“Old Su-27”: an expert assessed the training victory of the Ukrainian fighter over the F-15

A saga about generations. Why the Su-27 is superior to the F-15

They share the same sky. One path and one task - to sweep enemy aircraft from the skies. They are air superiority fighters. Winged combat vehicles from the “first line”, the elite of modern combat aviation. Their complexity is prohibitive, and their possibilities are endless. They have too many advantages, but no disadvantages. They are strong and beautiful in their inexhaustible heavenly fury. Eternal rivals are the Su-27 and F-15.

Who are you, jolly cowboy?

His birth is connected with the Vietnam War. The results of the meetings with Soviet MiGs required a change in the entire previous paradigm for the development of American fighter aircraft. The Air Force urgently needed a highly maneuverable “MiG killer”, equally effective both in close air combat and at medium and long distances. Outstanding radio-electronic “filling” must be enclosed in an equally perfect shell. American designers boldly took a step towards a new, fourth generation of fighters.

The first flight of the Eagle took place in 1972. Four years later, the F-15 Eagle fighter entered service. To date, these legendary air fighters have scored 104 aerial victories - without a single defeat! “Unbreakable” angels of death, which can only be defeated by American weapons. The Eagle was shot down only once - in 1995, during a Japanese Air Force exercise, an F-15 was mistakenly shot down by the same F-15.

Official reports on the results of the combat use of the "Eagle" also describe other fables. According to the Yankees themselves, the level of control of Iraqi airspace during the Gulf War “had no historical precedent.” A similar thing happened eight years later - the Eagles completely closed the sky over the Balkans.

But why is there not a single aircraft of equal power among the dozens of Eagle trophies? Not a single Eurofighter Typhoon or Dassault Rafale?

The most notable trophies are nine light MiG-29s in a simplified export version. All other victories of the F-15 were achieved over obviously obsolete aircraft of the second and third generations: the French Mirage F-1, the Soviet Su-22 (export modification of the Su-17), MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-25...

Why do Americans always fight with previous generation aircraft? Is there some terrible secret connected with this? This needs to be dealt with.

And then the main competitor of “Eagle” arrived. Meet, gentlemen, the multi-role highly maneuverable fourth generation fighter Su-27.

Who are you, mysterious Russian warrior?

A bold response to the West at the final stage of the Cold War.

At the turn of the 70s and 80s, an aviation masterpiece was created in our country, designed to outshine the American Eagle. The idea was a complete success: the domestic 4th generation fighter set new standards in the field of combat aviation.

The design team of the Sukhoi Design Bureau managed to find a number of interesting solutions related to the layout and aerodynamics of the future aircraft.

The elaborate silhouette of the Su-27 is unlike any other foreign fighter. The graceful bend of the forward part of the fuselage, the smooth transition into the wing, the protruding engine nacelles - all this is a consequence of the integral layout of the aircraft, in which the lift force is generated not only by the planes of the wing, but also due to the special shape of the fuselage!

A huge contribution was made by aerodynamicists - real geniuses in their field. As a result, despite the similar value of the wing load (≈300 kg/sq. m), the lift coefficient of the Sushka is one and a half times higher than that of the American Eagle, and the maximum aerodynamic quality (ratio of lift to drag) reached 12 units (such values ​​are found only in passenger airliners). Extremely “flying” design!

The world's most advanced aerodynamic design made it possible to create a larger and heavier fighter. The Su-27, compared to the Eagle, had an increased internal fuel supply, a longer flight range, and the bulkiness of domestic electronic electronics was leveled out (Soviet microcircuits are the largest microcircuits in the world!). The elastic “arm” of aerodynamic force powerfully pulled the Su-27 upward, despite the large take-off weight of the domestic machine.

The gallant representative of the family - Su-35

The engine engineers worked hard to create a powerful “heart” for the magnificent glider. Family of turbojet bypass aircraft engines AL-31F with afterburner thrust of 13 tons! High thrust-to-weight ratio (≥ 1) is the key to super-maneuverability and energetic maneuvers in the vertical plane.

In terms of its steady rate of climb, the Su-27 has no equal in the world (over 300 m/s).

And our partners from China still cannot copy the heat-resistant blades of the AL-31F turbine with labyrinths of internal cavities through which cooling air passes. Apparently, their design turned out to be more complex than Swiss watches and Japanese electronics.

Finally, something that cannot be seen with the naked eye. The degree of longitudinal static stability of the Su-27 is negative and amounts to 5% of the average aerodynamic chord of the wing (MAC). Of course, we are talking about flying at subsonic speeds.

What does this situation mean?

Longitudinal static stability in angle of attack is the ability of an aircraft to independently maintain a given angle of attack α and return to the initial value α in the event of a random deviation under the influence of disturbing forces.

Stability is a nice thing in straight flight, but a fighter requires high maneuverability. The higher the stability (measured in % MAR), the greater the balancing losses, the worse the controllability and driving dynamics. To perform any maneuver, you will need to apply a larger control torque, deflecting the control surfaces to a larger angle. Great effort, extra fractions of a second of precious time in battle.

The stability of a flying aircraft is determined by the position of the aerodynamic focus (the point of increase in lift when the angle of attack changes) relative to the aircraft's center of gravity. The Su-27 fighter was designed in such a way that its aerodynamic focus is located ahead of the CG. Every second the plane is ready to raise its nose and “tumble” back over the tail. Without any pilot involvement. It is statically unstable.

This makes the “Sushka” a surprisingly nimble machine, but negative stability conflicts with the requirements of controllability. The fly-by-wire control system helps out (the Su-27 was the first domestic combat aircraft to be equipped with an electric control system). The correct control force coefficients for each flight mode are stored in the computer memory - otherwise, a person would not be able to control the Su-27.

A reasonable question is what happens if the EMDS fails? Despite the inadequate response of the Sushka to the movements of the control stick (RUS), an experienced pilot will most likely be able to reach the airfield and land the plane. Static instability of 5% MAR is still tolerable.

But another representative of the “twenty-seventh” family, the Su-35, if the EDSU fails, it will make a couple of somersaults and will probably crash. The degree of its static instability has been increased to 20% of the maximum rotational speed; manual control of the aircraft is excluded. However, the risk of such a situation occurring is negligible - the ESDU of the Su-35 aircraft is made with fourfold (!) redundancy in the longitudinal channel and threefold in the lateral movement channel.

Integral layout, powerful engines, an aerodynamic design of amazing beauty and efficiency, static instability... Next - the Shchel-ZUM helmet-mounted target designation system, the unique combat technique "Pugachev's Cobra", RVV-AE air-to-air guided missiles. After getting acquainted with such facts, the debate “F-15 vs. Su-27" loses its meaning. The domestic fighter is much stronger and more advanced than its American counterpart.

YOUR PEER?

When it was announced that McDonnell Douglas had won, the Sukhovites breathed a sigh of relief: the layout of the Su-27 looked much more promising. True, there were fears that the Americans, through the open press, slipped misinformation to their overseas colleagues, while they themselves were making a completely different aircraft. However, after the official demonstration of the Igla prototype in 1972, these fears dissipated: it became clear that McDonnell Douglas specialists took the simplest and cheapest, but far from the most promising, path. As the head of the projects department of the Sukhoi Design Bureau O.S. recalls. Samoilovich, after the YF-15 took off, the head of TsAGI G.P. Svishchev said to Sukhoi: “Pavel Osipovich! Our lag turned into our advantage. The plane took off, and we know what it is like..."

— From the history of the creation of the Su-27 fighter.

Su-30, F-15C and Mirage-2000

The division of fighters into generations is largely arbitrary. Different weight categories, different levels of technological performance, different purposes. It happened that within the same generation, the 8-ton MiG-21 and the 18-ton Phantom strangely coexisted (despite the fact that the first was designed for close-in air combat using cannon weapons, and the second relied on its super radar and medium-range missile defense). They were united only by the fact that the concept of both turned out to be, in general, erroneous.

Often machines belong to one generation, between the creation of which lies a whole time and technological gap. It is believed that the first fourth-generation fighter was the American carrier-based interceptor F-14 Tomcat (first flight - 1970, adoption - 1974). It looked good compared to the Phantoms, but after a couple of years it became hopelessly outdated - in fact, it did not have any noticeable advantages over the F-15, but was absolutely inferior to the Eagle in close maneuver combat. Result: Eagles continue to fly to this day, and the last Tomcat was retired eight years ago.

Finally, modernization. As in the old joke about craftsmen who spent a whole year modernizing a TV and then selling it like a vacuum cleaner - how can you compare the first production Su-27s of the early 80s with modern Su-35 fighters? How many pluses do you need to put after the number “4” to fit these cars within one generation?

A simpler problem - how similar are the F-15C of the 1980 model and the modernized F-15C of the early 21st century? A new version of the AN/APG-63(V)2 radar with active phased array, new long-range missiles AIM-120 AMRAAM, new digital electronics - yes, this is actually a different aircraft with completely different capabilities!

