Ballistic missiles have never surpassed aviation
For a fighter, maneuverability (the ability to quickly change the direction and speed of movement) was traditionally considered the most important combat quality. Before the appearance of rocket weapons in both world wars, in the period between them, during the Korean and the first Arab-Israeli wars, air combat was only close (the opponents were in visual visibility of each other) and was conducted only with the help of cannons and machine guns. In such a battle, the main thing was to maneuver the enemy and take the most favorable position to open fire (it is best to go to the enemy's tail).
Of course, speed was very important (if there was too much difference in it, the maneuverability of the "slow" did not help) and the power of the weapon. Nevertheless, in the end, maneuverability proved to be the most important quality. It was determined by wing loading (ratio of wing area to weight of the aircraft) and thrust (with respect to thrust again, to ground).
Thus, the mass is in the denominator, and in the square, its decrease is the key to increasing maneuverability. But the aircraft must carry as much fuel as possible (to increase the flight range), weapons (otherwise the aircraft is not needed at all) and equipment that ensures the use of weapons. All this gives a lot. Therefore, it is necessary to increase the wing area and engine power.
Empty hope
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, there was a worldwide attack of "rocket fetishism" and worship of the power of nuclear weapons. This disaster has engulfed both opposing military blocs. The military and politicians decided that nuclear weapons would be delivered to the target or ballistic missiles, against which bombers and fighters are obviously useless. And the only task of the fighters will be to intercept the bombers. Thus, fighters should turn into interceptors, for which maneuverability does not matter, the main thing is high speed. The apotheosis of this was the appearance of a very high-speed American F-104 Starfighter. This plane had very small wings, which is why it beat in huge numbers, earning the pilots the name "flying coffin".
The Indo-Pakistani wars, the six-Day and October Arab-Israeli wars, and, of course, the Vietnam war led to a certain sobering up. It turned out that the maneuverable air battle did not go away. It also turned out that the speed factor has largely lost its significance. The fact is that you can't fight at supersonic speeds – neither the pilots nor even the equipment can withstand the overload. Subsonic speed was now the same for everyone. The optimal speed of air combat was 0.85 M (M – the speed of sound).
During the Indo-Pakistani war in December 1971, light and maneuverable MiG-21s of the Indian air force shot down up to four Pakistani "Starfighters", which showed, as expected, a complete inability to air combat with" normal " fighters. Over Vietnam, the MiG-21 came together in battle with the F-4 Phantom. The phantom, like the Starfighter, was faster than the MiG in maximum speed, but as I said, it didn't matter. The Phantom was also armed with a head and shoulders stronger than the MiG (it carried up to eight air-to-air missiles, the MiG – 21 only two). The quality of the electronic equipment of the machines was completely incomparable (again-it is clear-in favor of the "Phantom").
Nevertheless, the MiG's maneuverability often compensated for the Phantom's advantages. Data on the results of the confrontation between the Phantom and the MiG-21 in the sky of Vietnam differ greatly. According to American data, "Phantoms" shot down from 82 to 99 MiG-21s, and they shot down 38 "Phantoms". According to domestic data, "Phantoms" shot down from 50 to 54 MiG-21s, and those in response filled up 103 F-4. However, from the battles with subsonic MiG-17, which did not have missiles at all (only guns) and electronics, the "twice supersonic ""Phantoms" did not always come out victorious (even according to American data, the MiG-17 shot down at least 16 F-4S). All for the same reason-the MiG was very agile, and the maximum speed did not matter.
The American response to the MiG-21 was the F-15 Eagle, which combines maneuverability, the power of weapons and electronic equipment. These aircraft in the Israeli air force proved very strong during the war in Lebanon in June 1982, shooting down most of the approximately 80 Syrian aircraft destroyed by the Israeli air force in air battles (see the article " Lebanon in the Arab-Israeli wars: how the country was split ", " HBO " from 29.05.20).
Our response to the "Eagle" was the su-27, which with its numerous modifications (su-30, su-33, su-34, su-35) still forms the basis of the Russian air force. Together with its light counterpart, the MiG-29, which was the answer to the F-16 Fighting Falcon, it is the most striking example of a modern highly maneuverable fighter.
