Page 1

rsenal

4, 2009

Rosoboronexport in the world combat aircraft market page 14

AESA radar for next-generation fighter page 38

Rosoboronexport at LIMA 2009 page page 66

AIRBORNE WEAPONS AT MAKS 2009 page 40

UAVS AT MAKS 2009 page 48

First Russian-made An-148 delivery page 62

A 7-TONNE INDIAN BRILLIANT page 68

MEANS OF EXPLOSION MINE CLEARING AND BLASTING CHARGES page 82

New orders for Russian fighters page page 34 34

for partners abroad

a magazine of the russian defence industry complex


FOR PARTNERS ABROAD

4, 2009

© ARSENAL 21st Century a magazine of the russian defence industry complex

contents

Issued by InformVS Printing House

COOPERATION

GENERAL DIRECTOR Alexander Chernov

RUSSIA AND MALAYSIA STAND FOR FURTHER COOPERATION............................................................................... 2 Rosoboronexport at LIMA 2009......................................................................................................................... 6 Rosoboronexport in the world combat aircraft market................................................................14 Rosoboronexport sets course for South East Asia............................................................................20 MIG VS BOEING: WAITING FOR THE “LAST ROUND”..................................................................................24

1st DEPUTY GENERAL DIRECTOR Nina Gusyakova EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Vladimir Ilyin counselor Oleg Kustov COPY EDITOR Oleg Kruglov EDITOR OF ENGLISH ISSUE Oleg Molokanov DESIGN & MAKEUP Greentowers Creative Bureau PHOTOS & ARTWORK: Alexander Beljaev, Sergey Pashkovsky, Alexey Mikheev, Vladimir Karnozov, Victor Drushliakov, Alexander Chernov, press-offices: Rosoboronexport, UAC, TRV, Vega, Sukhoi, Avionika, NIIP, Fazotron-NIIR, NIII, HAL Circulation: 3,200 copies. The magazine is registered in the Federal Supervision Agency for Information technologies and Communications (Roskomnadzor). Registration Certificate ПИ № ФС77-36007 dated Nov. 27, 2009.

MAKS 2009 MAKS’2009..........................................................................................................................32 New orders for Russian fighters.........................................................................34 AESA radar for next-generation fighter...................................................................................38 AIRBORNE WEAPONS AT MAKS 2009...........................................................................40 UAVS AT MAKS 2009..........................................................................................................48 Vostochny: Space center on Pacific Coast................................................................................56 New contracts for Russian jetliners................................................................ 58 inDUSTRY First Russian-made An-148 delivery................................................................................................................62 Beriev is 75!........................................................................................................................64 MILITARY AVIATION A 7-TONNE INDIAN BRILLIANT....................................................................................... 68 navy

Unauthorised copying prohibited.

THE CHINESE NITKA...........................................................................................................80

Official Arsenal 21st Century citation is obligatory.

LAND FORCES

Responsibility rests with the authors. Editorial opinion may not coincide with authors. © InformVS, 2009. 125043, P/O box 44, Moscow, Russia Phone: 7 (926) 210-5339 E-mail: informvs@mail.ru

MEANS OF EXPLOSION MINE CLEARING AND BLASTING CHARGES....................82 hISTORY RUSSIAN FIRST DIESEL-ELECTRIC SUBMARINE.............................................................. 86


2 • COOperation • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

RUSSIA AND MALAYSIA

STAND FOR FURTHER COOPERATION


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • COOperation • 3

How it began The last Russo-Malaysian summit meeting took place when Vladimir Putin was president of Russia – he met in Moscow the Malaysian prime-minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi on June 19, 2007. The negotiations were fruitful, and their military aspect was one of the most important. In spite we have a new president today, Russia’s relations with Malaysia remain friendly. Moreover, both countries want to develop mutually beneficial relationship. Let us see how our contacts in the military-technical cooperation have been developing. In 2006 Malaysia became the fourth  – after China, India and Algeria  – purchaser of Russian aviation equipment. As the Federal Service of Military-Technical Cooperation states, “it is precisely Malaysia with whom our military-technical cooperation will develop most dynamically”. Malaysia was the first Asian Pacific country to sign a contract with Russia on delivery of a big batch of fighters – in June 1994 (eighteen MiG-29 aircraft for more than $600 million). In December 1995 all the vehicles were delivered to Malaysia. Inspired by the first big and successful contract, the parties (MAPO MIG, Rosvooruzhenie and Aerospace Technology Systems) signed a $34.4 million contract on upgrading eighteen MiG-29 fighters, and a year later the first technical maintenance base for the MiG-29s was opened in Kuantan. In 1999, in Kuala Lumpur, Russia and Malaysia signed a memorandum where they planned to develop close cooperation in defence field, including training of personnel and joint manufacture of military equipment. In the same year both countries signed a memorandum about licenced manufacture of the Russian man-portable SAM weapon Igla in Malaysia. One more contract, on the Igla purchase ($49 million), was signed in 2002, and a year before Russia and Malaysia officially agreed on shipment, to Malaysia, of anti-tank missile systems Metis ($30 million). On October 1, 2003 Rosoboronexport and Airod, company which represented the Malaysian government, signed a contract on shipment of 10 military transport helicopters Mi-171Sh ($70 million) to Malaysia. On May 24, 2007 representatives of the Malaysian Air Force visited Irkutsk where they inspected the first two Su-30MKM fighters and saw their demonstration flight. Those fighters are an upgraded version of aircraft earlier exported to India. After seeing the Russian vehicles “in action” Azizan Ariffin, at that time commander of the Royal Air Force, could not control emotions: “We are proud to become owners of such an aircraft. It is a perfect product which carries one of the best weapon systems in the world”, he said. The contract on shipment of eigh-

MiG-29 fighters were the first Malaysia purchased from Russia

teen Su-30MKMs to Malaysia was signed in 2003 and the deal ended successfully in 2008. Cooperation in space In the early 2000s Russia and Malaysia signed a contract concerning participation of a Malaysian cosmonaut in the Russian space programme. Sheikh Muszaphar was the first Malaysian citizen to be “put into orbit”. He was born in Kuala Lumpur and attended high school at Maktab Rendah Sains MARA in Muar. He then earned a Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery degree from Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, India. He was pursuing his Masters of Surgery in Orthopaedic Surgery at University Kebangsaan Malaysia when he joined the Angkasawan programme. In 1998, Sheikh Muszaphar worked at Hospital Seremban, followed by a move to Kuala Lumpur General Hospital in 1999, and was on staff at Hospital Selayang from 2000 through 2001. Soyuz TMA-11 with Sheikh Muszafar on board

Sheikh Muszaphar and three other finalists were selected at the beginning of 2006 for the Malaysian Angkasawan spaceflight programme. After completing initial training at Star City in Russia, Sheikh Muszaphar and Faiz Khaleed were selected to undergo an 18-month training programme in Russia, at the end of which Sheikh Muszaphar was chosen as the prime crew member, while Faiz Khaleed served as back-up. Following the final medical tests and training examinations, on September 17, it was announced that Sheikh Muszaphar would be flying on Soyuz TMA–11. During a NASA news conference with the Expedition 16 crew on July 23, 2007, and news conferences following his selection, Sheikh Muszaphar said he hoped to be able to take various live cell cultures to study during his flight. Speaking to Malaysian media outlets, Alexander Karchava, the Russian ambassador to Malaysia,