In order not to delve into this interesting, but endless debate, we can limit ourselves to one obvious conclusion: the fourth generation of fighters really exists as a set of some general ideas. Key development trends are versatility, high maneuverability, high-quality and expensive avionics. However, it is worth recognizing that the era of the fourth generation lasted for more than 40 years - the aircraft of the “early period” were radically different from those that were created later.

Actually, this is the main difference between the F-15 and the Su-27, which is rarely paid attention to by the authors of analytical articles dedicated to these heroes - the Eagle is at least 10 years older than the Sukhoi! As can be seen from the excerpt from the history of the creation of the Su-27 quoted above, when the first F-15 took off, our fighter had not yet left the sketch stage.

It is often stated that the Su-27 made its first flight on May 20, 1977, just five years after the Eagle. But this is disingenuous - on that day, a prototype T-10-1 took off into the air, which had little in common with what we call the Su-27. Due to the discrepancy between the characteristics of the prototype and the specified values, it was decided to completely redesign the aircraft: the wing profile and the shape of the fuselage were changed. The wing area increased from 59 to 62 meters. Ailerons and flaps gave way to flaperons. The brake flap moved from the lower surface of the fuselage to the upper surface, located behind the cockpit canopy. The canopy itself has changed, the layout of the rear of the aircraft has changed, new suspension units have appeared...

The new fighter prototype received the designation T-10S - according to the figurative expression of the chief designer M.P. Simonov, only the wheel tires of the main landing gear and the pilot’s ejection seat were preserved from the T-10-1.

The first flight of the T-10S was April 1981. At this time, the American F-15 was already being exported in full and was used in combat operations in the Middle East.

The first batch of production Su-27 fighters was produced in 1984. The first combat unit to receive the Su-27 was the 60th IAP at the Dzemgi airfield (Far Eastern Military District) - its pilots began mastering the newest aircraft in 1985.

By 1987, the main elements of the Su-27 aviation complex were fully formed - the N001 “Sword” airborne radar was “finished” and the R-27 and R-73 missiles were adopted. The training twin Su-27UB appeared in combat units, which speeded up and simplified the training of personnel. Around the same time, regular “meetings” of the Su-27 with the aircraft of a potential enemy began - a sensational collision over the Barents Sea with the reconnaissance Orion of the Norwegian Air Force, a dangerous approach with American fighters during the Team Spirit (Far East) exercises, etc. d.

Finally, a pure formality - after successfully passing all tests, by the Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR dated August 23, 1990, the Su-27 was officially adopted into service with the Air Force and Air Defense Aviation of the Soviet Union.

Epilogue

The harsh truth is that by the time the Su-27 appeared, the American Eagle was already noticeably outdated.

The designers of McDonnell-Douglas were ahead of their time by building a super fighter in 1976, which for 10 years had no worthy opponents. This explains the large number of second- and third-generation fighters shot down by the Eagles.

MiG-23 (start of operation - 1969, modification MiG-23ML - 1974), MiG-25 (start of operation - 1970) ... The F-15 crushed all its peers.

The balance of power in the air changed only with the advent of the Su-27.

The F-15D, attempting to pursue the Su-27, lost sight of it and frantically asked the observer: “Where is the Flanker?” (Flanker is the NATO code name for the Su-27). “He’s behind you,” the wingman replied. The described “air battle” received no coverage in the Western press.

— Su-27 visit to Langley airbase. USA, 1992.

Years fly by, eras change... Two years earlier than the events described at Langley Air Force Base, the YF-22, a prototype of an American fifth-generation fighter, took off. Around the same time, TsAGI hosted the defense of the draft design and model of the aircraft, which received the designation MFI (multifunctional front-line fighter). The following features of the promising fighter were announced: “stealth”, “super-maneuverability”, “non-afterburning supersonic” and other very familiar terms.

What came of all this is a topic for another story.

I’ll say right away that this was written feverishly, over the course of two days, covered with a bunch of books, so the numbers may simply contain typos and factual errors.
Although now I am gradually adding to/correcting this material as I receive feedback and comments. So I’m waiting for more clarifications and criticism. By creating this page, I wanted to show that the F-15 is not such a bad aircraft compared to the Su-27, as we usually show it. The comparison is mainly made with the F-15C, since this modification is closest to the Su-27 in terms of creation time. The F-15A, created somewhat earlier than the Su-27, is noticeably inferior to the latter. The history of the confrontation between these two, now we can safely say, the best fighters of the 20th century began long before their creation. In 1961, perhaps the most outstanding aircraft of the Mikoyan Design Bureau, the MiG-25, was designed and in 1964 flown. The car was unique. The world's first production aircraft with a speed of up to 3000 km/h. Many of the latest solutions in aerodynamics and technology. Highest combat potential. Naturally, immediately after rumors about him spread to the West, they became very worried. The rumors about the MiG-25 were incredible. The Americans saw this machine as an all-titanium multi-purpose aircraft with a large range and a speed exceeding Mach three. At the same time, the fighters available in the United States no longer met the requirements of the time. And so, in 1965, technical specifications were drawn up for Boeing, Lockheed and North American to design the FX (Fighter Experimental) fighter, the appearance of which was greatly influenced by the MiG-25. The progress of the program was greatly accelerated by the impressive demonstration of the latter in 1967 at the air parade in Domodedovo. However, it soon became clear that it was impossible to create a highly maneuverable fighter (and the need for high maneuverability was convincingly proven by the war in Vietnam, when nimble subsonic MiG-17s at first practically “dry” destroyed the heavy supersonic “Phantoms”, designed for long-range missile combat in conditions of a nuclear war) surpassing the MiG-25 in speed and ceiling is almost impossible. Then it was decided to focus the main efforts on increasing maneuverability characteristics, while maintaining a relatively moderate ceiling and speed. In May 1968, the US Department of Defense requested proposals from General Electric and Allison and Pratt-Whitney for an engine for the FX. The technical specifications stipulated that the engine should be double-circuit, have an afterburner and develop a maximum thrust of about 11,300 kgf. In 1969, the FX aircraft was renamed the F-15. At the same time, McDonnell-Douglas, North American and the Republic branch of Fairchild-Hiller were awarded contracts to prepare proposals for the production of the fighter. According to the results of the competition, first place was taken by the project proposed by McDonnell-Douglas, the appearance of which was very reminiscent of the MiG-25, once again confirming the high flight characteristics of this design. On June 26, 1972, the first F-15 was rolled out of the assembly shop in a solemn ceremony, and on July 27, at Edwards Air Force Base, test pilot Irving Burrows first flew the Eagle (“Eagle” is the designation of the F-15 in the US Air Force) in air. The birth of the Su-27 was much more difficult. At the turn of the 1960s-70s, it became clear that the previously held opinion that the modernized MiG-23 could successfully fight FX was wrong. The development of a promising new generation fighter began at the Sukhoi Design Bureau in 1969. The car had to be superior to the FX in all respects. The Su-27 was also supposed to embody many new solutions of that time. The aircraft was supposed to have an integral airframe layout with a smooth interface between the wing and fuselage. The T-10 (as the Su-27 prototype was called) was supposed to be the first unstable aircraft in the USSR, the aerodynamics of which would be completely determined by the capabilities of the electronic control system. It was also equipped with a large supply of fuel, tanks for which were located in the center section and wings, and highly efficient engines, which greatly increased the non-stop flight range. The first experimental T-10-1 was built in early 1977. It was equipped with AL-21F-3 engines, which were widely used at that time on Su-17 and Su-24 aircraft. On May 20, 1977, the first flight of the vehicle took place under the control of test pilot V.S. Ilyushin. Intensive flight tests began. There were also tragic incidents. During one of the flights, the T-10-2, piloted by Evgeniy Solovyov, entered an unexplored area of ​​resonant modes. The pilot died trying to save the plane. At this time, data began to arrive about the American F-15. Unexpectedly, it turned out that the vehicle does not meet the technical specifications for a number of parameters, and is inferior to the F-15 in many respects. For example, developers of electronic equipment did not meet the weight and size limits allotted to them. It was also not possible to achieve the specified fuel consumption. Only later did it become clear that the demands placed on the engine were unrealistic at that time. The developers faced a difficult dilemma - either bring the car to mass production and hand it over to the customer in its existing form, or undertake a radical redesign of the entire car. To the credit of the Sukhoi Design Bureau developers, they decided to remain faithful to long-standing traditions and did not produce a mediocre car. In the shortest possible time, a new machine was developed under the same name, the design of which took into account the experience of developing the T-10 and the experimental data obtained. And already on April 20, 1981, the first T-10S-1, piloted by V.S. Ilyushin, took to the skies. The car has been greatly modified, almost all components were designed from scratch. The new aircraft was equipped with AL-31F engines. The data obtained during testing showed that a truly unique aircraft had been created, which in many respects had no analogues in the world. Although this was not without accidents: in one of the critical flights, Alexander Komarov died due to the destruction of the airframe. Some time later, under the same regime, N. Sadovnikov found himself in a similar situation. Measures were urgently taken to modify the aircraft: the structure of the wing and airframe as a whole was strengthened, and the area of ​​the slat was reduced. Two fourth-generation air superiority superfighters appeared in the world with fairly similar parameters, greatly superior to all other aircraft of that time (and production aircraft of our time). Comparing them is a very difficult matter, since it is often impossible to determine how a difference in some parameter will affect combat effectiveness. But let’s still try to compare the Su-27P and F-15C, as the most typical and widespread representatives of their families. If you want, you don’t have to read my conclusions, but pay attention to the numbers. The Su-27 is slightly larger than the F-15, but this, in general, does not matter.

