About the concept of a promising light fighter. Does Russia need attack drones and fifth-generation light fighters?

Original 02/21/2018, 08:28

Despite the excellent characteristics, the fate of the newest aircraft is in question

Factory tests of the 4++ generation multi-role light fighter MiG-35 have been completed. They were attended by test pilots who highly appreciated the performance of all aircraft systems - avionics, sighting and navigation system, radar station, engines, defense complex.

“The aircraft allows the use of the entire range of existing and future Russian and foreign weapons, including those intended for heavy fighters,” said the General Director of the Russian Aircraft Corporation MiG. Ilya Tarasenko.“The MiG-35, in terms of its combat capabilities, the scope and effectiveness of the tasks it can perform, and the price-quality ratio, today is the perfect combat vehicle for operations in high-intensity armed conflicts.”

The corporation's press release states that the entire fleet of Russian light fighters will be replaced by the MiG-35. However, there is still no final clarity on this issue. This aircraft has a very difficult fate, which was predetermined by both internal problems of the corporation and external ones, which often have nothing to do with the quality of the new aircraft. One thing can be said with complete certainty - the MiG-35 will be supplied in large quantities to the foreign market.

Currently, RSK MiG aircraft are operated in 33 countries around the world. More than half of them, during the presentation of the MiG-35 at the MAKS-2017 air show, announced their intentions to purchase a new fighter. Which, of course, is due not only to the excellent price-quality ratio, but also to the presence in these countries of infrastructure for servicing Migov machines, as well as to the preparedness of maintenance personnel and pilots

At the same time, the Russian Ministry of Defense intends to introduce the MiG-35 into the Aerospace Forces with great caution. There is not even a contract, but an agreement of intent to purchase only 30 fighters by 2020. At the same time, the Aerospace Forces and the Navy operate 170 light Mig fighters. At this rate it will take a very long time to replace them.

The bet is on heavy fighters from the Sukhoi Design Bureau. Although this contradicts the basic principle of building fighter aircraft, according to which the number of light aircraft should be twice as large as the number of heavy ones. This is primarily due to two factors. Firstly, light fighters are cheaper. Secondly, it is easier to restore their decline during hostilities.

In order to somehow combat this imbalance, RSK MiG is forced to make not only technical progress, but also act in the advertising field. The announcement of the successful completion of the MiG-35 tests was accompanied by a statement from the director of the department of information policy and public communications Anastasia Kravchenko on modernizing the aircraft to the fifth generation level.

Although this will be quite difficult to do. First of all, it is unlikely that it will be possible to significantly reduce the visibility of the aircraft without radically changing its airframe. Using only the most advanced coatings is not enough to move an aircraft into the next generation. True, even now the effective dispersion area of the MiG-35 is small - less than 1 sq.m. While for “regular” fighters this parameter reaches 4-5 sq.m.

Also, “five-wheelers” must have supersonic afterburner speed. Why is it necessary to significantly improve the engine? Our engine builders do not solve this problem in one year. But the MiG-35 should not have problems with super maneuverability. Already now he is quite “nimble”. At the same time, there is a modification of the engine, almost ready, with a deflectable thrust vector.

As for the onboard radio-electronic equipment (avionics), there are no particular problems here either. The aircraft already uses a radar with an active phased array antenna, which is one of the requirements for fifth-generation aircraft. And the rest of the equipment is already the most modern, not inferior in capabilities to the avionics of the Su-35, or even the Su-57. So, we can assume that as a result of modernization, another plus will be added to the two pluses in a generation. And that will be okay. Because the American F-35 also cannot be classified as a fifth-generation fighter.

But in addition to objective assessments of the vehicle based on its tactical and technical characteristics, there are also reputational ones. And here things are not going well for the MiG-35. The plane took too long to make. Work on deep modernization of the MiG-29 began at the beginning of the century. And they walked at a “ragged pace.” This was due to both the personnel reshuffle at RSK MiG and the financing of the corporation on a residual basis. That is, what remains of the needs of the Sukhoi Design Bureau, which created the first Russian fifth-generation fighter PAK FA, now the Su-57.

That is why the aircraft in 2011 lost a grandiose Indian tender for the purchase of 125 fighters worth several billion dollars. A completely crude aircraft was put into testing - with different engines and a different radar. As a result, it turned out that the engines do not provide the declared thrust, and the radar suffers from “myopia.” However, the main reason that the Indians, accustomed to our MiG-29s, suddenly recoiled from the MiG-35 was that not only was it not a production aircraft, but it had not even undergone any tests at home. That is, at that time he was an absolutely dark horse, from whom no one knew what to expect.

Almost 7 years have passed since the MiG-35 was left out of the Indian tender. During this time, RSK MiG significantly updated the on-board equipment and improved the tactical and technical characteristics of the fighter. As a result, we are now dealing with a practically new aircraft.

As mentioned above, some systems meet the requirements for fifth-generation aircraft. This is, for example, a radar with AFAR "Zhuk-A", which allows you to detect a fighter at a distance of up to 200 km. The number of tracked targets is 30, the number of fired targets is 10. The resolution when mapping the terrain is 1 m x 1 m. The radio technical characteristics of the radar are not disclosed. But it can be assumed that it uses a method of operating at different frequencies with reduced energy radiation in order to camouflage the aircraft.

By the way, the Su-35 heavy fighter, with which the MiG-35 is sometimes wrongly compared, uses a radar with a passive antenna array, which is a disadvantage. Because in a radar with AFAR, the antenna is capable of operating in several modes in parallel - detecting air targets, emitting radar warfare signals, communicating with the ground and other aircraft.

In addition to the radar, an optical location system (OLS) is used. It operates in passive mode, that is, it does not emit any physical waves by which the fighter could be detected by the enemy. In addition, for the first time in the history of military aviation, the MiG-35 uses not one OLS, but two - forward vision, as well as observation of ground targets. It must be said that even some heavy modern fighters do not have OLS. For example, the F-22 does not have it.

The fighter's weapons control system includes a helmet-mounted target designator, allowing the pilot to better navigate difficult situations and make optimal decisions. And again, the F-22 does not have the “smart helmet” that the pilots of the elite squadrons equipped with these very best American fighters constantly complain about.

There is a powerful defense system. Communication equipment allows the MiG-35 to be used as a command aircraft, providing target guidance for the group's aircraft and otherwise helping the group carry out its combat mission. The avionics has an open architecture, which makes it possible to simplify the connection of new equipment as much as possible, without resorting to installation and debugging in the factory. That is, the modernization of the MiG-35 can be carried out directly in combat units.

The fighter uses RD-33MK engines (a deep modernization of the RD-33), which meets most of the requirements for engines for fifth-generation aircraft. They use plasma ignition, as well as a fully digital control system that optimizes all operating modes and transitions between them. As a result, thrust (up to 9400 kgf in afterburner) and service life were increased, and fuel consumption was reduced.

Well, and finally, about weapons. Due to the miniaturization of avionics and a number of other engineering measures, it was possible to increase the combat load of a light fighter to a quite decent level of 7 tons. The ammunition load can include both “cheap” free-falling bombs and the entire range of modern high-precision missiles - air-to-air, air-to-surface, anti-ship, anti-radar. Moreover, the fifth generation fighter Su-57 is also equipped with many of them.

At the same time, the range of the aircraft has also been significantly increased compared to various modifications of the MiG-29. The combat radius reaches 1000-1100 km. At the same time, the MiG-35 is equipped with an in-flight refueling system.

And one more point due to which the new development of the Migov team can be considered a huge step forward. The cost of operating the MiG-35 has been reduced by 2.5 times compared to previous aircraft of this design bureau.

All this allows us to say that the MiG-35 has become the best Russian light fighter. Of course, it cannot compete with the Su-57 or even the Su-35 in terms of the power of its strikes. However, it has its own extremely important tasks, for the solution of which it is irrational to attract heavy aircraft.

Currently, the most famous fourth-generation light fighters are the American-made Lockheed F-16 and the Russian MiG-29. The F-16 Fighting Falcon has become the world's most widely used fourth-generation fighter. By mid-1994, more than 1,700 aircraft of this type were exported to 17 countries - Bahrain, Belgium, Venezuela, Denmark, Greece, Egypt, Israel, Indonesia, the Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Portugal, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey and South Korea. By the spring of 1994, the total number of orders for F-16 fighters of all modifications was 3989, of which 2208 fighters were for the US Air Force. The price of one F-16C aircraft for the US Air Force at the rate of 1992 f. was 18 million dollars.

With the US government's decision to reduce the number of tactical aviation wings to 20 (equivalent to approximately 1,360 aircraft), a qualitative improvement in the aircraft fleet will be required. In this regard, the US Air Force intends to sell for export 300 Lockheed F-16A/B aircraft available in tactical aviation, which have previously undergone appropriate repairs and modifications aimed at extending their service life (the Air Force currently has 400 fighters of this modification, which are planned to be removed out of service in 1997). Instead, it is planned to purchase additional new F-16C/D fighters. In this case, according to Air Force experts, in the period 2000 to 2010, when deliveries of the new generation JAST strike aircraft are expected to begin, 120 - 130 F-16C/D fighters will be purchased. For this, in 1996-1997. Lockheed will need to reactivate its aircraft assembly line. A delay in the JAST program could lead to a further increase in F-16 purchases (current plans call for a JAST prototype to be built in 2000 and the first production aircraft in 2010).

The main competitor of the F-16 aircraft in the international aviation market is the Russian fourth-generation fighter MiG-29, created in 1977. By mid-1994, more than 500 MiGs were delivered (or there were supply contracts) in 16 countries - Bulgaria, Hungary, Germany , India, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Malaysia, North Korea, Cuba, Poland, Romania, Syria, Slovakia, Czech Republic and Yugoslavia.

F-16 fighter

The issue of comparing the combat capabilities of the MiG-29 and F-16 aircraft has always received significant attention in the pages of the world aviation press. The popular English magazine Air International recently published an article by the famous aviation journalist-analyst and scientific and technical editor of the magazine, Roy Braybrook, in which, based on materials provided by the Lockheed branch in Fort Worth (where the F-16 Fighting Falcon multi-role fighter was created "), the combat capabilities of this aircraft and its Russian counterpart are compared. Below is a summary of this article with comments from Vladimir Ilyin and Vsevolod Katkov (highlighted in a different font according to the text of the article), who prepared this material for you. Drawings by M. Muratov and A. Gordienko.