4 • COOperation • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

stated that Sheikh Muszaphar is a «fully-fledged cosmonaut». In an interview with the Malaysian Star newspaper, Robert Gibson, a retired NASA astronaut, shared his opinion that Sheikh Muszaphar is fully qualified as an astronaut, and as such, he should be called one. Soyuz TMA-11 carrying Whitson, Malenchenko, and Sheikh Muszaphar, was successfully launched at 13:22 UTC, Wednesday, October 10, 2007. Sheikh Muszaphar performed experiments on board the International Space Station relating to the characteristics and growth of liver cancer and leukemia cells, the crystallisation of various proteins and microbes in space. The experiments relating to liver cancer, leukemia cells and microbes will benefit general science and medical research, while the experiments relating to the crystallisation of proteins, lipases in this case, will directly benefit local industries (lipase are a type of protein enzymes used in the manufacturing of a diverse range of products from textiles to cosmetics, and the opportunity to grow these in space will mean a possibility for Malaysian scientists to take a crack at an industry worth some $2.2bil (MYR7.7bil) worldwide by producing these locally). Prospects A year ago, at DSA’2008, head of Rosoboronexport delegation Nikolay Dimidiuk stated that “our military-technical cooperation is characterized by positive dynamics and has good prospects for further development. Rosoboronexport actively puts our joint plans into practice”. On Dimidiuk’s opinion – taking into account the fact that Malaysia has its own coastal guard forcMultirole fighter Su-30MKM


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • COOperation • 5

es – Russia has much to offer in terms of the Malaysian coastal defence programme. First and foremost it is an integral coastal control system fighting illegal migration, piracy, and illegal traffic including drug traffic. “Our high-speed missile boats and air cushion boats will be very efficient in this sense”, he added. In today’s military-technical cooperation with Malaysia – as well with other countries – the accent is put on joint projects and organisation of licenced product manufacture. Dimidiuk says that “licenced manufacture of our weapons in Malaysia is quite possible, having in mind that we already have experience of joint tank T-90S and fighter Su-30MKI production in India”. “We are not afraid of competitors in Asia. Putting apart political aspects  – which often play decisive role in choosing business partners – we can say that in terms of product quality we are among the best. We know that our competitors do their best to neutralize Russia in this market. They offer payment delays for ten and even fifteen years, they offer leasing contracts, they even offer for free their used equipment, as the Americans did in a number of countries. Remember the case with their tanks T-60. Russia is not going to stand by idly. We also create comfortable conditions for our partners offering credits and offset transactions. We must be flexible if we want to keep good relations with our Malaysian partners”, he said in conclusion. Fully agreeing with the Russian high official we want our cooperation with Malaysia to develop dynamically and not stop to be mutually beneficial. Oleg Molokanov

Nikolay Dimiduik, Rosoboronexport Director for Special Commissions, tells Mr. Najib Tun Razak, Malaysian prime minister (earlier minister of defence) about Russian-made wheeled armoured vehicles Main battle tank T-90S


6 • COOperation • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

Rosoboronexport at LIMA 2009

Anatoly Isaykin, director general of the FSUE “Rosoboronexport”


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • COOperation • 7

An interview of Director general of the federal state unitary enterprise “Rosoboronexport” Anatoly Isaykin to the magazine “Arsenal XXI century“ before the LIMA 2009 International aerospace and maritime exhibition (1–5 December 2009, Langkawi, Malaysia) The Langkawi International Maritime and Aerospace Exhibition (LIMA) is one of the largest shows in Asian Pacific Rim for de­ fence industries to present latest military technologies. This is a biennial event held at the Mahsuri International Exhibition Cen­ ter in the island of Langkawi, Malaysia. This year exhibitors from more than 20 countries will open their expositions in the area of 21,321 sq.m. Some 50,000 visitors from 60 countries and 280 official delegations are expected to arrive. Russia will take, by tradition, one of the largest pavilions of the exhibition, with Roso­ boronexport’s stand at the centre stage. On the eve of this important parade of the world’s latest military technolo­ gies our correspondent interviewed Ana­ toly Isaykin, director general of the FSUE “Rosoboronexport”. Biography data Anatoly Petrovich Isaykin, director general of the FSUE “Rosoboronexport”, was born in 1946 in the city of Vladivostok. Graduated from the Irkutsk State Foreign Languages Teacher’s Training Institute named after Ho Chi Minh. A. Isaykin was deputy director general of the CJSC “Promexport”. Since 2001 he worked as first deputy director general of the FSUE “Rosoboronexport”. On 26 November 2007 A. Isaykin was appointed director general of the FSUE “Rosoboronexport” by the decree of the President of the Russian Federation. Speaks English and German. He is married and has a grown-up son.

– Mr. Isaykin, why is Russia interested in the Asian Pacific Rim? – First of all, Russia is one of this region’s states. The greater part of our country, namely 60 percent, is situated in Asia. Some countries in this region are Rosoboronexport’s long-term strategic partners. We also realise that Russia’s economic future is closely connected with the Asian Pacific Rim countries. Even now this region accounts for 57 percent of the world GDP, 48 percent of the world trade, and 40 percent of the total value of direct foreign investments. By the way, Asian countries seem to be recovering from the global financial and economic crisis faster than others. This vision is largely applicable to such a specific area as military-technical cooperation. By the end of the new century’s first decade the world annual military expenditures have reached an astronomical figure of one trillion US dollars, and continue to grow, in spite of the current crisis.

World arms trade values also show a steady upward trend. According to independent expert estimatations, in 2008 total world arms delivery value amounted to 59.74 bn US dollars, whereas value of export contracts topped 101 bn US dollars. This is a unique situation in arms trade that has never happened before. The Asian Pacific Rim countries are found in the top positions of the arms exporters/ importers list. Here’s more to it. Contrary to commodity markets, arms prices are stable and have never collapsed throughout the whole history of Russia’s military-technical cooperation with foreign countries. – What makes Malaysia attractive to Roso­ boronexport? When has the cooperation started and how is it developing? – We established first contacts with the Kingdom of Malaysia in 1993, and since then our military-technical cooperation has been on the rise.


8 • COOperation • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

Our information The federal state unitary enterprise (FSUE) “Rosoboronexport” is the sole Russian state exporting company entitled to conduct foreign trade transactions with the whole range of military and dual-purpose products, services, and technologies. Its share in the total military exports of Russia is over 80 percent. The company cooperates with more than 700 enterprises and organisations of the Russian defence industry. The procurement contract for 18 MiG-29 fighters with an offset programme worth of 220 mln US dollars became an important milestone in our cooperation. All the aircraft were delivered in 1995, and soon afterwards a joint Russian-Malaysian venture ATSC (Aerospace Technology System Corporation) was set up to provide for maintenance, repair and upgrade of these aircraft. A contract for supply of antitank missile systems to Malaysia was signed in June 2001, and another contract for man-portable air defence systems followed in 2002. Two Mi-171Sh helicopters were supplied for the Malaysian police in 2005. The year of 2003 was momentous in the history of our partnership when the contract for supply of the Su-30MKM multirole fighters to the Royal Malaysian Air Force was signed by the then President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin. The deliveries of all Su-30MKM aircraft have been finished by now. In the offset part of the contract a really unique programme was realised. For the first time in the history of the Kingdom of Malaysia its angkasawan (cosmonaut in Malaysian) Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor Al Masrie, orthopaedist surgeon and professor of medicine at the University of Kebangsaan, went into space with the Expedition 16 crew launched to the International Space Station on 10 October 2007. – What underlies Rosoboronexport’s coope­ ration with foreign countries? – It is a large and complex subject. But speaking of the essence, I would single out one basic component. It is confidence. By purchasing arms from us, the importing country entrusts us with what is the most important – its security, and in the final analysis – its independence, integrity and sovereignty. Such a country becomes our long-term partner in militarytechnical cooperation since the procured arms will be operated for 20, 30 and even 40 years. During all these years the supplied materiel should be provided with spare parts, have a dedicated infrastructure set up to support its operation and personnel training, follow-up modernisation, repairs and even disposal. There are very revealing examples. I mean here the Russian Helicopters Holding which has recently opened its new centres in Latin American countries, and is now considering similar requests from other countries and regions.