*1- with 4 UR AIM-7 Sparrow (900 kg). *2- with 3 hanging tanks and two conformal tanks. *3- F-15A has 5500 kg

The Su-27 has a noticeably higher dry weight and a lower maximum take-off weight. It carries all its fuel in internal tanks and the installation of a PTB is not provided, but, nevertheless, its combat radius without a PTB exceeds that of the F-15. However, the F-15 always (even on training flights) takes at least one fuel tank with it. At the same time, the ferry range of the F-15C becomes comparable to the Su-27, but you will have to take fewer missiles.

*1 - at high altitude with a combat load of 2000 kg.

And although the ferry range of the F-15 with three anti-tank tanks is already higher than that of the Su-27, the combat radius will be smaller, since, obviously, during the battle the tanks will have to be dropped, the battle will be fought on the internal fuel supply and return home on it.
And, again, drop tanks reduce the number of free hangers. And this is a very important parameter for an air superiority fighter. True, the F-15, unlike the Su-27, is equipped with an in-flight refueling system. In general, everything will depend on the specific conditions of use and tactics. How are things going with our weapons? We will consider only the air-to-air class, since air-to-surface weapons are not the main ones for these fighters (here we should rather compare the Su-30/34 and F-15E). Here, we see the advantage of the F-15 in terms of ammunition and the advantage of the Su-27 in terms of the quality of ammunition (a 30 mm projectile is much more dangerous than a 20 mm one). In terms of the mass of a second salvo, both of these guns, oddly enough, are completely identical.

The Su-27 has two more hardpoints. Is this compensated by the quality of the missiles?

Notes:

• ARLS - active radar seeker
• IR - infrared seeker
• IU - inertial seeker
• O - fragmentation
• OF - high-explosive fragmentation
• PRLS - semi-active radar seeker
• RK - radio command
• C - rod
• SC - rod with microcumulative elements.
• The maximum launch range depends on the speed, angle and height of the target being attacked.
• R-77 missiles are not yet widespread.

So, if the F-15A was still superior to the Su-27 in terms of wing load and thrust-to-weight ratio, then the F-15C was noticeably overweight. So here we are practically not talking about maneuverable combat with the Su-27. According to the results of training battles of the F-15C/D against the Su-30, the Su-30 reaches the tail of the F-15 in just one and a half turns, without even going into afterburner! According to participants in the events, “the F-15 is inferior in maneuverability at subsonic speeds not only to the Su-27, but also to the MiG-29.” It should also be noted that the Su-27 has an optical location station (OLS), which allows it to capture and track targets at short distances at which the radar does not work and covertly capture and track targets at medium distances. The F-15 does not have such a system. The combat capabilities of the Su-27 are greatly enhanced by the helmet-mounted target designation system. For the Su-27 this is a mandatory element and is made in the form of three IR LEDs on the helmet and two sensors in the cockpit. There is a similar system on the F-15, but it is based on gyroscopes, requires 15-20 minutes of stabilization before launch and weighs about 400 grams (and, of course, is attached to the helmet). What if we are fighting a maneuver battle at 9 units of overload? This makes it clear why F-15 pilots usually do not take it with them. Although recently the Americans have been developing a similar system. Since November 1998, the JHMCS helmet-mounted sight with an indication system on the glass of the helmet itself has been tested. Digital information will be displayed, similar to the HUD. On the Su-27 helmet there is only an LED indication of missile readiness, target acquisition, etc. Let's look at how things are with long-range combat. As we have already seen, the missiles are almost identical, so the radar decides the whole issue here.

*1- The main radar for the F-15C is the APG-63 radar, but the last 39 units were equipped with the APG-70. The APG-63 has a significant flaw - the inability to track individual targets in a group, which the Syrian MiG-23 used very well against the Israeli F-15A in the 1982 war. *2- Front/rear hemisphere.

Although not everything is clear here, since there is no data for direct comparison, we can conclude that the Su-27 radar is somewhat superior to its Western counterpart.
In particular, it is known that the Su-27 radar has a noticeably higher resolution than even the APG-70. It is interesting to compare the onboard computers of these aircraft. Domestic military electronics has traditionally been famous for its circuitry solutions (let me remind you that electronics = element base + circuitry). Well, draw your own conclusions based on the data obtained. I will give a few statements:

Main menu

In a duel situation, our fighter has more chances

Su-27 heavy fighters will be the main instrument of operational maneuver for air defense groups in the most dangerous areas. His opponent will most likely be the main fighter of the US Air Force F-15C.

In the open press one can often find comparative assessments of combat aircraft, mainly fighters. In most cases, the authors of such materials try to determine the winner in a real battle based on a comparison of tactical and technical characteristics, on-board electronics and weapons, as well as maneuvering capabilities. Tactical methods of combat and the purpose of the compared combat vehicles are not taken into account.

A certain exception is the comparison of Soviet and American fourth-generation fighters, which had the opportunity to compete in training battles in the 90s. However, the parties tried to avoid the full use of their electronic warfare systems, in particular electronic warfare, apparently for reasons of flight safety and secrecy. The MiG-29 fighters, which the FRG received from the NNA of the GDR, were also subjected to a similar test. In these battles, our vehicles demonstrated superiority, mainly due to their maneuverability.

But a combat fighter is a complex that includes, in addition to the aircraft itself and its on-board equipment, weapons, including outboard weapons, primarily missiles. And the purpose of aviation equipment in different countries differs. Therefore, to compare two samples, it is advisable to turn to a technique that has been tested on Russian and foreign warships, adapting it to aircraft.

The first step is to correctly select objects for comparison. Given NATO’s significant advantage in combat aviation, the main task of our Aerospace Forces will be to prevent the enemy from gaining air superiority. The main solution to this problem, taking into account the limited capabilities for striking the alliance’s aircraft basing system, is to destroy them in battle. Accordingly, the main role is assigned to fighter aircraft.

To assess the real level of combat capabilities, it is advisable to select the most popular types of vehicles. For us, these are Su-27 and MiG-29 of various modifications. Possessing a large range and powerful weapons, heavy Su-27 fighters will be the main means of allowing the operational concentration of air defense potential in the most dangerous areas. The NATO opponent will most likely be the F-15C.

Recognizing the correctness of such a comparison, we take into account that the “duelists” will have to perform a range of other tasks, in particular, destroy radar and electronic warfare aircraft, bombers and attack aircraft. Note that both samples do not have special bomber equipment, so their use for attacks on ground and sea targets will be the exception rather than the rule. Let us dwell on the analysis of the capabilities of the Su-27 and F-15C to fight specifically with fighters, with each other.

Our eagle

The Su-27, with a normal take-off weight of about 23 tons, can carry up to six thousand kilograms of load and has a combat radius when flying at high altitudes at subsonic speeds of up to 1,400 km. The suspended weapons are located on ten nodes: six under the wings and four under the fuselage and engine nacelles.

The ammunition load includes air-to-air missiles: medium-range with semi-active seekers (PRGSN) - R-27R and R-27RE, thermal seeker (TGSN) - R-27T and R-27TE, as well as short-range with TGSN R-73 . The built-in armament consists of a 30-mm air cannon with 150 rounds of ammunition. The average EPR of the Su-27 airframe is estimated at 10–20 square meters. The aircraft's thrust-to-weight ratio exceeds one.

The RLPK-27 onboard radar sighting system includes a pulse-Doppler radar N001 with mechanical spatial scanning, which allows you to find targets with an EPR corresponding to the American F-15C at distances of up to 190 km in the PPS and up to 80–100 km in the ZPS. The Su-27 has a 36Sh optical location station (OLS) with a search field of 120x75 degrees, capable of detecting fighter-type objects at a range of up to 50 km in the ZPS and up to 15 km in the PPS.

The weapon control system provides tracking of up to 10 targets and firing one of them with two missiles with an anti-tank guided missile system. The onboard defense complex includes the SPO-15 Bereza radiation warning station and APP-50 passive interference emission units. At the wing tips (in place of the launcher) an active jamming station “Sorption” can be installed in two containers. In its basic configuration, the Su-27 does not have the ability to use guided weapons to destroy ground and surface targets.

The maximum energy firing range of the R-27 missile is 80 km in the PPS and 20–30 km in the ZPS. The corresponding indicators for R-27RE and TE are 110 and 40, for R-73 – 30 and 10–15. However, the effective firing range may be significantly (several times) less depending on the flight altitude of the target and the carrier, and the target acquisition capabilities of the seeker.