The differences between the F-16 and MiG-29 aircraft are largely due to differences in views on the combat use of fighter jets, which, in turn, is due to national military experience. When developing requirements for new second-generation combat aircraft, the US Air Force was guided by the experience of World War II and the Korean War of 1950-1953. In both conflicts, American air supremacy generally extended beyond the front line, eliminating the danger of enemy air strikes for US ground forces. However, the reorientation of American aviation to waging, first of all, nuclear war and underestimation of the importance of maneuverable air combat led to the fact that by the end of the 1960s, the main American air superiority fighter, the McDonnell-Douglas F-4 Phantom 2, was inferior in maneuverability characteristics of the outdated enemy fighter MiG-17.

In 1972, when the US Air Force began implementing a program to create a promising light fighter, they were forced to return to the concept of an aircraft with a low specific wing load and a high thrust-to-weight ratio, providing good acceleration characteristics and a short steady turn time. The designers' efforts focused on creating aircraft with minimal dimensions and weight, optimized for air combat within visual visibility, at transonic speeds and medium altitudes, i.e., in conditions suitable for solving problems of escorting attack aircraft. Maximum maneuvering characteristics were to be achieved at speeds corresponding to M = 0.6-1.6, with special attention being paid to the range M = 0.8-1.2.

Russia's approach to creating a new generation of light fighter was somewhat different. After 1945, there, as well as in Great Britain and France, they concentrated their efforts on developing interceptors with the highest possible speed, ceiling and climb rate, designed to repel a nuclear attack on specific targets. However, unlike Western European countries, the so-called Stalinist approach prevailed in Russia, according to which a large number of extremely cheap and simple aircraft were required.

The desire to ensure maximum climb rate, which was caused, first of all, by the need to solve air defense problems, led to the fact that the fighter in Russia began to be considered as a “flying engine without fuel” (i.e., as an aircraft with an extremely powerful screen unit and minimal internal airframe volumes that do not allow for large fuel tanks). A low specific wing load was necessary to ensure good altitude characteristics of the interceptor, but this also contributed to improved maneuverability and takeoff and landing characteristics.

F-16 in flight. Vortexes are visible coming off the swells

F-16 in strike version

During the Korean War, MiG-15 aircraft were superior to American fighters at high altitudes. The new MiG-17 and MiG-19, created soon, also showed high combat qualities for their time, but the ability to conduct combat in turns at low altitudes was not the strong point of these fighters. The MiG-21 that followed was an outstanding aircraft in its class (a fighter-interceptor for target air defense), but its combat capabilities were somewhat reduced due to the design of the cockpit canopy, which did not provide the pilot with sufficient visibility, and the small combat load, which made it difficult to use this aircraft against ground targets. , as well as high landing speed. The MiG-23 and MiG-27 fighters with variable-sweep wings had, compared to the MiG-21, more powerful weapons and an increased range, as well as better flight characteristics, but they had poor controllability characteristics at low speeds.

In the early 1970s, the OKB began creating a new generation MiG. Tactical and technical requirements for the MiG-29 aircraft, intended to replace the MiG-21 and MiG-23 fighters, were issued in 1972, technical design began in 1974, the first of the prototype aircraft took off on October 6, 1977 ( test pilot A.V. Fedotov). The MiG-29 is a light fighter, being a continuation of the line of MiG-15 and MiG-21 aircraft. Like its predecessors, it had to have high speed, a high rate of climb and a high ceiling, since high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft were still considered as potential targets for interception. It was necessary to ensure good performance characteristics (without the use of a variable geometry wing) and controllability at low speeds, as well as improved visibility from the cockpit during takeoff and landing conditions.

The main differences between the F-16 and MiG-29 light fighters can be demonstrated by how they interact with heavy fighters. The F-16 is designed to fight for air supremacy together with the larger McDonnell-Douglas F-15 aircraft, capable of not only destroying light fighters like the MiG-21, but also countering the high-altitude and high-speed MiG-25. The outstanding flight characteristics of the F-I5 aircraft, its powerful weapons and radar made it possible to somewhat weaken the corresponding requirements for the F-16 light fighter, but the latter has a combat radius no less than that of the F-I5 aircraft. In contrast, the MiG-29 front-line fighter was created to solve the same problems of providing air defense and gaining air superiority as the heavy MiG-25 interceptor fighter, having a significantly shorter range of action in comparison with it. The MiG-29 is designed to achieve high speeds and ceilings, and is also equipped with an effective weapons system, including medium-range air-to-air missiles. Figuratively speaking, the MiG-29 is a smaller F-15, which has a shorter range compared to the American fighter, while the F-16 is, as it were, an enlarged Northrop F-5 aircraft with a longer flight range.

The design of the airframe of the MiG-29 and F-I6 fighters is designed to achieve a maximum operational load factor of 9. The aircraft are made using an integrated circuit with a smooth interface between the wing and fuselage, which ensures an increase in internal volumes, reduces the weight of the wing and leads to improved maneuverability characteristics. The fighters use a bulging wing, as well as engine air intakes capable of operating at high angles of attack.

At the same time, the fundamental differences between these aircraft were determined at the design stage. The F-16 fighter, created by the designers of the General Diamonds division in Fort Worth (since 1993, this division has been part of the Lockheed company). was designed for one Pratt-Whitney F100 turbofan engine, similar to the engine used on the F-15 fighter, which ensured the unification of the power plants of US Air Force fighters. When choosing between the single-engine General Diepamix F-I6 and the twin-engine Northrop YF-17, lower specific fuel consumption in transonic non-afterburning mode was the decisive factor in favor of the F100 turbofan engine (and, consequently, the F-16 aircraft).

Studies conducted in the United States have not revealed any advantages of twin-engine fighters over single-engine and body-worn aircraft of the same class. Subsequently, these conclusions were confirmed by practice: In the period 1988-1992. For every 100,000 flying hours, only 3.97 F-16 aircraft were lost, which is quite comparable with the corresponding figure for twin-engine American fighters.

The reasons for Russian specialists choosing a twin-engine design for the MiG-29 are not entirely clear. Perhaps the accident statistics of the twin-engine MiG-25 were slightly better than those of the single-engine MiG-23 and MiG-27. It can also be assumed that the choice was made in accordance with the recommendations of TsAGI, where, as a result of purging in aerodynamic roughs, some advantage of the twin-engine design was revealed, in particular, a higher angular speed of turn, due to the higher weight of the aircraft with two turbofans

The disadvantages of the MiG-29 fighter include the short service life of the RD-33 engine installed on it (the time between overhauls is only 400 hours). During the Berlin Aviation Exhibition II.A-44 (1994), it became known that this figure had been increased to 700 hours, and the common service life of the turbofan engine was 1400 hours. The life between overhauls of the Pratt-Whitney F100-PW-229 turbofan engine was 2000 hours, and the General Electric F110-GE-100 engine - 1500 hours.

For the American fighter, optimized to achieve maximum maneuverability at transonic speed, an unregulated single-shock air intake was chosen, ensuring stable engine operation up to M = 2.0. Research by specialists from Fort Worth led to the conclusion that the use of a high-volume controlled air intake on the F-16 aircraft would lead to an increase in the weight of the airframe by 180 kg, without providing an improvement in flight performance to a speed corresponding to M = 1, 6.

The ventral location of the air intake is caused by the desire to reduce the dependence of its operation on the angle of attack. Starting with an air intake located in the forward fuselage (as on the Vought F-8 Crusader), the creators of the F-16 gradually, in order to reduce the weight of the airframe, reduced its length to the extent that it was possible to place the nose landing gear underneath it. . As a result, it was possible to obtain an air intake with a relative length equal to 5.4 times the diameter of the engine compressor.

For the MiG-29 fighter, designed to achieve a higher speed than the F-16 aircraft, configurable two-dimensional four-hop air intakes with one movable and two fixed ramps were selected, ensuring stable engine operation up to M = 2.3. The influence of large angles of attack on the operation of the turbofan engine was reduced due to the location of the air intakes under the wing swells.

The design of the air intakes of the F-16 and MiG-29 aircraft is also determined by the different approaches in Russia and the United States to eliminating the entry of foreign objects into the engines from the runway. According to experts from Fort Worth, it is unlikely that stones from the runway will be sucked into the F-16 air intake, since its opening is located in front of the nose landing gear and the lower lip of the air intake is located from the ground at a distance equal to 1.2 of its own average diameter. In the 1960s, it was generally accepted that the gsomegrical center of the air intake inlet section should be at a distance of 2.0 diameters from the ground, and the lower lip should be at a distance of 1.5 times the diameter of the air intake. However, the successful operation of the Boeing 737 airliner, as well as other aircraft with low-mounted air intakes, led to the failure to comply with these requirements.

While the US Air Force operates well-prepared runways, from which foreign objects are regularly removed, Russia has traditionally sought to operate aircraft from poorly prepared field airfields. The front landing gear of Russian aircraft are equipped with shields that prevent stones (but not dust) from entering the air intakes. The MiG-29 is also equipped with rotary ramps that block the entrance to the air intake channel during takeoff, and on the upper surface of the floating part of the wing there are auxiliary air intakes that ensure engine operation during takeoff. Before the McDonnell-Douglas F-15 aircraft of the 1st Fighter Wing of the US Air Force, based at Langley Air Base, arrived at the Lipetsk Air Center with a friendly visit, American specialists familiarized themselves with the condition of the concrete surface at the Lipetsk airfield and stated that their aircraft would not use such runways and taxiways. they won't be able to. The visit still took place, but the American pilots observed increased caution when taxiing, taking off and landing. At the Lipetsk airfield, which has two runways (including a new one built in the 1980s), combat aircraft of all types of front-line aviation, including the MiG-29, are successfully operated, and the condition of the concrete surface does not cause any complaints among Russian pilots.

Another significant difference between the MiG-29 and the F-16 is the design of the vertical tail. In the early stages of designing the F-16 aircraft, General Dynamics looked at options with single and double fins. Blowing models in wind tunnels showed that the vortices generated by the wing swells maintain a constant direction, but the central fin provides slightly less directional stability at high angles of attack than the double-finned tail. However, in the end, Fort Worth chose a single-fin tail, which achieved acceptable stability characteristics with less technical risk.

When creating the MiG-29, a two-fin design was chosen, operating in a four-vortex system: two vortices are generated by a vortex-generating device in the forward part of the fuselage and two by the wing. It can be assumed that the choice between single-fin and twin-fin schemes depended on the configuration of the wing flaps, although it still seems somewhat limited that the General Dynamics designers chose a layout with a single-fin vertical tail (the F-16 is the only fourth-generation fighter with a non-delta wing that has one keel).