– What is the machinery of military-technical cooperation? – Speaking of arms trade in substance, we refer to the mid-term military-technical cooperation forecast until 2015. In our operations we rely on this document based on serious wide-scale analysis. Our Enterprise’s staff analyse economic and political situation in the region, military potential and financial capacity of a future partner, its needs for particular types and quantities of weapons and military equipment, peculiarities of its relations with Russia, and dozens of other issues. They are all extremely important. Since it is important that by our actions we must not upset military-political balance in the region, or allow our weapons to fall into hands of warring, rogue or totalitarian states, or even worse – into terrorists’ hands. We also give special attention to cooperation with defence enterprises that are to implement export or-

ders, and consider all demands and requests of the Ministry of Defence of Russia. There is also another important issue. We always try to help our partners integrate, cleverly and seamlessly, new Russian equipment into the existing defence structure of the importing country, and make it function smoothly and rapidly, in a well-coordinated and efficient way. The result appears as proposals for consideration by the Committee for military-technical cooperation headed, as is known, by the President of the Russian Federation. All this is being done against the background of serious pre-contractual activities and intensive, laborious and important negotiations. It is during this period when the Enterprise’s specialists consult our foreign would-be customers on tactical and technical specifications and combat performance of Russian weapons, their advantages over similar competing systems, and reach an agreement on price issues. However, market studies may be


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • COOperation • 9

conducted for a very long period, talks held with very reputable foreign counterparts or products and services advertised both in Russia and abroad, yet only signed contracts are considered as tangible results for the Rosoboronexport’s departments and leaders. Only they can be a measure of our work efficiency. And this is not yet enough. It is equally important both to turn orders into firm contracts and bring orders for future workload of defence enterprises. This is the reason why the amount of already signed contracts with foreign customers is as high as 25 - 27 bn US dollars. – What about marketing and trade exhibitions? – The Russian government biennially approves our exhibitions plan. We actively participate in virtually all major international defence exhibitions. It gives us a total of some 15 - 20 events a year. This activity should facilitate exports of Russian military equipment to the world market and, search for new customers, as well as strengthen and develop the existing partnerships. It solidifies our country’s position in the international arms market and increases market thrust of Russian defence enterprises. Besides Rosoboronexport, another 23 enterprises and organisations are engaged in military-technical cooperation with foreign countries. Last year their share in arms exports was about two billion US dollars. – What ours enterprises take part in LIMA 2009 exhibition? – It should be pointed out that this year LIMA marks its tenth jubilee. Russia has been participating in this defence exhibition since 1993. This time Langkawi will host 29 Russian stands and delegations from the manufacturer of the famous Sukhoi aircraft “Irkut Corporation”, “Russian Helicopters Holding”, “Avionika Concern”, “Tulamashzavod” plant, and other enterprises. Russian delegations will promote their products and conduct plenty of meetings, discussions, and presentations to potential foreign partners. – What is Rosoboronexport’s vision of the cur­ rent situation in the world arms market? – As a whole, the situation is stable enough and predictable. The analysis of authoritative international defence publications allows us to deduce that average annual world arms market capacity is about 50 - 60 bn US dollars. Until 2015 every year will see some 1,100 new aircraft produced, including 350 370 combat aircraft and combat trainers, as well as more than 500 helicopters. The world aircraft market value is estimated at 22 - 24 bn US dollars a year. The annual amount of world naval sales will be maintained within 20 - 25 bn US dollars whereas share of export/import transactions might be about 9 bn US dollars. Air defence exports will not undergo any crucial change, retaining its 15 - 20 percent share of the world arms market that would amount to 5 - 7 bn US dollars.

Main combat tank T-90S

In the land forces arms market segment we expect a slight increase in demand for light armoured vehicles (up to 800 units a year) and artillery systems (up to 600 pieces a year). The demand for tanks shall remain unchanged – about 450 - 500 vehicles a year. Recipient countries will spend 8 - 10 bn US dollars for the acquisition of the above materiel. Of course, those indicators are relative enough; still they provide clear illustration of the world market trends and dynamics. – Can you tell what types of Russian military equipment are most popular with foreign buyers? – In recent years the structure of Russian arms exports has little changed. Aviation materiel takes, as usual, top position, with nearly half of all sales. Last year its share was 55 percent. The second place goes to air defence materiel with a 17.4 percent share. Land forces materiel has 15.1 percent, and naval systems 9.1 percent. Other types of military-purpose products account for 2.4 percent. – What are the best-selling samples of Rus­ sian arms? – They are the Mi-35 and Mi-171 type helicopters, Su-30MK type aircraft, S-300 air defence missile system, T-90S main battle tank, and Project 636 “Kilo” type submarine. – What are the main importers, and how does Rosoboronexport win new sales markets?

– Rosoboronexport cooperates with nearly 70 countries. If the main bulk of contracts previously fell to India and China (for up to 80 percent sales value), now the two are joined by such constant buyers of Russian arms as Algeria, Venezuela, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and some other countries. The leading buyers of our arms are India, Algeria, Venezuela, China, Egypt, Vietnam. New markets are proactively explored. Latin American countries are a good example of the new market. This region provides good prerequisites for arms exports, and we have signed and are now implementing important contracts. We also continue strengthening our mutually beneficial military-technical cooperation with countries in South East Asia (Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia), the Middle East and North Africa. It means also that our sales become more diversified geographically. – What Russian arms are exported to NATO countries? Can such export items be integrated into NATO weapons structure? – Of course, we supply military equipment to NATO member-countries. Even more, understanding customer demands we specifically adapt some types of weapons to NATO standards. It is clear that the amount of such supplies cannot be compared to those we dispatch to non-Western customers since NATO member-countries are focused on procuring

Non-nuclear Kilo-class submarine of the Indian Navy in Valetta, Malta


10 • COOperation • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

Self-propelled anti-aircraft system Tor-M1 after the Moscow parade

arms and military equipment mainly from Western manufacturers. However, they buy our air defence systems, helicopters, armoured vehicles, small arms and ammunition to them. All these products comply with NATO standards as regards their tactical deployment and operation. – Can you be here more specific? – Let us see, for instance, military-technical cooperation between Russia and Greece. It is run on a planned basis in the framework of approved arrangements and intergovernmental agreements. The two sides convene regular meetings, negotiations and briefings at different levels. The Hellenic Armed Forces have successfully deployed the “Tor-M1” air defence missile systems and “Zubr” air cushion land-

ing craft. Greece also shows interest in some other types of ground equipment, such as the new BMP-3M infantry combat vehicles. – NATO adopted new member-countries from the former “Eastern bloc” with stocks of Sovietmade weapons. How do you cooperate with them? – It is true. There are still plenty of Russian-origin combat systems in service with security structures of the East European countries that have recently joined NATO. They are the MiG-29 fighters, Mi-17 and Mi-24 type helicopters, short-, medium- and long-range air defence missile systems. One cannot replace them with new equipment overnight by any means. This is why some countries turn to us for upgrading and adaptation of these systems to NATO standards.