Their hawk

The F-15C, with a normal take-off weight of about 21 tons, has a combat radius when flying at high altitudes at subsonic speeds of up to 900 kilometers. The suspended weapons are located on eight nodes, where a typical load contains four medium- and short-range missiles. The thrust-to-weight ratio, even at normal take-off weight, is less than one. The average airframe RCS is slightly larger than that of the Su-27.

The vast majority of F-15Cs are equipped with an onboard AN/APG-63 radar of various modifications, which provides detection of an aircraft with an EPR, like the Su-27, at a distance of up to 160–170 km in PPS. Scanning in azimuth is mechanical, and in elevation – electronic. The main weapons of fire are medium-range missiles with AIM-120 (AMRAAM) and short-range missiles with AIM-9L/M TGSN. The built-in armament is represented by a 20 mm caliber Vulcan cannon.

The airborne defense complex includes the Loran AN/FLR-56 radiation warning station, the AN/FLQ-135 active jamming station and the AN/FLE-45 dipole reflector ejection station. The maximum energy range of the AIM-120 missile is estimated at 50 km in PPS and about 15–20 km in ZPS. The performance for the AIM-9L/M is roughly equivalent to the Russian R-73.

We note that both aircraft have symmetrical armament (when considering the Su-27 with Sorption, in this case the composition of the missile weapons is identical). The experience of joint exercises shows that the Russian fighter is superior to its opponent in vertical and horizontal maneuverability.

The F-15C without additional fuel tanks (ATT) has a 36 percent smaller combat radius. Parity with the Su-27 will require the suspension of two DTBs, which will further reduce its maneuverability characteristics and reduce the armament composition by two missiles. The AIM-120 is almost twice as energetic as our R-27RE. An important advantage of our fighter is the presence of medium-range missiles with TGSN in its ammunition load. This allows you to carry out covert attacks from medium distances according to the OLS data without the use of RLPK in the ZPS.

To the barrier!

Let's consider a scenario where both aircraft are searching a wide area. The most effective radar mode in this case is periodic activation for a short time. This is due to the fact that the SPO of both vehicles are capable of detecting the operation of enemy radars at a distance approximately one and a half times greater than their detection range. That is, when the radar is turned on continuously, the enemy has the opportunity to preempt and move to a more advantageous position for attack. At the same time, the Russian fighter can conduct a continuous search using OLS in passive mode.

Without going into details of the calculation, we present the final result. The probability of detection during a single inspection of the area by Russian and American fighters using only radar is approximately the same - 0.4–0.5. The probability of preempting the use of STR and leaving the viewing area or taking other response measures is 0.3–0.4.

But when maneuvering, when both are trying to leave the viewing area, the Russian fighter can effectively use the OLS to covertly detect the enemy and attack using missiles with TGSN. In addition, having longer-range RSDs, the Su-27, even if the F-15C detects it earlier, has a serious chance of preempting the American, since it must still approach the target for a relatively long time to reach the salvo position.

The F-15C will be able to carry out the first attack with medium-range missiles with a probability of about 0.2. The ability of the Su-27 to forestall the enemy using not only medium-range, but also short-range missiles, according to OLS data, is estimated at 0.25–0.3. The attacker will use electronic warfare equipment. Active jamming stations are capable of disrupting the automatic tracking of enemy radars within a certain period of time. It takes several seconds for the PRGSN to re-acquire the target. The probability of an attack being disrupted by missiles with anti-tank guided missiles can be very significant – up to 0.4–0.6. The Russian fighter performs better because the Su-27 performs the anti-missile maneuver more energetically and using aerobatics that are not available for the F-15C.

The probability of preemptive destruction of our aircraft by an American will not exceed 0.07–0.09. The Su-27, when using R-27R (RE) missiles with PRGSN, as well as R-27T (TE) or R-73 with TGSN, will destroy the enemy in the first strike with a noticeably higher probability - 0.12–0.16, in particular for due to the fact that missiles with TGSN launched according to OLS data operating in passive mode are very difficult to detect with sufficient lead to repel an attack.

If the first attacks fail, a close air battle will begin on both sides, in which the Su-27, as experience has shown, has an undeniable superiority over the F-15C. Predicting its results, one must assume that the American pilot will try to get out of the battle. In this case, there will be a certain probability of its destruction. But even the obtained probabilities based on the results of the first strike speak for themselves: the Russian fighter is more than one and a half times (1.7) more effective than the American.

A different picture emerges when the F-15C operates on radar guidance, such as AWACS aircraft. In this case, he will go directly to the point of attack covertly, without turning on the radar. If the Su-27 is not provided with guidance data, that is, it acts independently, searching for targets using radar and visual communication systems, the enemy will most likely be able to take a position for a preemptive strike. However, our fighter will engage in complex maneuvering and will likely use its radar continuously in an attempt to detect an attack.

The F-15C would benefit from positioning itself to fire a salvo of short-range missiles with TGSN for a sudden and virtually irresistible strike. If this happens, our fighter will most likely be destroyed. But since the F-15C does not have optoelectronic systems similar to our OLS, and therefore must be brought virtually to the target acquisition range of a short-range missile "from under the wing", the use of AIM-120 with a PRGSN is more likely. In this case, he will be forced to turn on the radar to automatically track the target and illuminate it to ensure missile guidance.

The Russian fighter will be able to take measures to disrupt the attack and begin maneuvering to further search for the American fighter and launch an attack on it or evade the battle and leave the enemy’s observation zone. Rough estimates of the possible outcome of such a collision show that the probability of our fighter being destroyed is very high and can be up to 0.4–0.5, while the F-15C can die with a probability of less than 0.05.

In the exact opposite situation and a similar logic of developments, the probability of the F-15C dying will be higher – 0.5–0.65. This is due to the fact that there are significantly more opportunities for bringing our fighter into a covert attack position thanks to the OLS and missiles with TGSN, which can be used from a range inaccessible to the American AIM-9L/M.

When both fighters are operating under radar guidance, each side will seek to secure an advantageous attack position for its own. The Americans, aware of the weaknesses of the F-15C, will most likely limit themselves to long-range combat. Our team, accepting the challenge, will try to build on the success of the duel in close combat. At long distances, the advantage of our missiles in terms of energy will be felt, as well as the presence of RSD with PRGSN and TGSN, which will significantly increase the likelihood of hitting targets in electronic warfare conditions.

Thus, in fights between pairs and flights, our Su-27s will have an advantage over the American F-15Cs. However, in combat operations involving large masses of aviation, other factors will play a decisive role: the chosen tactics and the construction of air formations, the organization of command and control of airspace, and interaction.

In general, it can be stated that our fighter is superior to the American one and in possible collision scenarios has a greater chance of destroying it. This is not surprising, since the Su-27 was created in the early 80s, while the F-15 was created in the mid-70s.

LiveInternetLiveInternet

They share the same sky. One path and one task - to sweep enemy aircraft from the skies. They are air superiority fighters. Winged combat vehicles from the “first line”, the elite of modern combat aviation. Their complexity is prohibitive, and the possibilities are endless. They have too many advantages, but no disadvantages. They are strong and beautiful in their inexhaustible heavenly fury. Eternal rivals Su-27 and F-15. Who are you, jolly cowboy? His birth is connected with the Vietnam War. The results of the meetings with Soviet MiGs required a change in the entire previous paradigm for the development of American fighter aircraft. The Air Force urgently needed a highly maneuverable “MiG killer”, equally effective both in close air combat and at medium and long distances. Outstanding radio-electronic “filling” must be enclosed in an equally perfect shell - American designers boldly took a step towards a new, fourth generation of fighters. The first flight of the Eagle took place in 1972. Four years later, the F-15 Eagle fighter entered service. To date, these legendary air fighters have achieved 104 aerial victories without a single defeat! “Unbreakable” angels of death, which can only be defeated by American weapons. The Eagle was shot down only once - in 1995, during a Japanese Air Force exercise, an F-15 was mistakenly shot down by the same F-15.

