal “workhorse” - a strike fighter for American combat aviation and their allies.


The F-35 “Lightning II”, paired with the F-22, was supposed to replace all other combat aircraft of the US Air Force - from the F-16 Fighting Falcon fighters to the A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft (I still have a hard time imagining the F-35 as the latter) . Plus, the cunning Americans decided to get three aircraft for the price of one: for the army, for the Marine Corps and for aircraft carriers.
Remember the saying about a universal tool that can do everything, but equally poorly?
This is exactly the case. The result is probably the most scandalous fighter of the 5th generation.


CTOL is a ground-based fighter for the needs of the US Air Force, STOVL is a short take-off and vertical landing fighter for the US Marine Corps and the British Navy, and CV is a carrier-based fighter for the needs of the US Navy.
We can talk a lot and for a long time about the long-suffering F-35... but the volume of the article is limited, and so is our time. Therefore, we will leave long detailed disassemblies for later, especially since we will later return to each of the listed aircraft separately. Therefore - briefly.
The winners of the “Unified Strike Fighter” program were eager to produce “4,500 aircraft or more” until 2027... But their appetites had to be curbed. There were much fewer orders. At first there was a figure of 2852 aircraft. By 2009, it was reduced to 2,456 units, and in 2010, the “sturgeon” was reduced to 2,443 units. Remembering the F-22 program... this is far from the limit. Especially considering the ever-increasing cost of the project.
By the way, the initial cost of R&D for the project was estimated at $7 billion. By the beginning of the program in 2001, the cost of development was called 34 and a few kopecks billion dollars, but today it has exceeded 56 billion dollars and continues to “get fat”.


F-35B for the US Marine Corps
The plane made its first flight in 2000. Small-scale production began in 2006. 11 years have passed, and the plane is still not ready.
The most interesting thing is that the US Marine Corps is waiting most of all for its F-35 (because, unlike the Air Force and Navy, they do not have an alternative candidate)... But not only was the Marine F-35B cut off in terms of bomb load (it can be carried in compartments weapons are only bombs with a caliber of 450 kg, in contrast to the 900 kg bombs in the other two modifications). He constantly has some problems. It even got to the point that in 2012 the F-35B program was going to be closed.
The latest scandal happened recently. It turned out that, contrary to the developers’ statements, it still has not reached combat readiness.
This is despite the fact that the first flight of the F-35B took place in 2008, and they planned to put it into service back in 2012!
Out of desperation, the US Marines have already extended the service life of their AV-8Bs (vertical take-off and landing aircraft, which were supposed to be replaced by the F-35B) until 2030, purchasing 72 decommissioned Harriers from the British for gutting them for spare parts.


The F-35 was initially supposed to replace even... the A-10 attack aircraft!
In general, at the moment, 154 production (!) F-35s and 174 aircraft in total have already been produced. And adoption keeps getting pushed back and pushed back.
That super-helmet, which allows the pilot to see the situation through the plane at all 360 degrees, does not work (I think the third contractor has already been replaced).
There's a problem with the software.
That’s 8 consecutive “flights” - unsuccessful attempts to land the prototype of the deck-based F-35S on a simulator of an aircraft carrier deck. The aircraft's hook, located too close to the main landing gear, could not engage the arresting gear cables.
They found Chinese spare parts.
The Martin-Baker US16E ejection seats are of the wrong system (and they take two years to refine!).
It's a problem with the fuel tanks.
Something else.
Only on the problems of the F-35 can a separate series of articles be written. :)
Recently, the F-35 even ranked among the top five worst US fighters in the history of aviation, according to National Interest magazine.


The main disadvantage of the F-35 is its low flight performance: insufficient thrust-to-weight ratio and maneuverability, and low maximum speed.
It’s not for nothing that Australians from the Air Power Australia think tank make claims against the F-35, saying that it “does not meet a large number of requirements for a fifth-generation fighter and is a 4+ generation fighter due to the impossibility of flying at supersonic speeds without using afterburner, low thrust-to-weight ratio, relatively high ESR, as well as low survivability and maneuverability.”
But in addition to the disadvantages, the Lightning-2 also has an advantage over the Raptor: the F-35 received an analogue of our optical-electronic locator (OLS). The electro-optical system (EOS) AN/AAQ-37, unlike our OLS, has a 360° constant view and is located at the bottom of the fuselage, “sharpened” mainly for work on the ground.
The AN/APG-81 AFAR radar, according to the developers, allows you to detect air targets at a range of 150 km.
Here it must be said that the radar developers are lying. Because we are talking about a target with an ESR of 3 m² and a detection probability of 0.5 when scanning in a sector of 0.1 of the total radar sector for 2 seconds.