Neither have we any technical obstacles to such upgrading. It is indeed important to provide combat integration of this materiel with command and control, target reconnaissance and designation systems used by operators. Our position in this situation is unequivocal: the upgrades should involve specialists of Russian enterprises which developed and produced this materiel, possibly in cooperation with companies that are working for customers. – How often is Russian military equipment employed by international agencies such as the United Nations? – The United Nations Organisation is actively using our materiel, especially armoured personnel carriers and helicopters, in peace-keeping opera– tions. Russian helicopters earned excellent reputation for high quality, reliability and durability in very complicated climatic conditions, such as in Africa. Their commendable reliability can be compared to that of the ancient Mosin “three-line” rifle or Kalashnikov assault rifle. They are as reliable, easy to use, and ready for operation in any environment. – Thus, with what countries in the Asian Pa­ cific Rim does Russia cooperate in the militarytechnical sphere? – Besides Malaysia, Rosoboronexport keeps on active cooperation with Indonesia. We finalised the contract signed in 2003 for supply of the Su-27 and

Mi-117Sh helicopter of the Czech Air Force


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • COOperation • 11

Su-30 combat aircraft and Mi-35 type helicopters to that country. We have been developing military-technical cooperation with China since 1990. At the present stage it makes up an important component of the strategic partnership and confidential relations between our countries. This cooperation has made a major contribution to the settlement of accounts for commodity and financial credits, and laid firm foundation for the development of mutually beneficial relations in all areas. Responding to Vietnam’s long-standing interest in Russian weapons, Rosoboronexport is supplying to that country patrol and missile boats, Su-type aircraft and modern air defence systems. The “Gepard-3.9” modern frigates designed for the Vietnamese Navy are now under construction. Friendly relations with Laos are being restored in new market conditions. The Republic of Korea has taken delivery of the BMP-3 infantry combat vehicles, T-80 main battle tanks, and “Murena” air cushion landing craft. We are now at the final endorsement phase in preparing the intergovernmental memorandum on militarytechnical cooperation which would lay the base for the third-phase of arms supplies and collaboration in research and development. The contracts for supply of air defence systems to Myanmar are actively implemented. Thailand takes

Main combat tank T-80 family

special interest in the BTR-80/BTR-80A armoured personnel carriers, Mi-17V-5 helicopters and “Igla” man-portable air defence systems. – What are peculiar traits of military-technical cooperation with the Asian Pacific Rim coun­ tries? – They are determined by geographical and climatic pecularities of the region. Not every item, even if made by famous manufacturers, can withstand local climatic conditions. This puts specal demand on such characteristics as reliability, robustness and endurance. It is exactly what always made Russian military hardware special. One should not also forget about extremely high requirements of local customers for quality, innovation features and combat effectiveness

of supplied materiel. As a rule, they buy products from the best international vendors. – How does Russia manage to retain leading arms trade positions with so tough a competition in the world arms market? – I would rather say that the competition is not just tough but fierce. And the outcome of this competition does not depend entirely on “Rosoboronexport” as a state intermediary company. Much depends on well-coordinated work of Russian defence enterprises. The Russian defence industry managed to survive at the end of the last century when national economy was passing through dire straits, and, I am sure, it will overcome hardships of the present world financial and economic crisis. Its

Rosoboronexport General director is sure that Russian-made weapons are safe and efficient!


12 • COOperation • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

After the Moscow parade S-400 returns to combat duty

BTR-90 is ready to substitute the famous BTR-80

Tigr armoured vehicle

Number One task is to continue a systemic engineering and technological renovation of our plants. It is accomplished not only for higher quality sake but for production of new high-tech products. Nowadays he, who is able to offer his customers the most up-todate products, becomes sales leader. Our industry is definitely coping with this problem. I shall also stress two more points that count. They are the military and political authority that Russia has in the modern world and, of course, professional skills of Rosoboronexport’s managers who must conduct negotiations, conclude and implement contracts. Nowadays we pursue a proactive marketing policy based on the integrated analysis of our potential customers’ interests and requirements throughout the entire life cycle of weapons and military equipment to be supplied. It leads, in particular, to higher-quality post-sale servicing and personnel training, increase in spare parts exports, and setting up of technical support, training and refresher centres. We adopt flexible pricing policy and diverse payment schemes taking in account financial and economic capacities of importers, and offer offset and barter deals. These approaches has allowed Russia to secure the second honourable position in the list of the world’s foreign arms export leaders, coming only after the USA. – Mr. Isaykin, how much are arms sales affect­ ed by different global threats such as terrorism and piracy? – Certainly they are affected strongly enough. I would compare such threats to a kind of barometer that shows sales modalities. Let us, for once, consider terrorism. This hideous crime provoked demand of antiterrorist units for special-purpose weapons and equipment. Nowadays virtually all international defence exhibitions demonstrate unique robots for improvised ordnance disposal, various gas analysers, scanners, video surveillance systems and other devices. Modern threats encourage, in a certain way, applied research and development of advanced antiterrorist equipment. Security services should always be equipped technically much better than criminals are to be able to fight effectively against bandits, to prevent and suppress acts of terrorism. The same concerns struggle against piracy. Only this year sea pirates have seized about a hundred ships off Somalia’s coast and collected ransom amounting to more than 150 mln US dollars. It is impossible, one must agree, to assign a corvette to each merchant ship for escort. Neither can corvettes chase light pirate boats. This task can be quickly and efficiently solved by small well-armed fast attack craft. By the way, our patrol boats of the “Mangust”, “Sobol”, “Svetlyak”, and “Mirazh” class are ideal for carrying out such missions. The same can be said of shore-based and ship-borne helicopters that can efficiently control the defined sea area. It would be much cheaper than


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • COOperation • 13

to pay millions of dollars ransom to pirates. The more so that last year in mid-December the United Nations adopted a resolution on fighting sea piracy. – Is there a demand for special weapons? – Of course, there is. Many countries buy it from us. As a rule, transactions cover small lots in both quantity and cost. They may include special-purpose equipment, armoured personnel vehicles or even police helicopters. Patrol boats for struggle against sea pirates also enjoy considerable export potential. – What can Rosoboronexport offer in this arms segment? – Today Russia produces the whole range of specialpurpose weapons. Many of our items have no world’s analogues at all. Such are, for instance, underwater assault rifles and pistols for combat divers. It is clear that threats cannot be checked just by means of special-purpose weapons and equipment. It requires a system of operative and legislative measures, intergovernmental agreements and cooperation of special services. But believe me, as a professional: problems of piracy and terrorism can neither be solved without equipping special operations, security and police units with modern types of specialpurpose weapons and equipment. – The Rostekhnologii State Corporation acts as organiser of a united Russian exposition at the international exhibition LIMA 2009. Can you tell us of this structure and ways of Rosoboronex­ port’s cooperation with it?