Official reports on the results of the combat use of the Eagle also describe other fables - according to the Yankees themselves, the level of control of Iraqi airspace during the Gulf War “had no historical precedent.”
A similar thing happened eight years later - the Eagles completely closed the sky over the Balkans. But why is there not a single aircraft of equal power among the dozens of Eagle trophies? Not a single Eurofighter Typhoon or Dassault Rafale. The most notable trophies are nine light MiG-29s in a simplified export version. All other victories of the F-15 were achieved over obviously obsolete aircraft of the second or third generations: the French Mirage F-1, the Soviet Su-22 (export modification of the Su-17), MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-25... Why do Americans always fight with previous generation aircraft? Is there some terrible secret connected with this? This needs to be dealt with. And then the main competitor of “Eagle” arrived. Meet, gentlemen, the multi-role highly maneuverable fourth generation fighter Su-27. Who are you, mysterious Russian warrior? A bold response to the West at the final stage of the Cold War. At the turn of the 70s and 80s, an aviation masterpiece was created in our country, designed to outshine the American Eagle. The idea was a complete success - the domestic 4th generation fighter set new standards in the field of combat aviation. The design team of the Sukhoi Design Bureau managed to find a number of interesting solutions related to the layout and aerodynamics of the future aircraft. The elaborate silhouette of the Su-27 is unlike any other foreign fighter. The graceful bend of the forward part of the fuselage, the smooth transition into the wing, the protruding engine nacelles - all this is a consequence of the integral layout of the aircraft, in which the lift force is generated not only by the planes of the wing, but also due to the special shape of the fuselage! A huge contribution was made by aerodynamicists - real geniuses in their field. As a result, despite the similar value of the wing load (≈ 300 kg/sq.m.), the lift coefficient of the Sushka is one and a half times higher than that of the American Eagle, and the maximum aerodynamic quality (ratio of lift to drag ) reached 12 units (such values ​​are found only in passenger airliners). Extremely “flying” design! The world's most advanced aerodynamic design made it possible to create a larger and heavier fighter.
The Su-27, compared to the Eagle, had an increased internal fuel supply, a longer flight range, and the bulkiness of domestic electronic electronics was leveled out (Soviet microcircuits are the largest microcircuits in the world!). The elastic “arm” of aerodynamic force powerfully pulled the Su-27 upward, despite the large take-off weight of the domestic machine. The gallant representative of the family - Su-35

The engine engineers worked hard to create a powerful “heart” for the magnificent glider.
Family of turbojet bypass aircraft engines AL-31F with afterburner thrust of 13 tons! High thrust-to-weight ratio (≥ 1) is the key to super-maneuverability and energetic maneuvers in the vertical plane. In terms of its steady rate of climb, the Su-27 has no equal in the world (over 300 m/s). And our partners from China still cannot copy the heat-resistant blades of the AL-31F turbine with labyrinths of internal cavities through which cooling air passes. Apparently, their design turned out to be more complex than Swiss watches and Japanese electronics. Finally, something that cannot be seen with the naked eye. The degree of longitudinal static stability of the Su-27 is negative and amounts to 5% of the average aerodynamic chord of the wing (MAC). Of course, we are talking about flying at subsonic speeds. What does this situation mean? Longitudinal static stability in angle of attack is the ability of an aircraft to independently maintain a given angle of attack α and return to the initial value α in the event of a random deviation under the influence of disturbing forces. Stability is a nice thing in straight flight, but a fighter requires high maneuverability. The higher the stability (measured in % MAR), the greater the balancing losses, the worse the controllability and driving dynamics. To perform any maneuver, you will need to apply a larger control torque, deflecting the control surfaces to a larger angle. Great effort, extra fractions of a second of precious time in battle. The stability of a flying aircraft is determined by the position of the aerodynamic focus (the point of increase in lift when the angle of attack changes) relative to the aircraft's center of gravity. The Su-27 fighter was designed in such a way that its aerodynamic focus is located ahead of the CG - the plane is ready to raise its nose every second and “tumble” back over the tail. Without any pilot involvement. It is statically unstable. This makes the “Sushka” a surprisingly nimble machine, but negative stability conflicts with the requirements of controllability.
The fly-by-wire control system helps out (the Su-27 was the first domestic combat aircraft to be equipped with an electric control system). The correct control force coefficients for each flight mode are stored in the computer memory - otherwise, a person would not be able to control the Su-27. A reasonable question is what happens if the EMDS fails? Despite the inadequate response of the Sushka to the movements of the control stick (RUS), an experienced pilot will most likely be able to reach the airfield and land the plane. Static instability of 5% MAR is still tolerable. But another representative of the “twenty-seventh” family, the Su-35, if the EDSU fails, it will make a couple of somersaults and will probably crash. The degree of its static instability has been increased to 20% of the MAR - manual control of the aircraft is excluded. However, the risk of such a situation occurring is negligible - the ESDU of the Su-35 aircraft is made with fourfold (!) redundancy in the longitudinal channel and threefold in the lateral movement channel. Integral layout, powerful engines, an aerodynamic design of amazing beauty and efficiency, static instability... Next - the Shchel-ZUM helmet-mounted target designation system, the unique combat technique "Pugachev's Cobra", RVV-AE air-to-air guided missiles. After getting acquainted with such facts, the debate “F-15 vs. Su-27" loses its meaning. The domestic fighter is much stronger and more advanced than its American counterpart. YOUR PEER? When it was announced that McDonnell Douglas had won, the Sukhovites breathed a sigh of relief: the layout of the Su-27 looked much more promising. True, there were fears that the Americans, through the open press, slipped misinformation to their overseas colleagues, while they themselves were making a completely different aircraft. However, after the official demonstration of the Igla prototype in 1972, these fears dissipated: it became clear that McDonnell Douglas specialists took the simplest and cheapest, but far from the most promising, path. As the head of the projects department of the Sukhoi Design Bureau O.S. recalls. Samoilovich, after the YF-15 took off, the head of TsAGI G.P. Svishchev said to Sukhoi: “Pavel Osipovich! Our lag turned into our advantage. The plane took off, and we know what it is like...”

- from the history of the creation of the Su-27 fighter

Su-30, F-15C and Mirage-2000

The division of fighters into generations is largely arbitrary. Different weight categories, different levels of technological performance, different purposes. It happened that within the same generation, the 8-ton MiG-21 and the 18-ton Phantom strangely coexisted (despite the fact that the first was designed for close-in air combat using cannon weapons, and the second relied on its super-radar and medium-range missile defense ). They were united only by the fact that the concept of both turned out to be, in general, erroneous. Often machines belong to one generation, between the creation of which lies a whole time and technological gap. It is believed that the first fourth-generation fighter was the American carrier-based interceptor F-14 Tomcat (first flight - 1970, adoption - 1974). It looked good compared to the Phantoms, but after a couple of years it became hopelessly outdated - in fact, it did not have any noticeable advantages over the F-15, but was absolutely inferior to the Eagle in close maneuver combat. As a result, the Eagles continue to fly to this day, and the last Tomcat was decommissioned eight years ago. Finally, modernization. As in the old joke about craftsmen who spent a whole year modernizing a TV and then selling it like a vacuum cleaner - how can you compare the first production Su-27s of the early 80s with modern Su-35 fighters? How many pluses do you need to put after the number “4” to fit these cars within one generation? A simpler problem - how similar are the F-15C of the 1980 model and the modernized F-15C of the early 21st century? A new version of the AN/APG-63(V)2 radar with active phased array, new long-range missiles AIM-120 AMRAAM, new digital electronics - yes, this is actually a different aircraft with completely different capabilities! In order not to delve into this interesting, but endless debate, we can limit ourselves to one obvious conclusion: the fourth generation of fighters really exists as a set of some general ideas. Key development trends are versatility, high maneuverability, high-quality and expensive avionics. However, it is worth recognizing that the era of the fourth generation lasted for more than 40 years - the aircraft of the “early period” were radically different from those that were created later. Actually, this is the main difference between the F-15 and the Su-27, which is rarely paid attention to by the authors of analytical articles dedicated to these heroes - the Eagle is at least 10 years older than the Sukhoi! As can be seen from the excerpt from the history of the creation of the Su-27 quoted above, when the first F-15 took off, our fighter had not yet left the sketch stage. It is often stated that the Su-27 made its first flight on May 20, 1977, just five years after the Eagle. But this is deceit - on that day, a prototype T-10-1 took off into the air, which had little in common with what we call the Su-27. Due to the discrepancy between the characteristics of the prototype and the specified values, it was decided to completely redesign the aircraft: the wing profile and the shape of the fuselage were changed. The wing area increased from 59 to 62 meters. Ailerons and flaps gave way to flaperons. The brake flap moved from the lower surface of the fuselage to the upper surface, located behind the cockpit canopy. The canopy itself has changed, the layout of the rear part of the aircraft has changed, new suspension units have appeared... The new fighter prototype received the designation T-10S - in the figurative expression of chief designer M.P. Simonov, only the tires of the wheels of the main landing gear and the pilot’s ejection seat were preserved from the T-10-1. The first flight of the T-10S was April 1981. At this time, the American F-15 was already being exported in full and was used in combat operations in the Middle East.