The F-35's weapons are located on 4 hardpoints in two intra-fuselage compartments. The aircraft also has 6 more external hardpoints.
To operate against air targets, the F-35 can carry the AIM-120 AMRAAM medium-range air attack missile, as well as short-range missiles: AIM-9M Sidewinder, AIM-9X, or the British AIM-132 ASRAAM.
For ground work F-35 - JDAM, SDB and AGM-154 JSOW CABs.
On an external sling, it will carry missiles from the already time-tested HARM and Maverick, to the relatively new AGM-158 JASSM or SLAM-ER; Brimstone ATGMs and disposable bomb clusters CBU-103/104/105.
The full range of planned weapons can be assessed in the picture:


At the same time, it is reported that the F-35 has not yet been taught how to use all this splendor.
The cost of the aircraft, by the way, also differs from the initially planned average of $69 million per unit.
In 2014, for an aircraft without an engine they asked: F-35A - $94.8 million, F-35B - $102 million and F-35C - $115.7 million.
True, in the report of the Senate Appropriations Committee, the F-35B actually cost the state $251 million in 2014.
Well, okay, let's believe in the cost declared by the manufacturer. And we’ll chalk up the doubling in price of the aircraft to yet another fair division between Lockheed Martin and the US KPM officials. ;)
It’s time, by the way, to remember the price of the Russian T-50, announced above.

“Peking Duck” - Chengdu J-20 (China)

The Chinese aircraft J-20 (aka “Project 718”) was developed as part of the “2-03” program at the “611th Institute” (better known as CADI - Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute) in Chengdu. This one of the most secretive and mysterious Chinese aircraft construction projects has already changed its name several times: first it was XXJ, then J-X and J-XX, and now J-20.


The aircraft, made according to the “canard” aerodynamic design, unusual for the 5th generation, when viewed from above, resembles the failed 5th generation MiG MFI fighter (the prototype of which we know under the name “MiG 1.42”). Apparently, cooperation with the Russian TsAGI Institute and ANPK MiG in the early 90s was not in vain.
But don’t even think about hinting to the Chinese about Russian or anyone else’s help in the development of the J-20 or the light J-10 (similar to some of the MiG’s developments under the LFI - Light Front Fighter program)... They will eat you alive. We did everything ourselves! :)
The plane is like a hodgepodge - it is both similar... and unlike other 5th generation aircraft.
So, if you look from the front, we will see the “brother of the F-22”. The shape of the air intakes, the unbound canopy of the cockpit, a similar silhouette... although it is quickly given away when viewed from the front by the PGO and lower aerodynamic ridges.
The shape of the air intakes with the so-called external boundary layer turn is reminiscent of the F-35.
The PGO and the overall silhouette when viewed from above are reminiscent of the MiG MFI prototype.
In this case, the aircraft has an S-shaped bend in the air intakes, like on the F-22.


Although the Chinese plane is blamed for the weak parallelism of the front and rear edges of the horizontal tail, as well as the aerodynamic ridges protruding from the rear... the plane can still be classified as inconspicuous.
Some have expressed doubts about China's possession of radar-absorbing coating technology. But RAMs (radio absorbent materials) are not a sacred cow. After the destruction of the American F-117 in Yugoslavia, pieces of the skin probably went to all interested parties - both Russia and China. In addition, many probably remember how in 2011, the American Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel drone, made using stealth technology, was “landed” in Iran. There was great indignation in the United States at the time. In this case, the Iranians probably shared a piece with China. :)


American UAV RQ-170 Sentinel
The most vulnerable elements of the J-20 program are the power plant and avionics.
The aircraft should receive a Chinese WS-15 engine with a thrust of up to 18,000 kg, developed at the 624th Institute, now known by the abbreviation CGTE (China Gas Turbine Establishment). But there are still problems with the engine. And this is traditional in China.
One can recall the problems of the Chinese WS-10 Taihan, installed on Chinese “clones” of the Su-27 family... and the subsequent purchase from Russia of a large batch of AL-31F engines.
Similar problems are experienced with the WS-13 engine for the FC-1 light export fighter. The engine has been in development for more than 10 years, and production fighters fly on Russian RD-93 (a modification of the RD-33 engine).
According to experts, the normal take-off weight of the J-20 is about 35 tons. If this is so, then two AL-31Fs are clearly not enough for the aircraft. There will be neither cruising supersonic nor achieving a maximum speed of 2M.
The second important issue is avionics and radar.
The creation of a radar station for a new generation fighter was probably carried out on a competitive basis by two institutes - LETRI (Leihua Electronic Technology Research Institute) and NRIET (National Research Institute of Electronic Technology). According to available data, preference was ultimately given to Nanjing NRIET, which proposed a type 1475 radar project, the AFAR of which is expected to have about 2000 transceiver modules.
True, the situation here is even more interesting than with engines. Since the maximum level for China until now has been at the level of our 001 “Sword” radars from the 80s. Where does AFAR suddenly come from? The Chinese would be able to copy and complete the type 1473 radar, developed on the basis of our “Pearl” (which they buy from us for their J-10 fighters).
The J-20's armament will likely include the PL-10 Air-to-Air missile (similar to the AIM-9X) and PL-12C (a modification of the PL-12 missile with a folded wing). The PL-12 is an analogue of the American AIM-120 AMRAAM and the Russian RVV-AE with a launch range of more than 70 km. Perhaps the aircraft will receive the new PL-21 long-range air attack missile system.