Fast attack Project 14310 craft

– Two years ago the President of the Russian Federation signed a federal law “About the state corporation “Rostekhnologii”. The State Corporation is dedicated to provide assistance to different branches of industry in developing, manufacturing and marketing high-technology products in the domestic and foreign markets. The main aim of joint operations pursued by “Rostekhnologii” and “Rosoboronexport” is to enhance quality of military-purpose products, provide support to the development and production by defence enterprises of high-technology and competitive civil-purpose products, and actively promote them to the world markets. After the FSUE “Rosoboronexport” will have gone public, all shares of a new open joint stock company “Rosoboronexport” will be transferred to the “Rostekhnologii” State Corporation. We will remain to be the sole

state intermediary company for foreign military sales of the whole range of military-purpose products. Operations conducted within the framework of an open joint stock company will allow us to concentrate on the solution of relevant tasks, expand investment activities, and be more flexible in the sphere of military-technical cooperation with foreign countries. It means that we will be able to provide efficient and quick support to enterprises (that are most important for the output of exported militarypurpose products) and prospective research and development projects, as well as assistance in improving quality of products. It will also help us deepen cooperative relations with our foreign partners as regards research and development of new types of weapons and military equipment, including those for third countries.

Russian military equipment always causes big interest; Russia’s deliveries have seriously strengthened the defence potential of leading Asian Pacific countries


14 • COOperation • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

Rosoboronexport

in the world combat aircraft market

Alexander Mikheyev deputy director general of the FSUE “Rosoboronexport”

Despite the global financial and economic crisis the 10th Langkawi International Maritime and Aerospace exhibition LIMA 2009 attracts plenty of exhibitors including world’s largest aircraft companies operating in the South East Asian region. LIMA is one of the largest venues for all manufacturers, interested in the rapidly developing Asian Pacific Rim region, to showcase their aerospace and naval products. Thousands of state and military officials, experts and businessmen are coming to the island of Langkawi to get glimpse of the latest defence solutions. This exhibition maintains its high profile thanks to the official support granted by the Malaysian Government and Ministry of Defence. Exposition of the federal state unitary enterprise (FSUE) “Rosoboronexport” takes prominent position among other participants in the exhibition. LIMA is both a breathtaking show with dozens of advanced military systems on display and a global trade venue where issues of international cooperation are discussed and sometimes hundreds of millions dollar deals are struck. The Rosoboronexport’s delegation at LIMA 2009 has a tight schedule of business meetings and talks with high-ranking officials and delegations from around the world. An eventful business programme is planned to help us develop relations with buyers of Russian arms, while a highly intensive precontractual part makes up the basis for new agreements on supply of Russian defence products. On the eve of opening the exhibition the magazine “Arsenal XXI” publishes an article by Alexander Mikheyev, deputy director general of the federal state unitary enterprise “Rosoboronexport”, the sole state exporter of the whole range of militarypurpose products and services, about the situation in the world combat aircraft market and operations of the Enterprise in the sphere of military-technical cooperation.


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • COOperation • 15

World combat aircraft market on steady route Despite dire straits of the global economic downturn the world combat aircraft market has not stalled maintaining its steady trajectory. The proof could be found at the recent MAKS 2009 international aerospace show in Russia, the leading markerplace where the world aircraft manufacturers showcased their combat aircraft to potential customers. The Russian defence industry managed to demonstrate its potential, real capacities and prospects. It showed that products of the Russian aerospace industry were and still remain on a par with the world’s best samples, and by some parameters are at top positions. As regards Rosoboronexport, its arms supplies to air forces are estimated to reach 2.6 bn US dollars this year. This makes up 40.6 percent of the total amount of our foreign miltary sales. Operations of our Enterprise truly reflect international trends. In the pre-crisis period of 2000 - 2007 the world aircraft supplies were estimated to reach almost 118 bn US dollars which made up 50.2 percent of the total arms sales (234.7 bn US dollars). In line with that trend, aircraft accounted for about 50 percent (sometimes a little more or less) among export supplies of our Enterprise. In that period fighters were at the sales foreground. The highest level was reached in 2007 when fighter supplies amounted to 11.9 bn US dollars. Fighters are still at the top line among other aviation supply contracts. As regards this indicator, we retain the second place after the USA. The near-term forecast also gives no reasons for concern. In the period of 2004 – 2013 the world fighter exports would amount to 2,412 aircraft costing more than 117 bn US dollars. As to Rosoboronexport, its portfolio of signed contracts for air force equipment is valued at around 9.5 bn US dollars. Experts also estimate that combat aircraft fleets in all countries over the world comprise approximately 29,000 aircraft, among which 22,500 are fighters. Almost half of them (48 percent) are Soviet/Russian-made MiG and Su type aircraft. The US aircraft make up about 39 percent. French fighters come third with 6 percent. According to analysts’ projections, mid-term development of the world fighter market would remain stable. It is predicted that average annual world fighter sales in the period of 2011  – 2020 would amount to 270 – 300 aircraft. According to preliminary estimates the United States and Russia will retain their supremacy in this sector, leaving competitors far behind. The US priority will be ensured by the still remaining export potential of the 4th generation combat aircraft and introduction to the world market of the 5th generation fighter F-35 “Lightning II” in 2012. The US own estimates show that their export

MiG-35 fighter

backlog for the period of 2011 – 2015 slightly exceeds 350 aircraft. The international expert community has good grounds to forecast firm demand for the 4th/4th+ generation Russian fighters. This is why our country can substantially reinforce its positions in this sector of the world market. The third position among market leaders can be taken by China which is actively marketing its JF-17 and J-10 (FC-20) fighters to foreign customers. By quantitative parameters China can be considered as a competitor, in some respects, to the UK, Sweden and France. Price parameters will be a decisive factor here. World market factors There are also many other factors influencing the world fighter market evolution. In the last 15 – 20 years air forces in many countries have shown a tendency towards a growing proportion of aircraft with long service life in the total Su-30MKI multirole fighter

aircraft fleet. Some of them are obsolete and beg replacement. This makes many leaders of importing countries to be preoccupied with combat aircraft fleet renovation. In the next 20 years about 40 countries are expected to adopt renovation programmes for their combat aircraft types. Speaking generally, this process has just started, and the newest designs are only a small fraction of the world fleets. The main reason lies with economic troubles, as well as a negative contribution of the world financial crisis into this process. About 30 countries consider reforms of their national air forces but are rather short of financial resources needed to strengthen their defences by arms imports. At the same time 10 – 15 steadily developing countries are ready to allocate considerable funds for their combat fleet renovation for objective reasons, and they are now starting this work. New NATO member-countries that are converting to NATO standards are also engaged in retrofitting their armed forces including air forces. The Western


16 • COOperation • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

Mi-117 family helicopter

countries completed active phase of the retrofit some years ago, and their radical renovation will start with the emergence of the 5th generation fighter. Another factor is a significant growth of the latest combat aircraft cost and lead time from new model development to serial production and entry into service. While the lead time for the 2nd generation combat aircraft was only 5 – 6 years (MiG-21, F-4), for the 4th generation aircraft (MiG-29, Su-27, F-15, F-16) it was 10 – 15 years, and for the 5th generation fighters it may go to 20 or even to 25 years. When reviewing the world fighter market we should not overlook an important tendency that will influence all national air forces. I reckon that air forces of many states will have to somewhat reduce the total number of their fighters while simultaneously enhance their combat effectiveness. It will naturally cause new tough competition between manufacturing countries. Therefore, countries that cannot so far afford buying costly aircraft can face certain difficulties. But

their problem is quite solvable. The realistic method of keeping pace with the world standards and maintaining proper combat readiness of fighter units is to radically upgrade legacy aircraft. Upgrading would allow these countries to extend service life, save money and significantly enhance tactical and technical characteristics of the aircraft acquired some time ago. I believe that such situation will continue till 2015 at least. Fifth generation fighter Many people say that the world fighter market will be crucially reconfigured with the introduction of the 5th generation fighter, namely the US F-35 “Lightning II”. I doubt that it will happen prior to 2015. First of all, the F-35 “Lightning II” fighter will be marketed at world markets only since 2012 so it won’t be able to win international trade venues during one to three years because of its high cost. One should not forget that the F-35 operations require setting up of an entirely new infrastructure for its maintenance, A-50 AEW modification for Indian Air Force