The first batch of production Su-27 fighters was produced in 1984.
The first combat unit to receive the Su-27 was the 60th IAP at the Dzemgi airfield (Far Eastern Military District) - its pilots began mastering the newest aircraft in 1985. By 1987, the main elements of the Su-27 aviation complex were fully formed - the N001 “Sword” airborne radar was “finished” and the R-27 and R-73 missiles were adopted. The training twin Su-27UB appeared in combat units, which speeded up and simplified the training of personnel. Around the same time, regular “meetings” of the Su-27 with aircraft of a potential enemy began - a sensational collision over the Barents Sea with the Orion reconnaissance aircraft of the Norwegian Air Force, a dangerous approach with American fighters during the Team Spirit (Far East) exercises, etc. d. Finally, a pure formality - after successfully passing all tests, by the Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR dated August 23, 1990, the Su-27 was officially adopted into service with the Air Force and Air Defense Aviation of the Soviet Union. Epilogue The harsh truth is that by the time the Su-27 appeared, the American Eagle was already noticeably outdated.
The designers of McDonnell-Douglas were ahead of their time by building a super-fighter in 1976, which for 10 years had no worthy opponents. This explains the large number of second- and third-generation fighters shot down by the Eagles. MiG-23 (start of operation - 1969, modification MiG-23ML - 1974), MiG-25 (start of operation - 1970) - the F-15 crushed all its peers. The balance of power in the air changed only with the advent of the Su-27. The F-15D, trying to pursue the Su-27, lost sight of it and in desperation asked the observer: “Where is the Flanker?” (Flanker is the NATO code name for the Su-27) “He’s behind you,” the wingman replied. The described “air battle” received no coverage in the Western press.

— Su-27 visit to Langley airbase. USA, 1992.

Years fly by, eras change... Two years earlier than the events described at Langley Air Force Base, the YF-22, a prototype of an American fifth-generation fighter, took off. Around the same time, TsAGI hosted the defense of the draft design and model of the aircraft, which received the designation MFI (multifunctional front-line fighter). The following features of the promising fighter were announced: “stealth”, “super-maneuverability”, “non-afterburning supersonic” and other very familiar terms. What came of all this is a topic for another story.

Author Oleg Kaptsov

https://topwar.ru/43175-saga-o-pokoleniyah-pochemu-su-27-prevoshodit-f-15.html

BREAKTHROUGH INTO SUPERMANEUVERABILITY

“I will never forget the first demonstration flight of the Su-27 in Paris, organized by British Aerospace together with the designers and test pilots of the Sukhoi Design Bureau,” these are the impressions of the “premiere” of the fighter from the British Air Force pilot John Farlight. — Viktor Pugachev made a 360-degree turn on the Su-27 in 10 seconds, the average speed on the turn was 36 degrees/s. And then we only hoped that our next generation fighter would be able to reach 25 degrees / s. This is the speed with which the pilot is able to turn the plane so that the entire weapon system is ready for attack. If we assume that our new vehicle will meet a Su-27 in battle in 10 seconds, all it will have to do, if very lucky, is to lower its landing gear and land. Much of what we see at air shows can be used by combat aircraft in real air combat. For the average viewer, an air show is only a superficial action, but if you belong to specialists in the aviation industry, then by maneuvering combat vehicles you can fully determine the limits within which an aircraft can be piloted. And naturally, when you see that there are no limits for the Su-27, or that the plane goes vertical, comes to a stop, falls back down, goes into normal flight and does this not once or twice, but over and over again, then you understand that This is not the exception, not a trick, but the norm. The difficulty of this maneuver is not how to enter the mode, but how to exit it. Usually we are not allowed to exceed angles of attack of 20-25 degrees: if we exceed it, we lose control of the machine... But the Russians perform their maneuvers by changing the angle of attack over a wide range, while remaining confident in controlling the aircraft with an absolutely symmetrical flow. The same goes for engines. Western engines suffer from strict restrictions on angles of attack. When flying our fighters, we have to think simultaneously about enemy maneuvers and our own limitations from an aerodynamic point of view - about what the pilot should not do. Of course, this situation is not very comfortable for the pilot; it is much easier for him when he can do whatever he wants to be able to target the enemy and pursue him. What the Russians achieved shocked us to the core.” The Su-27 set new standards in fighter aircraft production with its revolutionary design and aerodynamics. The person whose name is inextricably linked with the history of its creation is the general designer of Sukhoi Design Bureau OJSC, Doctor of Technical Sciences, full member of the International and Russian Engineering Academies of Aviation and Aeronautics, Hero of Russia, laureate of the Lenin and State Prizes Mikhail Petrovich Simonov. In 1995, he was awarded the gold medal named after V. G. Shukhov, and in 1998, the editors of the magazine “Aviation week and Space Technology” called him “the legend of the year.” His name is included on the Hall of Fame Board of Honor at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, along with the names of I. I. Sikorsky, S. V. Ilyushin and Wernher von Braun. Mikhail Petrovich gave an interview to the magazine “Science and Life” for the first time, although he has been reading our magazine since 1946. The general designer of Sukhoi Design Bureau JSC M. SIMONOV answers the editor’s questions.

M. P. Simonov.

Cobra maneuver diagram.

Air combat in the "bell" mode (a - disruption of Doppler tracking, disruption of the enemy's radar lock and escape from attack; b - exit from the "bell" mode and attack of the enemy; c - capture and defeat of the enemy).

Su-27 performs "cobra". Angle of attack 110 degrees.

Su-30 MKI. The blue color of fuel combustion in the afterburner chamber of the engine indicates the high quality of the combustion process.

Air combat on a turn.

A Su-35 aircraft performs a cobra maneuver. The photo shows moisture condensation in the rarefied air zones above the front horizontal tail and the central part of the wing.

Experimental aircraft Su-47. At the moment of aerobatics, the vortices of the resulting moisture seem to flow down from the ends of the wings.

‹

›

— Mikhail Petrovich, everyone who has ever been to an air show and seen what Su aircraft can do, or at least, while sitting in front of the TV, watched reports from air shows, is interested in how and why such machines are created?

— In the 9th grade, I read the book “Some Causes of Piloting Errors.” Pilots are never immune from mistakes. Aviation has always been and remains very demanding of both pilots and designers. Due to equipment failure or crew error, not only the plane, but also the crew and passengers die.

A corkscrew is one of the most complex and dangerous phenomena. This is an almost uncontrollable mode, oriented in space in the most unfortunate way: the plane rotates “nose” down. When it hits the ground, the “air packet” explodes and the plane is blown into small pieces. It would seem that to solve the problem, it would be enough to train all civil aviation pilots how to recognize the “stall edge”, after which the plane goes into a tailspin. It must be said that in aviation there are several similar phenomena that begin with the car giving a roll, but not all of them lead to a spin. However, despite the fact that all military fighter pilots are trained in the basic techniques for recovering from various types of spin, not all of them manage to emerge victorious from a real-life situation (most often due to piloting errors, less often due to failures of aircraft equipment) . There are airplanes that, due to their design and aerodynamic features, cannot recover from certain types of spin at all.

In the operation of civil aircraft, extreme cases are not typical. But for combat aircraft, maneuverability is a condition for survival. Therefore, all design bureaus in the world are working on maneuverability characteristics. It is this, in combination with the weapons carried by the aircraft, that provides the solution to the assigned tasks.

— What tasks are set in this case?

— Maneuverability is the ability of an aircraft to change its position in the airspace. Naturally, there must be a need to introduce the aircraft into the maneuver. In a combat situation, it arises by itself: you need to take a position in the airspace so that the enemy plane is in the range of your weapons, and your plane, on the contrary, does not fall into the aiming zone. It is clear that the winner will be the one who can turn his car around first and direct it to the target. Classic-type combat vehicles of the 40-60s of the last century experienced great difficulties in battles, since their maneuverability characteristics were quite limited. Usually air battles are fought in large groups - twenty planes: a huge “tangle” of machines spins in the air, and everyone wants to survive. The planes of the old classic designs differed little from the enemy planes, so the battles lasted quite a long time - 5-6 minutes. In this case, the engines operated at extreme conditions - accordingly, fuel consumption was high. And even after the victory, not everyone managed to fly home. Every fifth plane died after the battle due to the fact that the fuel ran out and they had to “plop down” wherever God sent. It’s good if the pilot ejected, but if he tried to land, for example, on a highway at high speed, the outcome was a foregone conclusion. Pilots from some countries, entering battle, knew that they would not be able to get out of it. To fly away, it was necessary to “substitute” the “tail”, and it immediately fell under the gun. Therefore, they fought to the end, and when the red light came on, they ejected from a fully operational fighter.

— ...Disposable aircraft?

— The life of a pilot is more valuable... But one way or another, shortcomings in maneuverability are very costly. Therefore, a breakthrough into the field of super-maneuverability modes, when the risk to the life of the pilot and the vehicle becomes minimal, has become task number one.

— Is it possible to predict during the development of a fighter that it will have super maneuverability?

— It is usually known “against whom” the aircraft is being created. At the time when the Su-27 was being developed, we were “friends” together with the Warsaw Pact against NATO countries. We needed to make an aircraft that would be significantly superior to their F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-18 fighters.

In our aviation industry we are represented by the Sukhoi Design Bureau and a large number of co-developers. For example, radars are made for us by research institutes and design bureaus. We do not develop an engine, we say what kind of engine we need, and it is created at the A. M. Lyulka Design Bureau. Such a scientific and technical union ensures the development of each component of the fighter at the highest level. After all, in order for a new aircraft to be better and be able to defeat an enemy fighter, we must have the best engine in the world, the best radar station in the world, the best missile weapons in the world and everything else - also the best. While working on the SU-27, we made what seemed like a good aircraft, superior to the F-15, but by much? By "a little bit". Therefore, again, in the case of close combat, we can end up in a complex “spinner”, where the planes will have equal opportunities to die or win.