An additional factor in maneuverability was the creation of engines with a deflected thrust vector (OVT). That is, the engine nozzles can move at least in one plane, as a maximum-generally rotate as you like.
In the West, the German company Messerschmitt Bölkow-Blom tried to create a super-maneuverable aircraft with OVT back in the 1980s, and not so much for the Luftwaffe as for the US air force. In 1990, the first flight of the German-American experimental aircraft X-31. In total, two such cars were built, one of which crashed in 1995. Long-term tests of the X-31 have shown that a maneuverable aircraft is good. After that, the program was closed.
Maneuverability is not a panacea
At the same time, it should be noted that after the Vietnam war, a very serious factor in air combat was the power of the onboard radar – the ability to detect the enemy at the greatest possible distance, beyond visual visibility. Air-to-air missiles were another factor. In the 1960s, such missiles were, roughly speaking, "elongated guns". They had an IR GOS with a fairly low sensitivity, that is, for their successful use, it was necessary, as before, to go to the enemy's tail (and drive the rocket into the nozzle, the main source of heat). And their range was only a few kilometers. In the 1970s and 1980s, all-angle missiles with much more sensitive GOS began to appear. They could have been fired head-on. In addition, quite effective medium-range missiles with radar GOS were created. Long-range air combat outside the line of sight is now possible. And in it, maneuverability was much less important than in the near. However, the battle at long and medium distances (exchange of missile strikes in the forehead) was very short-lived due to the high speed of approaching aircraft. Nevertheless, it was during this short battle that a significant numerical superiority could be achieved, ensuring the final victory in close combat.
However, we did very well with maneuverability, so it began to be presented as a panacea. At numerous air shows su-27 and MiG-29 began to show thrilling stunts in "the bells" (the plane describes in the air the outline of the subject, as if hovering at the top) and the even more spectacular "Cobra" (not just plane "gets on the tail", but also "lies back", the pitch angle between the longitudinal axis of the aircraft and the horizontal plane is 120 degrees). This was an undoubted proof that our planes are the most maneuverable in the world, because no other machine (at least combat serial) was capable of anything like this.
Our superiority was confirmed by the events of August 1992, when su-27s arrived on a friendly visit to the American Langley air base. And there, during the simulation of air combat, the two-seat su-27UB (heavier, that is, less maneuverable than the "normal" single-seat su-27) completely re-maneuvered not only the two-seat F-15D, but also the single-seat F-15C.
But to get to the close air combat, you must necessarily pass through the far one. Where the main role is played by the characteristics of radar and air-to-air missiles of medium and long range. On the latest versions of the F-15, the radar is much more powerful than on the su-27, and the AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles are better than our P-27s. Accordingly, when meeting equal forces of the F-15 and su-27 groups, the former will be able to significantly reduce the number of the latter at long distances, while remaining unpunished. And then win the melee simply due to the numerical superiority achieved due to the advantage in ranged combat. The situation is aggravated if the enemy uses long-range radar detection aircraft (AWACS), and in them the United States has always had a significant advantage over the USSR/Russia (both quantitative and qualitative). However, it should be borne in mind that now the F-15 is quite quickly written off due to resource depletion, and in Russia the su-35S enter service, which will outplay the F-15 at any distance.
As for the unique maneuvers of our aircraft ("Cobra", "bell", "hook"), according to some practitioners, they are in a real battle at best useless, at worst-harmful, with their help, the battle can not be won, but surely lost. In addition, no one has ever tried to perform all these wonders of aerobatics with missiles suspended from the plane.
In 2006, "Cobra" made the American fifth-generation fighter F-22 Raptor. However, the Americans considered that maneuverability is not the main thing in a modern fighter. Their trick was invisibility, which has its most important advantages. But there are also obvious disadvantages. This will be discussed separately.
Alexander Khramchikhin
Alexander Anatolyevich Khramchikhin-Deputy Director of the Institute of political and military analysis.