repairs and training of flight and ground personnel. This would involve rather important expenses too. Besides, the F-35 programme cost has already skyrocketed to an astronomical figure of one trillion US dollard. The US own estimates show that a unit price of one aircraft can reach 100 mln US dollars plus maintenance costs during service life. A few countries only will be able to afford to procure such aircraft, and in limited quantities at that. The situation is further addravated by a two-year lag in the F-35 programme schedule. But afterwards the F-35 “Lightning II” fighter will offer strong competition to all manufacturers, being able to become a dominant programme during next 20 years. Speaking of the US first 5th generation fighter F-22 “Raptor”, analysts of the authoritative “Forecast International” consulting firm (USA) point out that the high cost factor (about 150 mln US dollars per aircraft) will be supplemented with the US Congress security restrictions on sales to foreign customers of the fighter in the US Air Force configuration. Moreover, the F-22 “Raptor” production programme was suspended in April 2009. Thus, world’s leading aircraft manufacturers from other countries who are competing with the USA are given a short period of 6 – 8 years for the development, serial production and launching into the international market of an alternative aircraft of the 5th generation. Meanwhile the market will actively absorb the 4th/4th+ generation fighters. I think that the problem how to speed up production of the 5th generation aircraft may be solved by creating international unions since development of such aircraft by one country would be too difficult, too long, and too costly. In my opinion the Russian-Indian tandem has the most realistic prospects. The general contract for the development of this aircraft was signed by the two countries in December 2008. The two sides have by now defined its tactical and technical characteristics. Serial production of the aircraft is scheduled to start in 2019. Its exports can start after that deadline too. I am sure that the Russian-Indian 5th generation fighter will have tactical and technical characteristics as good as those of the US F-35 “Lightning II” in all respects. However, we perceive the F-35 fighter as a major competitor. Although the USA, on the one hand, and Russia and India, on the other hand, have their own segments in the world fighter market, it is desirable that our competition with the US should be fair by form, being keen by substance if it must,. Looking ahead These days one can also hear shop talk about a 6th generation fighter. But its development is still


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • COOperation • 17

very far off. The last F-35 will be assembled in 2065. If we choose to discuss the 6th generation fighter configuration, it should be, I think, an unmanned aerial vehicle. Future belongs to them. It sounds like science fiction today but this is quite a realistic scifi. The most expensive UAVs are priced at maximum 20 – 30 percent of a modern aircraft cost, and their mission envelope is still rather limited – mainly to local reconnaissance. But, firstly, modern fighter pilot loads have come close to maximum allowable, and their increase is not possible any further. Secondly, UAVs are used increasingly to fly combat missions traditionally assigned to piloted aircraft such as maritime patrol and even strikes. Now it is being much argued what is an optimal ratio of reconnaissance and combat UAVs to piloted aircraft. I think that UAV numbers in air force combat units in many countries will soon grow. Yet development of a sterling unmanned fighter is a matter of a far-off future. Indian tender Today, however, our Enterprise has a standing task to coordinate Russia’s participation in the Indian MMRCA tender for the supply of 126 fighters to the Indian Air Force. Rosoboronexport together with the RAC MiG offered an excellent aircraft MiG-35. It meets all stringent technical requirements of the Indian Side. It is an unquestionable advantage of the MiG-35 aircraft that it has been developed purposely to satisfy Indian requirements and can be operated in both tropical, desert and mountainous regions. The Indian Air Force require that the new fighters be operable for 40 years at least, preserve good condition all these years, reliably and effectively carry out assigned missions, and be on a par with the best world combat aircraft. In particular, the aircraft should surpass the 4th generation fighters in combat performance and reliably counter the 5th generation aircraft in air combat. Such requirements are not easily met by all contenders in the tender. The MiG-35 is a new aircraft. Compared to its MiG-29 predecessor, it boasts fuel reserve increased by about 1.5 times and substantially greater combat payload. Thanks to droppable fuel tanks and a midair refueling system (that also allows refuelling from the aircraft of the same type) the MiG-35 aircraft has combat radius as great as that of a heavy fighter. Its power plant is uprated. Now it includes two RD33MK engines with the augmented (by 15%) thrust, smokeless combustion chamber, increased reliability, and extended service life. An option for the modernised RD-33 engines with all-aspect thrust vector control is also available. The avionics suite of the aircraft features high technologies designed for the 5th generation fighter. I shall point out here only the key component of the

MiG-35 is equipped with Zhuk-AE phased array antenna

multi-channel information and aiming system – “Zhuk-AE” active electroni-cally scanned phased array radar. It provides capabilities for beyond visual range air combat and simultaneous attack against several air and ground tar-gets. And the last but not least. Both single-seat and twinseat MiG-35 versions enjoy maximum unification. It is an obvious advantage that MiG family aircraft, including the MiG-35, are well known in India. Tens of thousands of professionals and common visitors could see the MiG-35 both in flight demonstrations and on static display at the last airshow in Bangalore. Experts and members of the tender committee studied the tender documents and bidding materials submitted for the tender. During the AeroIndia 2009 airshow the MiG-35 was also testflown by the famous Indian military pilot Air Marshal (retired) Harish Masand. After landing he stated that the MiG-35 demonstrated exceptional controllability and manoeuvrability thanks to its advanced aerodynamic configuration and new digital fly-by-wire con-

trol system. Experts in many countries are positive about the MiG-35’s advantages. The website of the authoritative aerospace magazine “Flight” repeated the voting (the first one was in the autumn of 2007) among its readers about the winner in the Indian tender. The overwhelming majority of the readers who were mostly military pilots, politicians, businessmen knowledgeable of aviation predicted victory to the Russian fighter. The voting results were distributed as follows: Rafale – 8%; F-16  – 11%; Typhoon  – 17%; F/A-18 – 18%; MiG-35 – 33%. Many people are interested to know the aircraft unit cost. It is a trade secret that the Indian Side only can divulge. I would like here to stress importance of both the aircraft unit price and cost of the support infrastructure needed to maintain, repair and supply spare parts, as well as operational cost per one flight hour. We should also keep in mind flight and ground personnel training issues. Our aircraft have certain traditional advantages in this respect. The Indian Air