We realized that truly decisive superiority over the enemy can be achieved by allowing the pilot to maneuver not just better, but several times better. There is such a thing as the angular speed of turn towards the target. In combat, the advantage is realized by the fighter that manages to turn around earlier. We came to the conclusion that if we provide our aircraft with twice the speed of turning toward a target, its maneuverability can be called super-maneuverability.

Supermaneuverability is the ability of a fighter from any position in the air to turn toward a target with an angular velocity at least twice the angular velocity of the enemy aircraft.

— Probably, to ensure extreme conditions, special requirements are also placed on engines?

— First of all, they should have better traction. A modern military aircraft engine is a turbojet, equipped with an afterburner. (Afterburner is an operating mode in which additional fuel is injected into the combustion chamber. This achieves a significant increase in thrust, however, at the expense of additional fuel consumption.) From the two engines installed on the Su-27, a stream of gases bursts out, which pushes the car with a force of 25 tons (12.5 tons - each engine). At the time the F-15 was created, similar engines of American fighters developed 10.8-11 tons of thrust. There are, of course, other requirements. It would be nice, for example, for engines whose nozzles can deviate by +15 degrees to control the position of the aircraft in flight. This is especially important when the aircraft hits supercritical angles of attack while piloting in combat. The critical angle of attack of the Su-27 is 24 degrees. And a combat situation sometimes requires that the aircraft turn to an angle of attack of 60-90 degrees, or even 120 degrees to the direction of flight. When the pilot gives a command to the engine turn control stick, the engine must instantly deviate to the required angle.

The nozzles of two AL-31FP turbojet engines of the Su-30 MK multirole fighter are capable of deflecting by 32 degrees horizontally and 15 degrees vertically. Thus, the aircraft can do something that is inaccessible to other machines of this class: “slow down” and then turn around on the spot, like a helicopter.

When in 1983 we first flew to an exhibition in Paris with the conclusion of the State Institute for Testing of Combat Aircraft that the Su-27 fighter was inferior in performance to the American F-15, we still believed that the Su-27 was superior to US aircraft. The customer considered our statement too presumptuous.

American fighters set a series of climb rate records. (Rate of climb is the time from the moment the aircraft takes off until it reaches any altitude - 3000 m, 6000 m, 12,000 m, and so on.) That is, “from a standstill” it must reach altitude in the shortest time. World records were set then by the F-15 fighter.

We conducted a series of record-breaking flights on the Su-27 fighter and broke all the records of the F-15, thereby being able to prove that our aircraft is superior to the F-15 in terms of climb rate.

— How did this happen?

— The plane at the start should stand motionless, like a sprinter. But in order to ensure the adhesion of tires to concrete, no brakes are enough. To keep the fighter in place, they tried to use a tank. They attached it with a cable to a lock on the lower surface of the plane, but they were not happy for long. The full afterburner lasted exactly a second, then a grinding sound was heard, and the Su-27 dragged the tank along the runway. I had to look for another way out. A nearby runway was being repaired and a huge Caterpillar industrial bulldozer was working on it. They drove a bulldozer, attached a tank to it, and then attached an airplane to the tank. The launch of the Su-27 "from a standstill" was ensured.

The engine operates in maximum mode at the moment of start. After the lock opens, the plane takes off, takes off and goes vertical. While in a vertical climb, it accelerates to supersonic speed. Not a single device, not a single space rocket at low vertical altitudes exceeds the speed of sound. This occurs only at high altitudes, where the density of the atmosphere is low. And already at an altitude of 2000-3000 m we switch to supersonic speed.

Then, in flights at the air show, performance was obtained that was better than the American ones.

In a classic battle, two fighters spin the wheel until one of them is in position to hit the target. But if we enter into battle and at the very first moment turn the plane 90 degrees towards the flow, the target is sighted, it is captured, a missile is launched and it is defeated. Thus, due to super-maneuverability, you can radically improve close combat and guarantee yourself victory within ten seconds (not minutes).

— They say that at first they thought that the Su-27 would not come out of a tailspin?

— Yes, this was the conclusion of TsAGI based on tests in the wind tunnel: the plane does not come out of a spin. And if a combat aircraft does not come out of a spin, something needs to be done. A limiting system was developed that prevents the aircraft from exceeding an angle of attack of 24 degrees.

Not a single model of the Su-27 aircraft in the TsAGI wind tunnel came out of a tailspin. We fought honestly, so we made a 10-meter semi-natural model of our aircraft, hung it from a Tu-16 bomber and dropped it from a height of 10,000 m. The model was equipped with an automatic control system and reached a stall angle, and if it did not come out of a spin , the landing parachute opened. However, it turned out that in half the modes the large, free-flying model came out of the spin, but in half it did not. We could not tell the pilot: “Fly, everything is fine.” Therefore, TsAGI agreed to install a limit limiter on the aircraft. This was, of course, strange: we want to work at high angles of attack, but we are not able to make an airplane for this.

The most interesting thing happened during the tests. Testing an aircraft is a huge job, about 5 thousand flights, in which the aircraft is tested for aerodynamics, strength, rocket launches and bombing, and much more. Even before the Cobra, V. G. Pugachev achieved high angles of attack. I was very worried, since by that time the American F-16 fighter had several cases when the plane reached an angle of attack of 60 degrees, but could not “get off” from it - it’s good that it had an anti-spin parachute, with the help of which it was possible to escape from this angle. We conducted the tests differently. We were very worried when Pugachev reached a high angle of attack, but he managed to return the plane to its original mode - everything ended well.

Subsequently, flight experiments showed that when reaching high angles of attack, the development of spin motion does not occur. The results indicated that it is fundamentally possible for the aircraft to reach extremely high angles of attack and then return to the so-called operational flight modes. This opened up prospects for super-maneuverability. But 20 years ago we did not know this yet. Only the first experimental flights were underway.

And so, in one of the flights, test pilot V. Kotlov flew a Su-27 with a faulty air signal system (the air pressure receiver was depressurized), having incorrect information about the Mach number M (equal to the flight speed measured in the speed of sound) and trying to compensate for the Mach number. " by the angle of climb, "balanced" at an altitude of 8000 m vertically and began to fall on its tail. He believed that the plane would settle into some kind of normal flight mode; instead, it was “suspended” between the sky and the ground. It was so unusual and incomprehensible: the speed dropped to zero, and the altitude was 8000 m. He began to rush around the cabin, removed the afterburners, and “gave it” again. The plane began to fall on its tail, weightlessness appeared - this technique was later called the “bell.”

— And all this happened in a matter of seconds?

— About 20 seconds. In the air, that’s a lot. At an angle of attack of 60 degrees (and we only had permission for 24 degrees), the plane fell into a tailspin, became nose down and began to rotate. The pilot then realized what had happened and reported to the control tower: “Spin!” Since it was believed that the Su-27 aircraft did not come out of a spin, the set of commands on the control center was “carved in granite”: “Eject at an altitude of no lower than 4000 m.”

In general, ejection cannot be called a favorite pastime of pilots, so in order to avoid serious consequences, the pilot released control and began to carefully prepare for the ejection. But at the last moment I saw that the plane came out of the spin on its own and began to come out of the dive. The Su-27 was left to its own devices and came out of the dangerous mode on its own. After checking the aircraft's controllability, Kotlov made a safe landing at the airfield.

— Maybe it was an accident?

“That’s what we decided at first.” After all, out of 1000 application situations, only one such case occurred. By and large, this did not change anything. But soon an even more incredible incident occurred in the Far East. The Su-27 pilot carried out an intercept mission in automatic mode. He exceeded the permissible angle of attack, as a result the plane fell into a tailspin. On command from the ground, the pilot ejected, after which the Su-27 not only came out of the spin on its own, but also continued to fly in automatic mode until it ran out of all fuel. Soon, a third case occurred in Lipetsk, like two peas in a pod similar to the first. This has already forced us to develop a special research program. As it turned out during testing, the Su-27 was distinguished by a certain “instability” when entering and exiting spin modes. It was found that the use of the most “strong” aerodynamic methods for recovering from a spin does not always lead to its termination. And at the same time, in a number of situations the plane itself came out of the spin when the stick and pedals were in a neutral position. This was explained by the peculiarities of the vortex aerodynamics of the Su-27 at various angles of attack and glide.

A significant contribution to the “victory” over the spin was made by the famous spin specialist, Honored Test Pilot of the USSR, cosmonaut, Hero of the Soviet Union Igor Petrovich Volk. He conducted spin tests and found that the Su-27 exited all spin modes.

— Why, after all, when testing the models, was the opposite conclusion made?

— It turned out that it was not the layout of the aircraft that mattered, but the scale of the model (the Reynolds number Re, which relates flight speed, aircraft size and air viscosity, is much larger for real aircraft than for models, especially small ones).