For the F-16 aircraft, a wing was chosen that was close to triangular in plan, with a sweep along the leading edge of 40°, an aspect ratio of 3.2 and a root chord with a thickness of 4%, having a 64A204 profile. Tests in wind tunnels revealed the need to use an automatically deflected wing tip, which serves to increase the lift coefficient and ensure stability at high angles of attack. The use of a deflectable tip made it possible, at M = - 0.8, to increase the steady-state turn speed by 18% compared to a wing whose tip was fixed at zero angle, and by 10% compared to the best of the studied wings that did not have a deflectable tip.

The wing of the MiG-29 aircraft with a high aspect ratio (3.4) and a sweep of 42° along the leading edge has a chord, the thickness of which, according to American experts, is about 6% at the root and 4% at the tip. Compared to the wing of an F-16 aircraft, the MiG wing should have a slightly lower mass, but greater aerodynamic drag.

The F-16 was the first production fighter aircraft equipped with a fly-by-wire control system (EDCS). Negative static stability at angles of attack less than 9° and M‹0.8 made it possible to achieve some improvement in aerodynamic characteristics at transonic and supersonic speeds (for example, the increase in the lift coefficient was about 4% at M = 0.9 and 8% at M - 1 ,2).

During comparative tests of the F-16 jets and the MiG-29 aircraft of the German Air Force, it was found that the American fighter has significantly higher acceleration along the wing (which is due to the presence of the emulsion force and the shape of the wing). This should provide it with higher angular turning speeds and shorter turn times. A very controversial statement, since during numerous demonstration flights at international aviation exhibitions, the MiG-29 aircraft has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to perform turns with a diameter of 700 m at low altitude at a speed of 800 km/h. Under similar conditions, an F-16 fighter

F-16 fighters at the moment of refueling from a flying tanker KS-135

performed turns with a diameter of only about K00 m. At a speed of 400 km/h and a steady overload of 3.8, the minimum diameter of the turn \1u1 -29 was 450 m.

The Russian fighter is equipped with a conventional control system, whose characteristics are close (according to the assessment of the American test pilot D. Farley, who flew the MiG-29) to the control system of the F-15 aircraft. At M› 0.85, the MiG has a limited angle of attack of 15°. The maximum operational load limit at M›0.85 is 7. According to D. Farley, at lower speeds the angle of attack is limited to 30*, which automatically decreases within 30% depending on the rate of pitch change (so if the pitch angle increases at a speed of 10 degrees/s, the limiter begins to operate when the aircraft reaches an angle of attack of 27*). However, D. Farley flew on a prototype MiG-29, since, according to other sources, on serial fighters the angle of attack is limited to 24" and increased to 30" only on the new modification of the MiG-29M aircraft, equipped with an EDSU. MiG-29 pilots can “override” the RUS limiter and reach angles of attack up to 45", however, the angle of attack indicator scale in the cockpit is only graduated to 30*. Using the limiting signal system (SOS) when performing maneuvers without control, the MiG aircraft rolls 29 can safely reach angles of attack of more than 30°. The limit on the angle of attack for the F-16 aircraft is 25°. According to other sources, the maximum angle of attack for the F-16A aircraft is limited to 27.5°.

The MiG-29 is controlled in a tight manner similar to the MiG-23 and MiG-27 aircraft. Up to an angle of attack of 8.7°, ailerons are used in conjunction with a non-rotating differentially deflected stabilizer. When reaching angles of attack greater than 8.7*. Only the all-moving horizontal tail is effective.

Despite the ability of the MiG-29 to stay in the air at high angles of attack, its pilots cannot fully use this property of the aircraft to reduce the landing distance due to the relatively low landing gear. At a landing speed of 240 km/h using a braking parachute, the MiG's run length is 600 m; on a wet runway it increases by another 50%. The flight length of the F-I6A aircraft with normal landing weight but a dry runway is 650 m. Unlike Russian fighters, on American aircraft the parachute is used only as an emergency braking device

Since the prototype F-16 fighter was designed as an experimental aircraft, a number of controversial technical improvements were introduced into its design. So, instead of a traditional control knob, a miniature side strain gauge handle is installed in the cabin; The backrest angle of the ejection seat has been increased from 13 to 30*; For the first time, frameless glazing of the cockpit canopy was used on a supersonic fighter.

The side stick allows the pilot to constantly keep his hand on the stop, controlling the aircraft only with the movement of the hand, which increases piloting accuracy. However, this design allows the aircraft to be controlled only with the right hand; changing hands is impossible. Currently, the F-16 is the only production fighter in the world equipped with a side control stick. The later fighters, Clonell Douglas F-I5E, F/A-IS, Eurofighter EF2000, MiG-33 and others, have a central control system. At the same time, the side stick is installed on the Lockheed YF-22 aircraft - the prototype of the American fifth-generation fighter F-22A, as well as on the Su-35 fighter (the latter also has a strain gauge throttle).

Tilt of the seat up to 30° allows the pilot to more easily endure large overloads, but at the same time, this arrangement requires greater effort when turning the head back.

Frameless glazing of the cockpit canopy provides better visibility in the front hemisphere, however, this design has a large mass, and the increased thickness of the glazing (unlike the canopy of a conventional design, where thick bird-resistant glass is used only on the visor) requires separation of the entire canopy before an emergency exit from the aircraft, since ejection through glass is impossible. The promising Japanese fighter Mitsubishi FS-X, created as a deep modernization of the F-I6 aircraft, uses a traditional type of canopy glazing - with a fixed visor and a rear-opening lid.

F-168 two-seat combat trainer

MiG-29 fighter

The MiG-29 has a canopy of a conventional design with a visor, but before ejection it is also necessary to shoot off the canopy cover. The high qualities of the K-36 ejection seat installed on the MiG, created by NPO Zvezda, have been repeatedly confirmed. The seat provides rescue for the pilot at speeds up to 1300 km/h and altitudes up to 25 km. When using a pressure helmet, safe ejection is possible at indicated speeds of up to 1400 km/h. The disadvantages of the K-36 chair include its large mass - 205 kg. The F-16 aircraft is equipped with a McDonnell-Douglas ACES II ejection seat, which provides rescue at a maximum speed of only 1,112 km/h at altitudes up to 15,240 m.

The dimensions of the MiG-29 fighter are not much larger than the corresponding dimensions of the F-16. The Russian aircraft is 15.2% longer than the American one, the wing span is 11.4% larger, while the height of the F-16 (when parked) is 7.6% larger. The chassis track of the MiG-29 is 30% larger, and the landing gear base is 8.7% shorter than that of the F-16. The MiG's wing area is 36.3% larger than that of the American fighter.

The empty weight of the MiG-29 aircraft was not reported by the Russian side, however, according to experts from Fort Worth, it is approximately 11,000 kg, which is 49% more than that of the F-16A aircraft, but only 26.4-24. 2% exceeds the mass of the F-16C fighters, which are equipped with the F100-PW-229 or F110-GE-129 turbofans, respectively. F-I6C aircraft with F110-GE-129 engines (40/50 series) are 154 kg heavier than 42/52 series fighters with F100-PW-229.

However, the normal take-off weight of the MiG-29 (with six short-range missiles and without PTB), due to the lower relative capacity of the fuel tanks, is only 27% greater than that of the F-16A, and 24% greater than that of the F-16C, and the maximum take-off weight the mass of the F-16C even exceeds the corresponding parameter of the MiG-29. The Israeli company IAI carried out work on its own to strengthen the airframe and landing gear of the Israeli Air Force F-16 aircraft, which made it possible to increase their maximum take-off weight to 21,000 kg.

The F-16 aircraft has a significantly greater combat radius than the MiG-29. In fact, the practical range of the MiG-24 and F-16 without external fuel tanks is almost the same (F-16 - 1600 km, MiG-29 - 1500 km). The F-16's superiority in maximum range is achieved through the use of larger anti-tank tanks. With two tanks of 1400 liters and one tank of 1136 liters, the ferry range of the K-16 reaches 3900 km. The MiG-29 with one 1560 liter tank has a ferry range of 2100 km, and with two 800 liter tanks and one 1500 liter tank - 2900 km. However, in a situation similar to the one that developed in the skies of North Vietnam, when planes entered into battle with each other with full internal tanks, dropped PTBs and only short-range missiles on external hardpoints, F-16 fighters will undoubtedly have greater specific wing load and lower thrust armament than the MiG-29. Thus, for the F-16A the combat specific wing load is 3% higher than the corresponding parameter for the MiG-29, and for the F-16C the excess is 16%. The thrust-to-weight ratio of the MiG-29 will be 14% and 5% higher, respectively, than that of the F-16A and F-16C aircraft. This will provide the MiGs with an advantage over the F-16, despite the restrictions of the Russian fighter on the maximum operational load at M› 0.85.

In 1993, specialists from Fort Worth failed their own comparative analysis of the characteristics of the MiG-29 and F-16C aircraft in combat configuration (50% fuel in the internal tanks and two short-range missiles on the external hardpoints). In their opinion, in this case, the American fighter will have some advantage over the MiG at transonic speeds when maneuvering at low and medium altitudes. In these modes, according to American experts, the combat capabilities of the MiG will be limited due to the lower maximum operational overload (7 at M› 0.85 compared to 9 for the F-16), which will affect the ability of the Russian fighter to perform unsteady turns with maximum angular speeds. At high altitudes and supersonic speeds, the advantage will go to the MiG-29. However, it should be noted that these estimates are based on a number of assumptions (in particular, American analysts do not know the exact value of the relative thickness of the root chord of the Russian fighter wing).

The normal take-off weight of the MiG-29 corresponds to the configuration of a fighter with fully filled internal fuel tanks and six R-60M missile launchers on the underwing hardpoints. The maximum take-off weight of the MiG is assumed to be a fighter configuration with four R-60M missiles and three anti-tank tanks. However, with such a set of external suspensions, the MiG-29 is not capable of achieving supersonic speed.

Combat training MiG-29UV in flight

The MiG-29 demonstrates high flight characteristics, accompanying the Il-103 aircraft at low speed

Improved fighter MiG-29M (MiG-33)

According to American experts, the characteristics of the MiG-29 radar are somewhat inferior to the capabilities of the American radar system installed on the F-16A; in particular, according to their estimates, the range of the American radar is 20% greater. According to ANPC MIG, the N019 radar installed on the MiG-29 aircraft, but the detection range of air targets is superior not only to the AN/APG-66 station installed on the F-16A aircraft, but also to the much more powerful AN/APG-65 radar aircraft F/A-18C.