It is still difficult to say that there is a Chinese J-20. Either this is really a machine planned for production, or it is a 5th generation prototype, or even a technology demonstrator (like our S-37 Berkut).
One thing is for sure - the Chinese J-20 clearly does not reach the fifth generation. Due to the lack of a clear avionics and radar with AFAR, issues with stealth, as well as clearly insufficient engine thrust (most likely not providing cruising supersonic sound), it can be called a Demo version of the Chinese 5th generation. :)
The Chinese produced a heavy, large, stealthy aircraft with low maneuverability and thrust-to-weight ratio.
What could be his role on the battlefield?
A fighter is not suitable for gaining air superiority due to low maneuverability and low thrust-to-weight ratio. For an interceptor - not enough speed. Fighter-bomber? How large are the weapons compartments (the possible volume of which is reduced by the S-shaped air intake channels) and the combat load?
These are all estimates, of course, because there is too little reliable information yet.

Results

It is too early to say anything definite about the many capabilities of most of the presented aircraft. Firstly, due to the secrecy of the characteristics, and secondly, prototypes can differ very seriously from production vehicles, as we can remember, for example, from the history with the same T-10 (prototype of the Su-27 fighter). It is unknown how much the same PAK FA will change, having received a second stage engine, etc.
But what can be said definitely?
To sum up, we can definitely conclude that the creators of the F-35 made a mistake when trying to combine three different aircraft with different performance requirements in one. I wouldn’t be surprised if in the end the Japanese ATD-X surpasses it in a number of characteristics (but I seriously doubt the superiority promised by the Japanese over the F-22).


It can also be said unequivocally that the competition for air supremacy among the fives in the next decade should unfold between the two strongest competitors - the T-50 and F-22. The others are seriously inferior to them in terms of air combat.
Moreover, in this battle, the Russian fighter has a clear advantage. This is not surprising, given that the T-50 appeared almost 20 years later than its rival. And our approach to design is different.
In general, we “traditionally” lag behind the Americans in the arms race by half a step (this is related to the question of who on the planet is increasing militarization, by the way), which allows us to avoid the mistakes of our competitors and raise the bar set by them. It was a similar story with the appearance of a pair of Su-27 and MiG-29 in response to the F-15 and F-16.
With better aerodynamics (and, accordingly, better flight characteristics), the T-50 surpasses the F-22 in several other ways:
- larger weapons compartments;
- a more diverse range of weapons (has long-range air-to-air missiles and a wide selection of air-to-surface ammunition);
- OLS, which allows you to search and attack the enemy without turning on the radar (in addition, the optical-electronic locator does not care about low radar signature);
- all-aspect UHT (super maneuverability);
- the aircraft can be used from unpaved runways (runways).
At the same time, it seems to be somewhat inferior to the Raptor in stealth. Which, by the way, is not yet a fact, because the Behemoth X-32 from Boeing (the prototype competitor of the X-35, which lost in the JSF program) met the requirements for stealth, not having an S-shaped channel from the air intake to the engine, but covering its radar -blocker, and the keels, for example, are much smaller. Therefore, in the forward hemisphere of the EPR, it and the F-22 may not differ much.
From behind, the T-50 will definitely “glow” better than its competitor (due to the “unsteeled” round nozzles), but a final assessment of its stealth can only be given after the appearance of the second stage engine.


X-32 from Boeing
Performance characteristics of aircraft claiming to be “fifth generation fighters”:


Stealth (the notorious stealth technology) at one time suggested to the Americans the idea of ​​qualitative, rather than quantitative, superiority over everyone else.
Today it is clear that this bet did not justify itself. Because, firstly, the main rivals of the United States in the “great game” (Russia and China) are also already acquiring their own 5th generation aircraft. And secondly, the “efficiency/cost” criterion; in relation to the ultra-expensive American “five” is still waiting for its impartial assessment.
Are they so superior to previous generation aircraft that they cost so much more? Will the many times higher price be compensated by the corresponding many times greater efficiency? Is it deserved? For example, there is a strong opinion that in a duel situation the “5th generation” F-35 fighter will lose to the 4th generation Su-35S fighter.
Despite all this, the creation of a 5th generation fighter is a big step forward for any state.
In addition to the development of technology, this is a serious military argument for gaining air supremacy and, in addition, obtaining a certain status for the country. You could say joining the select club.