— Super maneuverability leads to a decrease in the “visibility” of the aircraft on radars. How?

— Supermaneuverability is a system of close-in air combat techniques. If a pilot receives a signal that he is in the irradiation zone of an enemy radar, the first thing he needs to do is go vertical. Gaining altitude and losing speed, it leaves the “visibility” zone of radars operating on the Doppler effect. (The Doppler effect is a change in wave frequency observed when a wave source moves relative to its receiver. - Ed.

) But the enemy is not a fool: he can also turn around. But our plane moves vertically (a “bell” shape), while its speed tends to zero. And all locators see the target precisely by the change in speed (they work on the Doppler principle). If the measured speed drops to zero, or at least to such a small value that enemy radars cannot calculate the Doppler component, we are lost to the enemy. He sees us visually, but not on the radar spectrum. This means that if the enemy has a missile with a radar (semi-active, active) guidance head, he will still not launch it, because the missile will not be able to lock on to the target.

— Are there any other known ways to make an airplane “invisible”?

— Such “ghost” planes are just beginning to appear. The greatest effect from the new technology is expected for all so-called fifth generation aircraft. The first aircraft created using stealth technology was the F-111A fighter-bomber. True, it never turned out to be a fighter. The plane had very low visibility, but poor flight properties - a kind of “faceted iron” (faceted shapes were needed so that the radar rays would be reflected from the surface and directed in a completely different direction).

— I read that in the process of creating a new fighter, the need arose for a radical improvement in avionics. How reliable is it in super-maneuverability modes?

— In fact, the world believes that “Russian” electronics do not deserve attention. I have a different opinion. We order radars from our co-developers exactly as we need them. If the locator installed on the F-15 weighs 244 kg, then our similar one weighs several times more. But this does not upset us very much. We want the locator to provide target detection at a certain range. And we set this range to be large. The same can be said about the optical-electronic target detection and aiming system.

When American strategic reconnaissance aircraft (SR-71) began to fly towards us “from around the corner” (from Norway. - Ed.)

) along the entire coast to Novaya Zemlya, Su-27 and Su-30 fighters were assigned to guard the northern borders. When the SR-71 “surfaced” once again, ours were already in the air. We decided to outwit them and gave the command not to turn on the radar, but to turn on the electro-optical system, which “sees” in the infrared spectrum and at a great distance. When the SR was flying at a high altitude, and our planes were heading towards it, we saw it at a great distance. Since the “American” did not violate the borders, it was impossible to do anything with him, but we kept him at gunpoint.

So it’s impossible to say that our radio-electronic equipment is worse. It is exactly what we ordered, focusing on the vehicles of a potential enemy. But making an airplane that can lift our electronics is not a problem.

— Is it true that a new wing design has been used to improve aerodynamic qualities in new generation aircraft?

— In order to reduce the wave drag of an aircraft wing when moving at supersonic speeds, it is necessary to give the wing a sweep, that is, deflect it relative to the velocity vector (place it at an angle). If the wing is placed in such a way that during “bumpiness” (flow disturbance), the wing twists at negative angles during its deformation, then the lift force drops, but this is not dangerous from the point of view of wing destruction. If you make a backward sweep, a gust of air deflects the wing upward - the lifting force immediately increases. And if the force increases, the wing deviates further, the angle increases again. Despite the risk of destruction, aircraft with forward-swept wings have very good aerodynamic characteristics.

The Americans had such an experimental X-29 fighter, for some reason they considered its design solution unprofitable. We consider the creation of such an aircraft to be a technically solvable task using composite materials. A metal wing cannot withstand divergence—the destruction of the wing from twisting. We have had cases where, during purging in wind tunnels, the steel wings of a model with a forward-swept wing were destroyed. Today we can create a special composite structure based on carbon fiber, epoxy resin, and organic materials with a high modulus - in particular, from the very fabrics from which body armor is made.

— What hopes do you have for fifth-generation fighters in terms of super-maneuverability?

- Big ones. If our “competitors” make fifth-generation aircraft, we need them too. We can say that there is a certain law of maintaining equilibrium at work here. Recently we were at a foreign exhibition, and there the commander of the Air Force of one of the countries said: “We need your plane. We have different fighters, but we want a Russian one standing next to them, and with such characteristics that the enemy will be afraid.” This means that he did not enter into conflict. This is the goal of creating a new fighter that would ensure political balance in the world.

Five faces of the “Flanker”: the best aircraft based on the Su-27 are named

The publication Military Watch spoke about the five “most beautiful “Flankers” - in NATO, several fighters from the Su family are called by this name.

The author recalled that the Su-27 (Flanker) entered service with the Soviet Air Force in 1985 as a heavy air superiority fighter. It was designed to counter its American opponents, the F-14 Tomcat and F-15 Eagle.

Among the advantages of the Su-27 is a large and modern radar by those standards, excellent flight characteristics and powerful weapons.

Since then, the aircraft's design has been significantly modernized and more than half a dozen improved variants remain in production. Moreover, more than 500 aircraft are in service with the People's Liberation Army of China.

According to the reviewer, the Su-27 has proven to be a versatile design and has been modified to perform a wide range of roles, from dedicated strike fighter to carrier-based air superiority fighter. And all variants use the excellent flight characteristics of the original, including long flight range, high speed and altitude, and excellent maneuverability.

Since the most advanced versions of the Su-27 will be produced during the 2020s and possibly after 2030, the author proposes to evaluate the best of its modifications.

1. J-11D

Photo: wikimedia/Air Force Staff Sgt. D. Myles Cullen

It is the successor to the Shenyang J-11B, which entered service in the mid-1990s as the Chinese counterpart to the Su-27M. It is distinguished from the original by more advanced avionics, composite materials and improved electronic warfare systems. He is superior to his “father,” journalists believe, in design.

The J-11D may be China's most ambitious fourth-generation fighter program yet. It is currently at the prototype development stage.

2. Su-35

Replenished the Russian air combat fleet in 2014. It became Russia's first air superiority fighter to go into mass production after the release of the Su-27. The most noticeable improvements to the aircraft are its more powerful AL-41F1S engines (the first in the world with the ability to control three-dimensional thrust vectoring), a lighter and low-maintenance high-profile airframe, and new electronic warfare systems.

The fighter benefits from stealth technology. It is equipped with new long-range air-to-air missiles. In particular, the hypersonic R-37M with a range of 400 kilometers and the R-77. The aircraft is capable of deploying 14 missiles. It was designed to outperform the F-22 Raptor.

3. J-16

Photo: YouTube.com

It was put into operation in 2013. It is significantly better than previous Chinese Flanker designs and is a two-seat fighter, characterized by its rounded shape and lack of specialization in combat. The aircraft can carry a range of advanced air-to-ground munitions, both short and long range. Capable of fighting beyond visual range.

The AESA radar, combined with stealth coatings and highly effective next-generation air-to-air missiles, makes it especially lethal to enemy aircraft. A very large, unnamed, long-range missile was reportedly developed for the J-16, designed to engage combat air support aircraft. These are air tankers (tankers) and AWACS reconnaissance aircraft. Combined with powerful sensors, stealth technologies and high flight performance, these weapons make the J-16 an effective tanker hunter, which is especially valuable in standoffs in the Asia-Pacific region.

4. Su-34

It, like the Su-35, was put into operation in 2014. This aircraft deviated further from the original Su-27 design than others. A high-end strike fighter, it only has a secondary air-to-air defensive capability. The aircraft can deploy a range of advanced anti-air and anti-ship munitions, including cruise missiles with a range of up to 5,500 kilometers, such as the Kh-101 (the author uses unconfirmed information).

It also has other formidable weapons in its arsenal: Kh-65SE and Kh-SD missiles with a flight range of 600 kilometers, supersonic Kh-41 (“Mosquito”) and X-31A, P-800 (“Oniks”) and subsonic “Uran” .

The aircraft combines three electronic warfare systems: Khibiny, SAP-14 and SAP-518. They have been combat tested in Syria and seriously increase the survivability of the Su-34.

However, it does not have greater maneuverability and flight altitude compared to other Su-34 derivatives. But its AL-31F M2 engines are the most powerful of all those integrated into the Flanker modification.

This model is very economical and has surpassed the Su-35 in the number of aircraft produced, despite the fact that it is not produced for export. This indicates how important the Su-34 is for the Russian Aerospace Forces.

5. Su-30SM

This is the most advanced version of the Su-27. It was developed to increase the combat potential of the air-to-air format. It is significantly more efficient than the original Su-30 model, which entered service in 1996.

The fighters have a built-in N011M Bars radar, which provides a detection range of 400 kilometers. It allows you to attack even invisible targets.

Innovative avionics and advanced electronic warfare systems make these "Generation 4+" aircraft extremely lethal in beyond visual range combat when combined with ten (or more) air-to-air missiles.

These aircraft are perhaps the most cost-effective to produce in modern Russia and are produced in large quantities both for export and for the Russian Aerospace Forces.

Currently, the Su-30SM remains an elite fighter aircraft used all over the world.