Comparative characteristics of radar

At the same time, the presence on board the MiG of an optical-electronic sighting and navigation system with a laser rangefinder and an autonomous helmet-mounted target designation system is an important advantage of the Russian fighter. During a visit to the Czech Republic by aviation delegations from France and the Netherlands, several training air battles were held between MiG-29 aircraft of the Czech Air Force and Daseo Mirage 2000 and Lockheed P-16A fighters, all of which ended in victory for the MiGs: Czech pilots, as a rule, “shot down » their opponents from the first approach using a helmet-mounted sight. In addition, the MiG-29's armament complex includes medium-range air-to-air missiles with a radar guidance system, while most F-I6 fighters carry only the AIM-9 Sidewinder missile with a thermal homing head. Equipping the F-16C with the A1M-120 AMRAAM medium-range missile has just begun, and only a small number of aircraft are armed with these missiles. The typical armament of F-16A aircraft for air combat is six AIM-91 missile launchers. "Sidewinder." F-16ADF aircraft used by the National Guard for air defense of the continental United States can take up to two AIM-7 Sparrow missiles. In 1991, F-16C aircraft began to be armed with AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles, which can be suspended on the same units as the Sidewinder missile launcher.

Typical armament of the MiG-29 is up to six R-bOM short-range missiles or R-73 intermediate-range missiles, as well as up to four R-27R or R-27T medium-range missiles. Modernized aircraft can carry up to six RVV-AE missiles.

In terms of its ability to strike ground targets, the MiG-29 is inferior to the F-16 fighter, which has a higher maximum take-off weight. Thus, with a combat load consisting of 2000 kg of bombs and two R-60M guided missiles, the MiG-29 takes only one PTB on the ventral hardpoint, while the F-16, carrying similar weapons, can suspend three PTBs. In addition, the American aircraft is equipped with fuel and an in-flight refueling system receiver, which is not available on production MiGs (the MiG-29 is planned to be equipped with an in-flight refueling system only as part of the modernization program for these fighters). According to American experts, the combat radius of action with weapons consisting of two 900 kg caliber bombs and two air-to-air close-combat missiles (P-60M or AIM-9 Sidewinder) along the “high-low-low-high altitude” profile ", is 1200 km for the F-16C aircraft and 500 km for the MiG-29, and for a completely low-altitude profile, 740 and 315 km, respectively.

From the above discussion, we can conclude that the F-16 is an air superiority fighter optimized for air combat at subsonic and supersonic speeds at low and medium altitudes. In addition, the high maximum take-off weight (exceeding the maximum take-off weight of the MiG-29) makes the F-16 a good strike aircraft. The mass of the bomb armament of the original MiG-29 fighter is 2000 kg; during modernization it was increased to 4000 kg.

The wing flap of the MiG-29M fighter has a sharp leading edge

overload up to 9 at M› 0.85, as well as in increasing the service life of the airframe and engine. In 1988, the General Dynamics company carried out work on the creation of a modernized version of the American Falcon aircraft with a wing of increased span and area, which, according to the company’s specialists, should have ensured an increase in the angular speed of an unsteady turn from 17-18 degrees. from to 21 degrees/s. However, due to lack of funding and the Air Force's desire not to begin programs that could become an alternative to the ATF (F-22) program, work on the Agile Falcon fighter was stopped.

It should be noted that in the article by R. Braybrook, the latest F-16C aircraft is compared with the export version of the MiG-29, built in the mid-1980s. This comparison is not entirely correct: it would be more appropriate to compare the F-16C aircraft of the 40/42 and 50/52 series with the MiG-29S and MiG-29M (MiG-33) fighters, created in the second half of the 1980s almost simultaneously with the latter modifications of the F-16C fighter (the MiG-29S is being mass-produced, the start of mass production of the MiG-29M, which has passed state tests, is delayed due to insufficient funding). According to representatives of the OKB im. A. I. Mikoyan, these aircraft have improved avionics, an expanded range of weapons, including, in particular, air-to-air missiles RVV-AE - an analogue of the American A1M-120 missile, air-to-surface missiles of various types and adjustable bombs (on the MiG -29M). MiG radars have large viewing angles and auto-tracking in azimuth (MiG-29M - 90°, MiG-29S and F/A-18C - 70° and F-16C - 60°) and provide long ranges for the use of air-to-air weapons.

Maximum missile launch range against an air target with an EPR of 3 mg, km

The flight characteristics of the modernized MiGs have also increased. The thrust armament of the MiG-29S fighter (N = 1 km, M = 1.0, 100% fuel in internal tanks) is 1.52, MiG-29M - 1.43, F- 16C - 1.05 and F/A- 18C - 1.00. This provides the MiG-29M and MiG-29S with higher flight characteristics and maneuverability characteristics than their American counterparts. The rate of climb of the MiG-29S, MiG-29M, F-16C and F/A-18C aircraft (H = 1 km, M - 0.9, 100% fuel in the internal tanks) is respectively 252, 234, 210 and 194 m/s . The maximum instantaneous angular speed of turn compared to that of fighter jets is 23.5, 22.8, 21.5 and 20.0 degrees/s.

The high-speed interception limit for the YiG-29M aircraft (M = 1.5, on external slings - four medium-range missiles, two close-in missiles and a PTB) is 410 km, for the F-16C - 389 km, for the F/A-18C - 370 km and for the MiG-29S - 345 km. The range of action during a low-altitude breakthrough (flight at an altitude of 200 m with a PTB› is 400 km for the F-16C, 385 km for the MiG-29M, 372 km for the F/A-18C and 340 for the MiG-29S. Thus, Russian and American Fourth generation light fighters have approximately the same range characteristics.

According to specialists from the OKB im. A.I. Mikoyan, new modifications of the MiG-29 have slightly better performance characteristics than their American rivals. Thus, the average time between failures and damage detected in flight and on the ground for the MiG-29M is 7.3 hours, the MiG-29S - 13.6 hours, the F/A-18C - 3.7 hours and the F-16C - 2.9 hours. Specific maintenance costs for the MiG-29M and MiG-29S are equal to 11 man-hours per flight hour; for the F/A-18C and F-16C aircraft, this figure is equal to the corresponding 16 and 18. ANPC MIG obviously used information about the time between failures in the early stages of operation of the F-I6 and F/A-I8 aircraft

Fuel receiver of the MiG-29K aircraft

Experienced YF-17 fighter - competitor to the YF-16

Just like the article by R. Braybrook, written based on materials provided by Lockheed, the above comparative analysis of the characteristics of the modernized MiG-29 aircraft and American fighters to a certain extent reflects the desire of ANPK MIG to promote advertising of its products, showing its superiority over foreign analogues. The data of this analysis sometimes differ from the information given in the foreign press. However, the objective results of the flights of the MiG-29, MiG-29M and MiG-29S against the backdrop of the demonstration of American F-16 and F/A-18 aircraft during the work of numerous aviation shows of recent times make one treat the characteristics published by ANPK with a high degree of confidence.

An aircraft similar in purpose and combat capabilities to the F-I6 fighter is the F/A-I8 carrier-based fighter, created for the US Navy and Marine Corps. Currently, this aircraft, manufactured by McDonnell-Dutlas, is the main American competitor to the F-16 aircraft and is also actively moving into the world market. An article published in the Armed Forces Journal can also be regarded as a consequence of the struggle between Lockheed and McDonnell-Dutlas for obtaining export orders. Its authors - T. McAtee and D. Oberle, colleagues at the Lockheed branch in Fort Worth, fighter pilots with extensive experience - prove the advantages of the single-engine Lockheed F-16 aircraft over the twin-engine McDonnell-Douglas F/A-I8 fighter. Despite the somewhat biased tone of the publication, a number of its provisions are of interest to Russian readers.

The difference in MTBF between the F-16 and F/A-18 aircraft is only 5%. About five failures per 100,000 flight hours is an excellent result for both aircraft, given the variety of missions these fighters perform. But for comparing aircraft, it is more convenient to take into account accident data over the past five years, since it reflects the effectiveness of the measures taken to improve safety. This comparison shows that the F-16 aircraft has a lower accident rate, and the company was able to implement a more effective set of measures to improve safety.

F/A-18 in flight

F/A-18 during in-flight refueling

Full-size mockup of the promising F/A-18E aircraft

McDonnell-Douglas, in trying to prove the benefits of the F/A-I8, focuses on the number of engine failure accidents that occurred in 1992. However, using only one year of data for comparison is misleading. In fact, in 1992, the F/A-18 aircraft had an accident rate of 5.5, and the F-16 - 4.1. A more objective assessment criterion is the overall aircraft loss rate, which shows that the difference between aircraft in terms of safety is insignificant.

The total accident rates associated with engine failure are also very close (1.17 per 100,000 flight hours for the F-16 and 0.86 for the F/A-18).

McDonnell-Douglas specialists argue that when comparing the F-16 and F/A-18 aircraft, it is necessary to take into account the features of the latter, due to its use from the deck of an aircraft carrier. However, with the exception of watchkeeping and landing, the F/A-18 and F-16 fighters perform the same operations. It is no secret that around the world, about 75% of combat missions were carried out by F/A-1S aircraft from coastal airfields. Despite the increased risk of flying from aircraft carriers, in fact only three F/A-18 fighters during the period under review were lost while taking off or landing on deck, while four aircraft of this type crashed while landing at coastal airfields.

According to official data, during the fighting in the Perepiska Bay area in the winter of 1991, F/A-18 fighters flew 9,250 missions, losing two aircraft, while F-16 aircraft made 13,066 missions and lost aircraft. This contradicts the data given in a number of McDonnell-Douglas publications (five lost F-16 aircraft and one F/A-18). In addition, it should be taken into account that F-16 aircraft carried out strike operations deep in Iraqi territory, and F/A-18 fighters were used in safer southern areas. Despite the more serious threat from enemy air defenses, the loss rate of F-16 aircraft was the same as that of F/A-18 fighters (0.2 aircraft per 1000 sorties), and less than that of the twin-engine multirole fighter F-15E (0.9 aircraft per 1000 sorties). In addition, due to the smaller size of the F-16 aircraft, it was hit less frequently. The F/A-18 fighter is approximately 1.4 times larger and was hit on average twice as often. McDonnell-Douglas claims that many F/A-18 aircraft returned from missions on one engine. However, a 1991 study showed that a direct hit to a General Electric F404 engine on an F/A-18 would cause catastrophic damage that could result in the loss of the aircraft.