18 • COOperation • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

S-300 air defence squadron

Air defence system Buk-M2E at MAKS’2009

Force have already a wide servicing network for MiG type aircraft that can be upgraded to accommodate the MiG-35s as well. The same applies to the technician training facilities. As for flight personnel, the Indian pilots have already mastered many types of Russian MiGs so transition training will not require too long time and effort. Rosoboronexport intends to continue the collaboration with India, as our strategic partner, within the proven framework: from the aircraft delivery, to the involvement of the local industry in retrofitting and repairs, and finally to the serial production licence transfer. This algorithm can be realised in the case with the MiG-35. All the more so since from the very beginning the fighter was designed to provide the option for its eventual production by the two countries maintaining a wide cooperation. It implies that production capacities of the HAL Corporation, which has amassed rich experience in repairs and manufacture of MiG family aircraft components, can be loaded to the maximum degree. Rosoboronexport at LIMA 2009 We expect a rather wide range of subjects for discussions at the LIMA 2009 exhibition combining

incoming requests from foreign customers with our own preparations. It is planned that discussions will bear on supplies of modern Russian weapons and military equipment to air force units of our permanent partners and potential customers from South East Asian countries. Other subjects will include construction and equipment of airfields, setting up Yak-130 operational trainer

of technical servicing and support centres, organization of integrated post-sale servicing systems, creation of licensed assembly production plants. Air defence systems for our partner countries are also planned for consideration. Multimedia presentations of combat aircraft and air defence systems and equipment will be shown. Stronger emphasis will be put on discussions about various payment schemes for arms supplies using both solid cash and counter trade with national export commodities or natural resources exploration quotas, which are favourably viewed by many countries as attractive tools for settling mutual accounts, especially in the period of the global financial and economic downturn. There are also plans to deal with the problem of unauthorised modernisations of Russian/Sovietmade aircraft and helicopters carried out not by Russian specialists but by some “strangers” who lack proper technical background and instrumentation needed for such sophisticated and important tasks. The problem with unauthorised modernisations is aggravated by the fact that they often provoke flight accidents causing deaths. Therefore we should try to create the milieu in which modernisation of aircraft and helicopters could be implemented only by specialists of the organisations and plants where it had been developed and produced. There are both specialists and companies that possess all necessary technologies, responsibilities and competences. Rosoboronexport is constantly working on “aviation contracts” with traditional arms trade partners of Russia (India, China, Algeria, Malaysia, and others) and seeks to establish mutually advantageous business contacts with new customers. Price values of large contracts for aircraft supplies amount to billions of dollars which are used to support defence enterprises and develop high-technology production base. It is also an established fact that Russian plants, research institutes and design bureaus are still setting the tone in the arms markets


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • COOperation • 19

despite “stagnation” period of the 1990s. Russian arms have always been distinguished by high reliability, effectiveness, firepower, and quality. These features explain reasons for attraction of states from almost all continents to products made by the Russian defence industry. Specialists and guests at LIMA 2009 who may visit the Rosoboronexport’s and Russian enterprises’ stands will be able to get evidence of it. I am certain that special interest will be drawn by promotional materials on the Su-35 4th+ generation super-manoeuvrable multirole fighter. It is designed to gain air superiority and engage ground and surface targets by day and night, even in most adverse weather conditions. This aircraft carries its combat payload weighing up to eight tonnes comprising most advanced and effective munitions on 12 hardpoints. The MiG-35 and Su-35 4th++ generation multirole aircraft are the best products that can be offered now to foreign buyers by the Russian combat aircraft manufacturers – JSC “RAC “MiG” and JSC “Sukhoi Company” Both aircraft have superb aerodynamic characteristics and are equipped with most advanced phased array radars and newest guided munitions. The Su-35 super-manoeuvrable fighter is equipped with the avionic suite of a totally domestic production. The Yak-130 combat trainer stirs constant interest among specialists. This year it finishes the test programme and will enter service with the Russian Air Force with the main purpose to train fighter pilots for Sukhoi and MiG families including the newest Su-35, MiG-35 and, afterwards, the 5th generation fighter. Thanks to its perfect flight characteristics, flyby-wire control system and modern-type glass cabin the Yak-130 aircraft can be employed as an efficient, safe and inexpensive training facility to form air cadets and to maintain and master flight proficiency of active unit pilots. Besides, the Yak-130 can be employed to fly strike missions in low-intensity conflicts.

Su-35, multirole 4+G fighter

The Rosoboronexport’s stand showcases the best types of Russian helicopters and provides full data on their onboard and ground support equipment, armaments and technical maintenance facilities. Mil family helicopters are represented by the Mi-35 and Mi-35P combat transport helicopters in both standard configuration and modified with thermal vision station and electronic equipment set, Mi-171Sh, Mi-17V-5 and Mi-17N military transport helicopters, as well as Mi-26 heavy-lift helicopter with the world’s biggest load-carrying capacity. Kamov family helicopters will be presented by the Ka-31 radar picket helicopter designed to control airspace and sea surface situation, acquire air targets including those flying at very low altitudes. All gathered data are automatically transmitted from the helicopter to command posts. Air defence weapons of special interest are mobile air defence missile systems capable of engaging

air attack weapons that employ stealth technologies. The “Buk-M2E” medium-range multichannel air defence missile system can engage simultaneously 24 air targets approaching from any direction at a range of up to 50 km. The latest “Tor-M2E” air defence missile system can destroy simultaneously and with high effectiveness elements of high-precision ‘air-tosurface’ weapons as well as air platforms from which they have been launched. Specialists will be interested to learn new data about modern Russian-made aeroengines for aircraft and helicopters, laboratory avionics test benches, flight data collection, processing and analysis systems, airfield equipment, training aids that allow reduction of crew training costs by several times, training period duration by 1.5 – 2 times, and saving of expensive equipment service life. I believe that LIMA 2009 will enrich us with new ideas and facilitate our quest for prospective, mutually beneficial contracts. Russia has plenty to offer to our partners including both high-quality technologies and flexible payment terms.


20 • COOperation • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

Подпись

Anti-ship missiles can be fired from vertical launchers on board upgraded Project 20380 corvettes

Rosoboronexport

sets course for South East Asia


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • COOperation • 21

The Royal Malaysian Navy is one of the most technologically advanced and large naval forces in South East Asia by both its complement (about 15,000 persons) and ship number. The national naval forces count frigates, corvettes, offshore patrol vessels, fast attack craft, coast guard boats, mine sweepers, and auxiliary ships. Their missions are to safeguard Malaysia's coastline, exclusive economic sea zone (EEZ), state territorial waters, as well as to defend its maritime strategic interests. At the same time Malaysia is desirous of acquiring new naval equipment judging by the procurement of two “Scorpene” type diesel-electric submarines. The procurement contract was signed in June 2002 by the Malaysian government with the French DCN and Spanish “Navantia” companies. South East Asian countries try to satisfy their needs for naval force renovation in the period when leading shipbuilding companies multiply their marketing efforts making competition in the international market more acute. The global financial and economic crisis has heated up this rivalry even more. However, Russia is successfully competing with both the international naval exporters and indigenous shipbuilders who cater for the interests of their states. It is mainly due to successful operations of the principal Russian arms exporter – federal state unitary enterprise (FSUE) “Rosoboronexpot». This is what necessitates Rosoboronexport’s participation in the LIMA 2009 Langkawi international maritime and aerospace exhibition. At present naval systems make up an important part of export orders executed by the Russian defence industrial enterprises. The Russian shipbuilding industry mainly executes defencerelated orders being one of the leading suppliers of naval equipment to foreign markets. Its enterprises continue to intensify military-technical cooperation in this area. The Russian shipbuilding industry possesses all necessary production and scientific and material resources. Nowadays this industry employs about 180,000 specialists. The production output of the Russian naval shipyards is expected to almost double by 2015. The civil shipbuilding share should rise from today's 25 to 34 percent. The remainder shall be filled with Russian Navy’s orders and export contracts with foreign navies. Oleg Azizov, chief of naval exports department of the FSUE “Rosoboronexport”, reveals details of Rosoboronexport’s cooperation with South East Asian states in naval technologies. – Mr. Azizov, Rosoboronexport participates in many international defence exhibitions in­ cluding ones where domestic naval systems are displayed. How is the Malaysia’s LIMA ranked among them?