An example of the survivability of a single-engine aircraft is the case when a radar-guided surface-to-air missile exploded next to an F-16 fighter and fragments flying through the air intake opening damaged the turbofan engine. However, the damage-resistant engine of the F-16 fighter continued to operate and the plane landed safely.

The victories of the F-16 fighter in the air speak for themselves. With 69 aerial victories, the F-16 was never shot down by an enemy aircraft. Information about victories in air battles of F-16 aircraft, given by General Dynamics and Lockheed in their advertising brochures, contradicts reality. During the fighting in Lebanon in the summer of 1982 alone, Syrian Air Force fighters shot down at least six Israeli Air Force F-16 aircraft (including five fighters shot down by MiG-23MF aircraft). It is reliably known that during the same period, F-16A fighters destroyed only one MiG-23MF (in battle on June 8, 1982), seven Syrian Su-22M fighter-bombers, as well as several Mi-8 and Gazelle helicopters*. The vast majority of Israeli BSC air victories were achieved using McDonnell-Douglas F-15A fighters interacting with Grumman E-2C Hawkeye AWACS aircraft.” During the battles with Iraq in the winter of 1991, F-16 fighters did not destroy a single enemy aircraft, while G-15S fighters shot down 34 Iraqi Air Force aircraft, F/A-18 - two MiG-21 fighters, or F-7 (with In this case, in an air battle with an Iraqi MiG-25P, one Hornit was lost, and the F-14 and A-10A each destroyed one Iraqi helicopter. The F/A-18 has two victories and one defeat (from the Iraqi MiG-25 fighter).

Comparative dimensions of the production aircraft F/A-18C (left) and the promising F/A-18E (to the right of the center line)

Despite small differences in terms of reliability, survivability and combat readiness, both aircraft are approximately equal.

The flight characteristics of the F-16 fighter aircraft exceed those of the F/A-18 aircraft in almost all modes. Even with a standard electronic warfare container on an external sling, the F-16 has an advantage over the F/A-18. The F-16 has a long range for strike operations and demonstrates excellent maneuverable air combat capabilities. The statement about the longer duration of the combat flight of the F-I6 aircraft compared to the F/A-I8 fighter is doubtful, since the code contradicts information about the combat capabilities of the fighters contained in other sources. At one time, the US Air Force preferred the experimental YF-16 aircraft to the YF-17 aircraft due to its high maneuverability and better acceleration characteristics. The heavier design of the F/A-18, due to the “deck” purpose of the aircraft, further increased the difference between the fighters. The F-16 accelerates and turns faster than the F/A-18. In addition, it can patrol and conduct air combat for longer periods of time. During joint flights with the F-16, the F/A-18 aircraft had to carry an anti-tank tank in order to have range characteristics commensurate with the characteristics of a “pure” F-16.

For the same allocated amount, the Air Force can purchase and operate three F-16s or two F/A-18s. The F/A-18 fighter jet costs 30-40% more to maintain and operate than the F-16, with the bulk of the cost coming from the F/A-18 engines, which are 43% more expensive to operate.

McDonnell-Douglas claims that "discriminating" buyers chose the F/A-I8 because they "saw the advantages of the twin-engine design." The F/A-18 aircraft has been delivered to seven countries. In each case, it turned out that the real value of the contract was higher than originally agreed upon. Therefore, Switzerland and Finland have reduced the number of aircraft purchased. South Korea changed its mind and chose the F-16 fighter, and other countries were forced to find additional funds. No country has reordered the F/A-18, while of the 17 countries that have purchased the F-16, 11 have reordered the fighter, and seven have done so twice or more.

With the US government's decision to reduce the number of tactical aviation wings to 20 (equivalent to approximately 1,360 aircraft), a qualitative improvement in the aircraft fleet will be required. In this regard, the US Air Force intends to sell for export 300 Lockheed F-16A/B aircraft available in tactical aviation, which have previously undergone appropriate repairs and modifications aimed at extending their service life (the Air Force currently has 400 fighters of this modification, which are planned to be removed out of service in 1997). Instead, it is planned to purchase additional new F-16C/D fighters. In this case, according to Air Force experts, in the period from 2000 to 2010, when deliveries of the new generation JAST strike aircraft are expected to begin, 120 - 130 F-16C/D fighters will be purchased. For this, in 1996-1997. Lockheed will need to reactivate its aircraft assembly line. A delay in the JAST program could lead to a further increase in F-16 purchases (current plans call for a JAST prototype to be built in 2000 and the first production aircraft in 2010).

F-16 fighter

The differences between the F-16 and MiG-29 aircraft are largely due to differences in views on the combat use of fighters, which, in turn, is due to national military experience. When developing requirements for new second-generation combat aircraft, the US Air Force was guided by the experience of World War II and the Korean War of 1950-1953. In both conflicts, American air supremacy generally extended beyond the front line, eliminating the danger of enemy air strikes for US ground forces. However, the reorientation of American aviation to waging, first of all, nuclear war and underestimation of the importance of maneuverable air combat led to the fact that by the end of the 1960s, the main American air superiority fighter, the McDonnell-Douglas F-4 Phantom 2, was inferior in maneuverability characteristics of the outdated enemy fighter MiG-17.

F-16 in flight. Vortexes are visible coming off the wing swells

F-16 in strike version

During the Korean War, MiG-15 aircraft were superior to American fighters at high altitudes. The new MiG-17 and MiG-19, created soon, also showed high combat qualities for their time, but the ability to conduct combat in turns at low altitudes was not the strong point of these fighters. The MiG-21 that followed was an outstanding aircraft in its class (a fighter-interceptor for target air defense), but its combat capabilities were somewhat reduced due to the design of the cockpit canopy, which did not provide the pilot with sufficient visibility, and the small combat load, which made it difficult to use this aircraft against ground targets. , as well as high landing speed. The MiG-23 and MiG-27 fighters with variable sweep wings had, compared to the MiG-21, more powerful weapons and an increased range, as well as better performance characteristics, but they had poor controllability characteristics at low speeds.

In the early 1970s, the OKB began creating a new generation MiG. Tactical and technical requirements for the MiG-29 aircraft, intended to replace the MiG-21 and MiG-23 fighters, were issued in 1972, technical design began in 1974, the first of the prototype aircraft took off on October 6, 1977. (test pilot A.V. Fedotov). The MiG-29 is a light fighter, being a continuation of the line of MiG-15 and MiG-21 aircraft. Like its predecessors, it had to have high speed, a high rate of climb and a high ceiling, since high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft were still considered as potential targets for interception. It was necessary to ensure good performance characteristics (without the use of a variable geometry wing) and controllability at low speeds, as well as improved visibility from the cockpit during takeoff and landing conditions.

The main differences between the F-16 and MiG-29 light fighters can be demonstrated by how they interact with heavy fighters. The F-16 is designed to fight for air supremacy together with the larger McDonnell-Douglas F-15 aircraft, capable of not only destroying light fighters like the MiG-21, but also countering the high-altitude and high-speed MiG-25. The outstanding flight characteristics of the F-15 aircraft, its powerful weapons and radar have made it possible to somewhat weaken the corresponding requirements for the F-16 light fighter, but the latter has a combat radius no less than that of the F-15 aircraft. In contrast, the MiG-29 front-line fighter was created to solve the same problems of providing air defense and gaining air superiority as the heavy MiG-25 interceptor fighter, having a significantly shorter range of action in comparison with it. The MiG-29 is designed to achieve high speeds and ceilings, and is also equipped with an effective weapons system, including medium-range air-to-air missiles. Figuratively speaking, the MiG-29 is a smaller F-15, which has a shorter range compared to the American fighter, while the F-16 is, as it were, an enlarged Northrop F-5 aircraft with a longer flight range.

The design of the airframe of the MiG-29 and F-16 fighters is designed to achieve a maximum operational load factor of 9. The aircraft are made using an integrated circuit with a smooth interface between the wing and fuselage, which ensures an increase in internal volumes, reduces the weight of the wing and leads to improved maneuverability characteristics. The fighters use a bulging wing, as well as engine air intakes capable of operating at high angles of attack.

At the same time, the fundamental differences between these aircraft were determined at the design stage. The F-16 fighter, created by the designers of the General Dynamics branch in Fort Worth (since 1993, this branch has been part of Lockheed), was designed for one Pratt-Whitney F100 turbofan engine, similar to the engine used on the F-16 fighter. 15, which ensured the unification of power plants of US Air Force fighters. When choosing between the single-engine General Dynamics F-16 and the twin-engine Northrop YF-17, lower specific fuel consumption in transonic non-afterburning mode was the decisive factor in favor of the F100 turbofan (and, consequently, the F-16).

Studies conducted in the United States have not revealed any advantages of twin-engine fighters over single-engine aircraft of the same class. Subsequently, these conclusions were confirmed by practice: in the period 1988-1992. For every 100,000 flight hours, only 3.97 F-16 aircraft were lost, which is quite comparable with the corresponding figure for twin-engine American fighters.

The reasons for Russian specialists choosing a twin-engine design for the MiG-29 are not entirely clear. Perhaps the accident statistics of the twin-engine MiG-25 were slightly better than those of the single-engine MiG-23 and MiG-27. It can also be assumed that the choice was made in accordance with the recommendations of TsAGI, where, as a result of purging in wind tunnels, some advantages of the twin-engine design were revealed, in particular, a higher angular turning speed due to the higher thrust-to-weight ratio of an aircraft with two turbofan engines.

The disadvantages of the MiG-29 fighter include the short service life of the RD-33 engine installed on it (overhaul life is only 400 hours). During the Berlin Aviation Exhibition ILA-94 (1994), it became known that this figure had been increased to 700 hours, and the total resource of the turbofan engine was 1400 hours. The life between overhauls of the Pratt-Whitney F100-PW-229 turbofan engine was 2000 hours, and the General Electric F110-GE-100 - 1500 h.

For the American fighter, optimized to achieve maximum maneuverability at transonic speed, an unregulated single-shock air intake was chosen, ensuring stable engine operation up to M = 2.0. Research by specialists from Fort Worth led to the conclusion that the use of a multi-hop controlled air intake on the F-16 aircraft would lead to an increase in airframe weight by 180 kg, without providing an improvement in flight performance to a speed corresponding to M = 1.6.

For the MiG-29 fighter, designed to achieve a higher speed than the F-16 aircraft, adjustable two-dimensional four-hop air intakes with one movable and two fixed ramps were selected, ensuring stable engine operation up to M = 2.3. The influence of large angles of attack on the operation of the turbofan engine was reduced due to the location of the air intakes under the wing swells.

Layout diagram of the F-16 fighter

Differences in the design of the air intakes of the F-16 and MiG-29 aircraft are also determined by the different approaches in Russia and the United States to eliminating foreign objects from entering the engines from the runway. According to experts from Fort Worth, it is unlikely that rocks from the runway will be sucked into the F-16's air intake, since its opening is located in front of the nose landing gear, and the lower lip of the air intake is located from the ground at a distance equal to 1.2 times its own average diameter. In the 1960s, it was generally accepted that the geometric center of the intake section should be 2.0 times the diameter of the intake from the ground, and the lower lip should be 1.5 times the diameter of the intake. However, the successful operation of the Boeing 737 airliner, as well as other aircraft with low air intakes, has led to a revision of these requirements.

While the US Air Force operates well-prepared runways, from which foreign objects are regularly removed, Russia has traditionally sought to operate aircraft from poorly prepared field airfields. The front landing gear of Russian fighters are equipped with shields that prevent stones (but not dust) from entering the air intakes. The MiG-29 is also equipped with rotary ramps that block the entrance to the air intake channel during takeoff, and on the upper surface of the floating part of the wing there are auxiliary air intakes that ensure engine operation during takeoff. Before the McDonnell-Douglas F-15 aircraft of the 1st Fighter Wing of the US Air Force, based at Langley Air Base, arrived at the Lipetsk Aviation Center for a friendly visit, American specialists familiarized themselves with the condition of the concrete surface at the Lipetsk airfield and stated that their aircraft would not use such runways and taxiways. they won't be able to. The visit still took place, but the American pilots observed increased caution when taxiing, taking off and landing. At the Lipetsk airfield, which has two runways (including a new one built in the 1980s), combat aircraft of all types of front-line aviation, including the MiG-29, are successfully operated, and the condition of the concrete surface does not cause any complaints among Russian pilots.

When creating the MiG-29, a two-fin design was chosen, operating in a four-vortex system: two vortices are generated by a vortex-generating device in the forward part of the fuselage and two by the wing. It can be assumed that the choice between single-fin and twin-fin designs depended on the configuration of the wing flaps, although it still seems somewhat strange that the General Dynamics designers chose a layout with a single-fin vertical tail (the F-16 is the only fourth-generation fighter with a non-delta wing that has one keel).

For the F-16 aircraft, a wing was chosen that was close to triangular in plan, with a sweep along the leading edge of 40°, an aspect ratio of 3.2 and a root chord with a thickness of 4%, having a 64A204 profile. Wind tunnel tests have revealed the need to use an automatically deflected wing tip, which serves to increase the lift coefficient and ensure stability at high angles of attack. The use of a deflectable tip made it possible, at M = 0.8, to increase the steady-state turn speed by 18% compared to a wing whose tip was fixed at zero angle, and by 10% compared to the best of the studied wings that did not have a deflectable tip.

The F-16 was the first production fighter aircraft equipped with a fly-by-wire control system (EDCS). Negative static stability at angles of attack less than 9° and M

F-16 fighters at the moment of refueling from a flying tanker KS-135

During comparative tests of F-16 fighters and MiG-29 aircraft of the German Air Force, it was found that the American fighter has significantly higher roll accelerations (which is due to the presence of the electric propulsion system and the shape of the wing). This should provide it with higher angular turning speeds and shorter turn times. A very controversial statement, since during numerous demonstration flights at international aviation exhibitions, the MiG-29 aircraft has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to perform turns with a diameter of 700 m at low altitude at a speed of 800 km/h. Under similar conditions, the F-16 fighter performed turns with a diameter of only about 800 m. At a speed of 400 km/h and a steady overload of 3.8, the minimum turning diameter of the MiG-29 was 450 m.

The Russian fighter is equipped with a conventional control system, whose characteristics are close (according to American test pilot D. Farley, who flew the MiG-29) to the control system of the F-15 aircraft. When M Using the limiting signal system (SOS) when performing maneuvers without roll control, the MiG-29 aircraft can safely reach angles of attack of more than 30°. The angle of attack limitation for the F-16 aircraft is 25°. According to other sources, the maximum angle of attack of the F-16A aircraft is limited to 27.5°.

The MiG-29 is controlled in roll like the MiG-23 and MiG-27 aircraft. Up to an angle of attack of 8.7°, ailerons are used in conjunction with an all-moving differential stabilizer. When reaching angles of attack greater than 8.7°, only the all-moving horizontal tail is effective.

Despite the ability of the MiG-29 to stay in the air at high angles of attack, its pilots cannot fully use this property of the aircraft to reduce the landing distance due to the relatively low landing gear. At a landing speed of 240 km/h using a braking parachute, the MiG's run length is 600 m; on a wet runway it increases by another 50%. The flight length of the F-16A aircraft at normal landing weight on a dry runway is 650 m. Unlike Russian fighters, on American aircraft the braking parachute is used only as a means of emergency braking.

Since the prototype F-16 fighter was designed as an experimental aircraft, a number of controversial technical improvements were introduced into its design. So, instead of a traditional control knob, a miniature side strain gauge handle was installed in the cockpit; The backrest angle of the ejection seat has been increased from 13 to 30°; For the first time, frameless glazing of the cockpit canopy was used on a supersonic fighter.

The side stick allows the pilot to constantly keep his hand on the stop, controlling the aircraft only with the movement of the hand, which increases piloting accuracy. However, this design allows the aircraft to be controlled only with the right hand; changing hands is impossible. Currently, the F-16 is the only production fighter in the world equipped with a side control stick. The McDonnell-Douglas F-15E, F/A-18, Eurofighter EF2000, MiG-33 and others fighters that appeared later have a central control system. At the same time, the side stick is installed on the Lockheed YF-22 aircraft - the prototype of the American fifth-generation fighter F-22A, as well as on the Su-35 fighter (the latter also has a strain gauge throttle).

Tilt of the seat up to 30° allows the pilot to more easily endure large overloads, but at the same time, this arrangement requires greater effort when turning the head back.

F-16B two-seat combat trainer

Frameless glazing of the cockpit canopy provides better visibility in the front hemisphere, however, this design has a large mass, and the increased thickness of the glazing (unlike the canopy of a conventional design, where thick bird-resistant glass is used only on the visor) requires separation of the entire canopy before an emergency exit from the aircraft, since ejection through glass is impossible. The promising Japanese fighter Mitsubishi FS-X, created as a deep modernization of the F-16 aircraft, uses a traditional type of canopy glazing - with a fixed visor and a rear-opening lid.

MiG-29 fighter

The MiG-29 has a canopy with a traditional visor design, however, the canopy cover must also be removed before ejection. The high qualities of the K-36 ejection seat installed on the MiG, created by NPO Zvezda, have been repeatedly confirmed; the seat provides rescue of the pilot at instrument speeds of up to 1300 km/h and altitudes of up to 25 km. When using a pressure helmet, safe ejection is possible even at an indicated speed of up to 1400 km/h; the disadvantages of the K-36 seat include its large mass - 205 kg. The F-16 is equipped with a McDonnell-Douglas ACES II ejection seat, which provides rescue at a maximum instrument speed of only 1,200 km/h at altitudes up to 15,240 m.

The dimensions of the MiG-29 fighter are not much larger than the corresponding dimensions of the F-16. The Russian aircraft is 15.2% longer than the American one, its wingspan is 11.4% larger, while the height of the F-16 (when parked) is 7.6% larger. The MiG-29's landing gear track is 1% larger, and the landing gear base is 8.7% shorter than that of the F-16. The MiG's wing area is 36.3% larger than that of the American fighter.

The empty weight of the MiG-29 aircraft was not reported by the Russian side, however, according to Fort Worth experts, it is approximately ?? 000 kg, which is 49% more than that of the F-16A aircraft, but only 26.4-24. 2% exceeds the mass of F-16C fighters, which are equipped with F100-PW-229 or F110-OE-129 turbofan engines, respectively. F-16C aircraft with F110-OE-129 engines (40/50 series) are 154 kg heavier than 42/52 series fighters with F100-PW-229.

However, the normal take-off weight of the MiG-29 (with six short-range missiles and without PTB), due to the lower relative capacity of the fuel tanks, is only 27% greater than that of the F-16A, and 24% greater than that of the F-16C, and the maximum take-off weight the weight of the F-16C even exceeds the corresponding parameter of the MiG-29. The Israeli company IAI carried out work on its own to strengthen the airframe and landing gear of the Israeli Air Force F-16C aircraft, which made it possible to increase their maximum take-off weight to 21,000 kg.

The F-16 aircraft has a significantly greater combat radius than the MiG-29. In fact, the practical range of the MiG-29 and F-16 without external fuel tanks is almost the same (F-16 - 1600 km, MiG-29 - 1500 km). The F-16's superiority in maximum range is achieved through the use of larger anti-tank tanks. With two 1400 liter tanks and one 1136 liter tank, the ferry range of the F-16 reaches 3900 km. The MiG-29 with one 1500 liter tank has a ferry range of 2100 km, and with two 800 liter tanks and one 1500 liter tank - 2900 km. However, in a situation similar to the one that developed in the skies of North Vietnam, when planes entered into battle with each other with full internal tanks, dropped PTBs and only short-range missiles on external hardpoints, F-16 fighters will undoubtedly have greater specific wing load and lower thrust-to-weight ratio than the MiG-29. Thus, for the F-16A the combat specific wing load is 3% higher than the corresponding parameter for the MiG-29, and for the F-16C the excess is 16%. The MiG-29's thrust-bearing capacity will be 14% and 5% higher, respectively, than that of the F-16A and F-16C. This will provide the MiGs with an advantage over the F-16, despite the Russian fighter’s limitations on maximum operational overload at M > 0.85.

The MiG-29 demonstrates high flight characteristics, accompanying the Il-103 aircraft at low speed

In 1993, specialists from Fort Worth conducted their own comparative analysis of the characteristics of the MiG-29 and F-16C aircraft in combat configuration (50% fuel in the internal tanks and two short-range missiles on external hardpoints). In their opinion, in this case, the American fighter will have some advantage over the MiG at transonic speeds when maneuvering at low and medium altitudes. In these modes, according to American experts, the combat capabilities of the MiG will be limited due to the lower maximum operational overload (7 at M > 0.85 compared to 9 for the F-16), which will affect the ability of the Russian fighter to perform unsteady turns with maximum angles speeds. At high altitudes and supersonic speeds, the advantage will go to the MiG-29. However, it should be noted that these estimates are based on a number of assumptions (in particular, American analysts do not know the exact value of the relative thickness of the wing root chord of a Russian fighter).

Combat training MiG-29UB in flight

The normal take-off weight of the MiG-29 corresponds to the configuration of a fighter with fully filled internal fuel tanks and six R-60M missile launchers on the underwing hardpoints. The maximum take-off weight of the MiG is assumed to be a fighter configuration with four R-60M missiles and three PTBs. However, with such a set of external suspensions, the MiG-29 is not capable of achieving supersonic speed.

Improved fighter MiG-29M (MiG-33)

According to American experts, the characteristics of the MiG-29 radar are somewhat inferior to the capabilities of the American radar system installed on the F-16A, in particular, according to their estimates, the range of the American radar is 20% greater. [i]According to ANPC MIG, the N019 radar installed on the MiG-29 aircraft, in terms of detection range of air targets, exceeds not only the AN/APG-66 station installed on the F-16A aircraft, but also the much more powerful AN/ radar APG-65 of the F/A-18C aircraft.

At the same time, the presence on board the MiG of an optical-electronic sighting and navigation system with a laser rangefinder and an autonomous helmet-mounted target designation system is an important advantage of the Russian fighter. During a visit to the Czech Republic by aviation delegations from France and the Netherlands, several training air battles were held between MiG-29 aircraft of the Czech Air Force and Dassault Mirage 2000 and Lockheed F-16A fighters, all of which ended in victory for the MiGs: Czech pilots, as a rule, “shot down » their opponents from the first approach using a helmet-mounted sight. In addition, the MiG-29's armament complex includes medium-range air-to-air missiles with a radar guidance system, while most F-16 fighters carry only the AIM-9 Sidewinder missile with a thermal homing head. Equipping the F-16C with the AIM-120 AMRAAM medium-range missile has just begun, and only a small number of aircraft are armed with these missiles. The typical armament of F-16A aircraft for air combat is six AIM-9L Sidewinder missiles. F-16ADF aircraft used by the National Guard for air defense of the continental United States can carry up to two AIM-7 Sparrow missiles. In 1991, F-16C aircraft began to be armed with AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles, which can be suspended on the same units as the Sidewinder missile launcher.

Typical armament of the MiG-29 is up to six R-60M short-range missiles or R-73 intermediate-range missiles, as well as up to four R-27R or R-27T medium-range missiles. Modernized aircraft can carry up to six RVV-AE missiles.

In terms of its ability to strike ground targets, the MiG-29 is inferior to the F-16 fighter, which has a higher maximum take-off weight. Thus, with a combat load consisting of 2000 kg of bombs and two R-60M missile launchers, the MiG-29 carries only one PTB on the ventral hardpoint, while the F-16, carrying similar weapons, can carry three PTBs. In addition, the American aircraft is equipped with an in-flight refueling system, which is not available on production MiGs (the MiG-29 is planned to be equipped with an in-flight refueling system only as part of the modernization program for these fighters). According to American experts, the combat radius of action with weapons consisting of two 900 kg caliber bombs and two air-to-air close-combat missiles (P-60M or AIM-9 Sidewinder) along the “high-low-low-high altitude” profile ", is 1200 km for the F-16C aircraft and 500 km for the MiG-29, and for a completely low-altitude profile, 740 and 315 km, respectively.

From the above, we can conclude that the F-16 is an air superiority fighter optimized for air combat at subsonic and transonic speeds at low and medium altitudes. In addition, the high maximum take-off weight (exceeding the maximum take-off weight of the MiG-29) makes the F-16 a good strike aircraft. The mass of the bomb armament of the original MiG-29 fighter is 2000 kg; during modernization it was increased to 4000 kg.

MiG-29M

The wing flap of the MiG-29M fighter has a sharp leading edge

The MiG-29 is also designed to fight for air supremacy, but it is also capable of effectively solving target air defense tasks, intercepting high-speed high-altitude targets. At the same time, its striking capabilities are limited. Both aircraft are perfectly adapted to perform the combat missions assigned to them, but it seems advisable to further modernize them. For the F-16C, this may consist in developing a larger wing area, and for the MiG-29 - in increasing the take-off weight, creating new anti-tank tanks that allow flight at supersonic speed, equipping the aircraft with an in-flight refueling system, increasing the maximum operational load to 9 at M > 0.85, as well as in increasing the service life of the airframe and engine. In 1988, the General Dynamics company carried out work on creating a modernized version of the American Falcon aircraft with a wing of increased span and area, which, according to the company’s specialists, should have ensured an increase in the angular speed of an unsteady turn from 17-18 degrees / s to 21 deg./s. However, due to a lack of funding, as well as the Air Force's desire not to begin programs that could become an alternative to the ATF (F-22) program, work on the Agile Falcon fighter was stopped.

It should be noted that in the article by R. Braybrook, the latest F-16C aircraft is compared with the export version of the MiG-29, built in the mid-1980s. This comparison is not entirely correct: it would be more appropriate to compare the F-16C aircraft of the 40/42 and 50/52 series with the MiG-29S and MiG-29M (MiG-33) fighters, created in the second half of the 1980s almost simultaneously with the latter modifications of the F-16C fighter (the MiG-29S is being mass-produced, the start of mass production of the MiG-29M, which has passed state tests, is delayed due to insufficient funding). According to representatives of the OKB im. A. I. Mikoyan, these aircraft have improved avionics, an expanded range of weapons, including, in particular, air-to-air missiles RVV-AE - an analogue of the American AIM-120 missile, air-to-surface missiles of various types and adjustable bombs (on the MiG -29M). MiG radars have large viewing angles and automatic azimuth tracking (MiG-29M - 90°, MiG-29S and F/A-18C - 70° and F-16C - 60°) and provide long ranges for the use of air-to-air weapons.

The flight characteristics of the modernized MiGs have also increased. The thrust-to-weight ratio of the MiG-29S fighter (N = 1 km, M = 1.0, 100% fuel in internal tanks) is 1.52, MiG-29M - 1.43, F-16C - 1.05 and F/A-18C - 1.00. This provided the MiG-29M and MiG-29S with higher performance characteristics and maneuverability characteristics than their American counterparts. The rate of climb of the MiG-29S, MiG-29M, F-16C and F/A-18C aircraft (H = 1 km, M = 0.9, 100% fuel in the internal tanks) is 252, 234, 210 and 194 m/s, respectively . The maximum instantaneous angular speed of turn of the compared fighters is 23.5, 22.8, 21.5 and 20.0 deg/s.

The high-speed interception limit for the MiG-29M aircraft (M = 1.5, on external slings - four medium-range missiles, two close-in missiles and a PTB) is 410 km, for the F-16C - 389 km, for the F/A-18C - 370 km and for the MiG-29S - 345 km. The range of action during a low-altitude breakthrough (flight at an altitude of 200 m with a PTB) is 400 km for the F-16C, 385 km for the MiG-29M, 372 km for the F/A-18C and 340 km for the MiG-29S. Thus, Russian and American fourth-generation light fighters have approximately the same range characteristics.

Fuel receiver of the MiG-29K aircraft

YF-17. Experienced

According to specialists from the OKB im. A.I. Mikoyan, new modifications of the MiG-29 have slightly better performance characteristics than their American rivals. Thus, the average time between failures and damage detected in flight and on the ground for the MiG-29M is 7.3 hours, for the MiG-29S - 13.6 hours, for the F/A-18C - 3.7 hours and for the F-16C - 2.9 hours. Specific maintenance costs for the MiG-29M and MiG-29S are equal to 11 man-hours per flight hour; for the F/A-18C and F-16C aircraft, this figure is 16 and 18, respectively. ANPK MIG obviously used information about the time between failures in the early stages of operation of the F-16 and F/A-18 aircraft.

F/A-18 during in-flight refueling

An aircraft similar in purpose and combat capabilities to the F-16 fighter is the F/A-18 carrier-based fighter, created for the US Navy and Marine Corps. Currently, this aircraft, manufactured by McDonnell-Douglas, is the main American competitor to the F-16 aircraft and is also actively moving into the world market. An article published in the Armed Forces Journal can also be regarded as a consequence of the struggle between Lockheed and McDonnell-Douglas to obtain export orders. Its authors - T. McAtee and D. Oberle, employees of the Lockheed branch in Fort Worth, fighter pilots with extensive experience - prove the advantages of the single-engine Lockheed F-16 aircraft over the twin-engine McDonnell-Douglas F/A-18 fighter. Despite the somewhat biased tone of the publication, a number of its provisions are of interest to Russian readers.

F/A-18 in flight

The difference in MTBF between the F-16 and F/A-18 is only 5%. About five failures per 100,000 flight hours is an excellent result for both aircraft, given the variety of missions these fighters perform. But for comparing aircraft, it is more convenient to take into account accident data over the past five years, since it reflects the effectiveness of the measures taken to improve safety. This comparison shows that the F-16 aircraft has a lower accident rate, and the company was able to implement a more effective set of measures to improve safety.

Full-size mockup of the promising F/A-18E aircraft

McDonnell-Douglas, in trying to prove the benefits of the F/A-18, focuses on the number of engine failure accidents that occurred in 1992. However, using only one year of data for comparison is misleading. In fact, in 1992, the F/A-18 aircraft had an accident rate of 5.5, and the F-16 - 4.1. A more objective assessment criterion is the overall aircraft loss rate, which shows that the difference between aircraft in terms of safety is insignificant.

The total accident rates associated with engine failure are also very similar (1.17 per 100,000 flight hours for the F-16 and 0.86 for the F/A-18).

McDonnell-Douglas specialists argue that when comparing the F-16 and F/A-18 aircraft, it is necessary to take into account the features of the latter, due to its use from the deck of an aircraft carrier. However, with the exception of takeoff and landing, the F/A-18 and F-16 perform the same operations. It is no secret that around the world, about 75% of combat missions were carried out by F/A-18 aircraft from coastal airfields. Despite the increased dangers of operating from aircraft carriers, in fact only three F/A-18 fighters during the period under review were lost while landing or landing on the deck, while four aircraft of this type crashed while landing at coastal airfields.

According to official data, during combat operations in the Persian Gulf in the winter of 1991, F/A-18 fighters flew 9,250 missions with the loss of two aircraft, while F-16 aircraft flew 13,066 missions and lost three aircraft. This contradicts the data given in a number of McDonnell-Douglas publications (five lost F-16 aircraft and one F/A-18). In addition, it should be taken into account that F-16 aircraft carried out strike operations deep in Iraqi territory, and F/A-18 fighters were used in safer southern areas. Despite the greater threat from enemy air defenses, the F-16's loss rate was the same as the F/A-18 (0.2 aircraft per 1,000 sorties) and less than the F-15E twin-engine multi-role fighter. (0.9 aircraft per 1000 sorties). In addition, due to the smaller size of the F-16 aircraft, it was hit less frequently. The F/A-18 fighter is approximately 1.4 times larger and was hit on average twice as often. McDonnell-Douglas claims that many F/A-18 aircraft returned from missions on one engine. However, a 1991 study showed that a direct hit to a General Electric F404 engine on an F/A-18 would cause catastrophic damage that could result in the loss of the aircraft.

An example of the survivability of a single-engine aircraft is when a radar-guided surface-to-air missile exploded near an F-16 fighter and debris flying through the air intake damaged the turbofan. However, the F-16's damage-resistant engine continued to operate, and the plane landed safely.

Comparative dimensions of the production aircraft F/A-18C (left) and the promising F/A-18E (to the right of the center line)

The victories of the F-16 fighter in the air speak for themselves. With 69 aerial victories, the F-16 was never shot down by an enemy aircraft. Information about victories in air battles of F-16 aircraft, given by General Dynamics and Lockheed in their advertising brochures, contradicts reality. During the fighting in Lebanon in the summer of 1982 alone, Syrian Air Force fighters shot down at least six Israeli Air Force F-16 aircraft (including five fighters shot down by MiG-23MF aircraft). It is reliably known that during the same period, F-16A fighters destroyed only one MiG-23MF (in battle on June 8, 1982), seven Syrian Su-22M fighter-bombers, as well as several Mi-8 and Gazelle helicopters. The vast majority of Israeli air victories were achieved using McDonnell-Douglas F-15A fighters interacting with Grumman E-2C Hawkeye AWACS aircraft. During the battles with Iraq in the winter of 1991, F-16 fighters did not destroy a single enemy aircraft, while F-15C fighters shot down 34 Iraqi Air Force aircraft, F/A-18 - two MiG-21 fighters, or F-7 (with In this case, in an air battle with an Iraqi MiG-25P, one Hornit was lost, and the F-14 and A-10A each destroyed one Iraqi helicopter. The F/A-18 has two victories and one defeat (from the Iraqi MiG-25 fighter).

Despite slight differences in reliability, survivability and combat readiness, both aircraft are approximately equal.

The flight characteristics of the F-16 fighter aircraft exceed those of the F/A-18 aircraft in almost all modes. Even with a standard electronic warfare container on an external sling, the F-16 has an advantage over the F/A-18. The F-16 has a long range for strike operations and demonstrates excellent maneuverable air combat capabilities. The statement about the longer combat flight duration of the F-16 compared to the F/A-18 fighter is questionable, as it contradicts information about the combat capabilities of fighters contained in other sources. At one time, the US Air Force preferred the experimental YF-16 aircraft to the YF-17 aircraft due to its high maneuverability and better acceleration characteristics. The heavier design of the F/A-18, due to the “deck” purpose of the aircraft, further increased the difference between the fighters. The F-16 accelerates and turns faster than the F/A-18. In addition, it can patrol and conduct air combat for longer periods of time. During joint flights with the F-16, the F/A-18 aircraft had to carry an anti-tank tank in order to have range characteristics commensurate with the characteristics of a “pure” F-16.

Table: Characteristics of various modifications of aircraft

For the same allocated amount, the Air Force can purchase and operate three F-16s or two F/A-18s. The F/A-18 costs 30-40% more to maintain and operate than the F-16, with the bulk of the cost coming from the F/A-18's engines, which are 43% more expensive to operate.

McDonnell-Douglas claims that "discriminating" buyers chose the F/A-18 because they "saw the advantages of a twin-engine design." The F/A-18 aircraft has been delivered to seven countries. In each case, it turned out that the actual value of the contract was higher than originally agreed upon. Therefore, Switzerland and Finland reduced the number of aircraft they purchased, South Korea changed its mind and chose the F-16 fighter, and other countries were forced to find additional funds. No country has reordered the F/A-18, while of the 17 countries that have purchased the F-16, 11 have reordered the fighter, and seven have done so twice or more.

Our comments

Work on the creation of the F-16 fighter began in 1972, in 1974 the YF-16 experimental aircraft made its first flight, in 1975 the technical design of the F-16A combat aircraft began, and the first flight of an experimental aircraft of this type took place in December 1976 G.

The modification currently under construction, the F-16C/D, began development in 1980 as part of a phased modernization program for the F-16A/B aircraft. It was supposed to increase the combat capabilities of the fighter when operating against ground targets, as well as at night and in bad weather conditions. It was planned to give the aircraft the ability to conduct missile combat at medium ranges, without visual contact with the target. As part of the first stage of the program in 1981, the F-16A/B series 15 aircraft were modernized (the airframe structure was strengthened and new electrical wiring was installed to allow for the installation of additional on-board systems).

At the second stage of the program, the F-16C/D 25th series aircraft was created, which made its first flight in July 1984 and had modified avionics (in particular, AN/APG-68 radar), improved cabin equipment and minor changes in the airframe design.

The F-16C series 30/32 aircraft (series 30 - with a General Electric F110-OE-100 turbofan engine, series 32 - with a Pratt-Whitney F100-PW-220 turbofan engine) had an on-board computer with an increased memory capacity, their deliveries to the Air Force began in July 1986 G.

In 1987, the F-16C ZOV series aircraft was created with a weapons control system that allows the use of AIM-120 AMRAAM and AGM-45 Shrike missiles.

F-16C series 40/42 (December 1988) Knight Falcon is optimized for nighttime strike operations. It is equipped with an AN/APG-68 (V) radar and containers with a LANTIRN navigation and sighting system, an HUD with diffraction optics, a satellite navigation system, an improved drive for a deflectable wing tip, a cabin with improved ergonomics, a reinforced landing gear and an airframe (which made it possible to increase the maximum take-off weight), as well as installation locations for future placement of additional electronic equipment.

The LANTIRN system provides detection, identification and automatic tracking of small ground targets day and night, salvo launch of the AGM-65 Maverick missile, laser illumination of targets when using guided bombs (CAB), as well as accurate determination of the range to a ground target using a laser rangefinder. In 1990, aircraft began to be equipped with an improved oxygen system, providing the pilot with pressurized oxygen at high overloads. The first aircraft of the 40/42 series was transferred to the combat unit of the US Air Force at the end of 1990.

In October 1991, flight tests of the first F-16C fighter of the 50/52 series began (the aircraft had serial number 90-0801). Fighters of these series are equipped with improved turbofan engines General Electric F110-GE-129 (series 50) or Pratt-Whitney F100-PW-229 (series 52), AN/APG-68 (V5) radar with an improved ultra-high-speed processor, VHF radio station "Have" Kwik PA, Have Sank VHF jamming radio and AN/ALR-56M Advanced Radar Warning System.

In 1993, the first F-16C 50D/52D series aircraft was built, optimized to combat enemy air defense systems. The fighter's armament is supplemented with AGM-88 HARM anti-radar missiles with an AN/ASQ-213 target designation system and an interface unit from Texas Instruments. On the right bow pylon there is a container with a Pave Penny target designation system. In addition, aircraft of this series have an advanced programmable processor for controlling cabin indicators, which allows you to display a digital map on the horizontal situation indicator screen, as well as an image of the terrain along the course - on the vertical situation screen. The fighter is equipped with an INS based on Honeywell N-423 laser gyroscopes and an AN/ALE-47 decoy ejection system.

The first aircraft of the 50D/52D series was delivered to the US Air Force on May 7, 1993. Aircraft of these series are able to solve 40 - 80% of the combat missions assigned to the McDonnell-Douglas F-4G Wild Wizzle anti-radar aircraft. In addition, they can receive precise target designation from F-4G aircraft via telecode link. A new VHF antenna is mounted on the fin of the F-16C 50D/52D series. The aircraft are equipped with a 128K cartridge for automated sortie planning. In total, the US Air Force plans to deliver 144 F-16C and 20 F-16D 50D/52D series aircraft.

Aircraft of the “50 plus” series are expected to be equipped with a radar that has a synthetic aperture mode and allows the use of promising JDAM satellites with inertial guidance. In addition, these aircraft must be equipped with a passive warning system for the approach of enemy missiles, an extreme correlation navigation system and external fuel tanks (PTB) with a capacity of 2271 liters.

A promising version of the F-16C series 60 fighter, offered by Lockheed, should have a built-in, rather than suspended, LANTIRN navigation and sighting system, as well as an overhead ventral fuel tank.

Another initiative of the company - the multirole fighter F-16C series 60/62 - is expected to be equipped with a number of technical improvements developed within the framework of the F-22 program.

The F-16ES is a “strategic” two-seat deep penetration fighter-bomber, developed since November 1993 as an alternative to the McDonnell-Douglas F-15I aircraft for the Israeli Air Force. The aircraft must have two overhead dorsal fuel tanks, a 2271 liter ventral tank and two 1893 liter underwing tanks. The maximum range of action should reach 1850 km. Although the Israeli Air Force preferred the F-15I project, the flight-tested overhead fuel tank design is expected to be used on other F-16 aircraft.

F-16X is a promising fighter project for 2010. The aircraft is expected to use a modernized delta wing of the Lockheed F-22 aircraft (sweep along the leading edge has been increased), a fuselage lengthened by 1.42 m, and fuel tanks whose capacity has been increased by 80% compared to aircraft F-16, which will make it possible to abandon the use in combat flight of PTB, conformal suspension of the AIM-120 AMRAAM missile launcher and improved versions of the F100 or F110 turbofans. The cost of the aircraft should be only 2/3 of the cost of the McDonnell-Douglas F/A-18E/F Hornite fighter.

Popular

Presentation on the topic "INDIGO testing system"

« INDIGO is a powerful, modern electronic complex designed to automate the testing procedure and monitor results. Easier... »

Organization of production at an enterprise - basic concepts of the theory of production organization - basic principles of organization and functioning of production

« New principles for organizing modern production Parameter name Meaning Topic of the article: New principles for organizing... »

QS with waiting (queue) Single-channel QS with unlimited queue example

« Let's consider a single-channel queuing system with waiting. We will assume that the incoming flow of service requests is the simplest... »