Oleg Azizov, chief of naval export department of the FSUE “Rosoboronexport”

– The Rosoboronexport’s exposition at LIMA 2009 is a part of the integrated marketing plan of our Enterprise, but for the naval exports department it has also a special “geographical” flavour. It provides us with a unique opportunity to meet and talk with a large number of potential customers from South East Asian navies. Our goal is to promote Russian naval systems and weapons to foreign markets. Any international exhibition offers ample opportunities for doing this. Major defence exhibitions are usually visited by state leaders and defence ministers of potential customer countries, namely those persons who are entitled to make decisions on arms procurement. – What countries in the region are Rosobo­ ronexport’s closest partners in military-technical cooperation? – In South East Asia Rosoboronexport traditionally maintains close, mutually advantageous partnerships with navies in China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and some other countries. In our Enterprise we believe that Navies will form a bulwark of the defence capability, force and strength of any sea power for many decades to come. But only states with highlevel basic technologies are capable of developing

new types of weapons, including naval ones, and efficiently promoting them to the world market. Russia is one of such countries. As regards quality, Russian weapons are on a par with the best world’s competitors and in many respects they are superior to them. Russian combat systems are characterised by high effectiveness, reliability, maintenance simplicity, durability, and large modernisation/upgrading potential as well as favourable price parameters. – What Russian naval systems are most popu­ lar in the world market? – We are not focused on concrete types and classes of Russian arms but rather on concrete requirements of potential customers. Each customer is different. Some states have developed their own naval doctrines, envisioning even creation of an oceangoing fleet. Others confine their tasks to coastline defence, struggle against drug trafficking and sea piracy, support to customs services. We therefore try to work with each customer, keeping in mind his real problems. And, of course, his financial capacities. – Russian Project 636 diesel-electric subma­ rines are quite popular in many foreign countries. But foreign customers are still looking cautiously


22 • COOperation • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

at the Amur class new generation submarines, albeit with attention. Neither appear any orders for Russian midget submarines, even though they surpass foreign analogues by a number of char­ acteristics. Why is it so? – Russian diesel-electric submarines with outstanding characteristics embody labour of our designers and shipbuilders. It would be appropriate here to pay tribute to such companies as “Rubin central maritime technology design bureau”, “Admiralty shipyards”, “Novator experimental design bureau”. Thanks to them Russia started serial production (I would like to stress the word “serial”) of Kilo type submarines with the integrated missile weapon system “Club”. Both are truly unique designs with high export potential. It makes no doubt that the “Amur-1650” submarine has vast export prospects. Yet it should first finish its tests and engineering development which are a prerequisite for serious pre-contractual work with foreign customers. And secondly, there must be a record of successful operations of the Russian “Amur1650” version. Although many samples of weapons and equipment developed for this submarine have already been installed on the latest modifications of the “Kilo” type submarines and proved their excellent performance. Our potential customers are well informed of these facts. The “Piranha” midget submarine singles out among small-size and miniature designs of the «Malachite Saint-Petersburg machine-building design bureau” It inspires admiration by engineering solutions embodied in its design. Above all come a “perpetual” titanium hull and a high degree of automation. This submarine is controlled by … just one operator. The submarine design has been upgraded. In particular, it has all electronics re-

Non-nuclear Kilo-class submarine, one of the most safe and sold Russian vessels. This naval family numbers 60 submarines

newed It should also be kept in mind that the basic combat mission of this ship is very sensitive in essence – delivery of combat swimmers. It is for this reason that our customers prefer to discuss its procurement in strict confidentiality. If our partners consider a series of midget submarines based on the “Piranha” project, we offer them to jointly tailor the chosen submarine project to their individual requirements. After doing so, the submarine can be constructed either in Russia or at customer shipyards. We continue talks to this end, but it is too early to speak of the results. – The Russian Navy has recently commis­ sioned the new-generation lead ships such as the “Neustrashimyi” frigate and “Steregushchiy” cor­ vette. Do you consider them as potential export projects? – As a rule, foreign customers are proposed in Russia ships commissioned by the Navy (just as they

St. Petersburg, type non-nuclear new generation submarine was created – as well as Kilo – under direction of general designer Yuri Kormilitsyn; it has good chances to substitute its famous predecessor

were proposed in the former Soviet Union). The ship’s weapons and equipment are upgraded to meet specific requirements of foreign navies such as operations in tropical climate, integration of customer systems, etc. Still, combat potential of export versions of such ships is mainly determined by the Russian analogue’s capabilities. Russian new-generation surface ships are not exclusive in this respect either. They also have their export versions that attract active attention. Rosoboronexport offers to foreign customers surface combatants, including frigates, that are in great demand in importing countries. In this market segment Project 11356, Project 11541 and “Gepard 3.9” class ships have high export prospects. They are designed on the basis of operationally proven ships of the Russian Navy and can be armed with diverse modern weapon systems. Project 20380 “Steregushchiy” corvette is another bright marker in the Russian naval construction. It features all latest solutions for ship hull, superstructure, weapons and equipment designs. – Russia has always been a major missile boat exporter. How well do the “Scorpion” and “Katran” new-generation missile boats make their way into the international market? – They are doing quite well. Rosoboronexport actively markets other boats together with these ones. Foreign customers are offered Project 21632 “Tornado” advanced gunship meeting stealth technology requirements. Project 12418 “Molniya” missile boat is designed to effectively destroy surface ships of potential enemy by acting both autonomously and interoperating with other naval forces, as well as to guard state borders and exclusive economic zone. Russia was the first to put into practice small vessel bottom mechanisation. An air cavern formed under Project 14310 “Mirage” boat hull allows it to gather up to 50-knots speed, reduce boat’s rolling and pitching, as well as specific fuel consumption.


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • COOperation • 23

The Enterprise offers for export a wide range of patrol ships and fast attack craft of various displacement and purpose, as well as auxiliary ships for Navy, Coast Guards and sea police. I can be even more specific. Rosoboronexport gathered an order backlog worth of about one billion US dollars. I speak here only of the contracts already signed and entered into force. – Please tell what new forms of militarytechnical cooperation, including naval exports, Rosoboronexport seeks to expand its client base. – We try to be more “flexible” when considering requests of our customers. We have abandoned the philosophy of supplying only Russian-made serial products. If needed, we coordinate buyers’ involvement both at the design stage and during ship construction period. Our cooperation with India is a vivid example of such approach. Three Project 11356 frigates, now being built in Kaliningrad on India’s orders, shall be fitted with Indian-made weapons and equipment including the “Brahmos” attack missile system (which, incidentally, is also a joint Russian-Indian cooperation project). Sonars and communication systems are also Indian-made. Experts underline that integration of foreign-origin equipment into a serial production ship requires important design and engineering coordination efforts of all sides concerned. I am certain that experience gained in this area will be helpful in future. Joint shipbuilding, and the more so joint ship design, are radically different from marketing finished ships built in Russian shipyards. This activity dictates that the traditional approach be modified: foreign shipyards retrofitted simultaneously with the delivery of equipment, ship crews trained during ship construction, and shipyard workers getting production and technical refreshment training. This list can be filled with supplies of ammunition,

New projects of Severnoye Design Bureau

spare parts, tools and accessories sets, repair manuals. I can repeat that our main goal consists in promoting products made by Russian enterprises for export. One can hardly expect dynamic cooperation without taking into account customer Navy’s requirements and indigenous business interests. In some cases one will have to agree on third party’s participation in the projects. Sometimes it is connected with the positive operational experience that the customer has had with some foreign-made piece of equipment, or with the existence of a welldeveloped maintenance and repair infrastructure. Not infrequent are cases when foreign partners possess important knowledge and know-how in some areas. Sometimes it is dictated by the state policy of the buyer country. The decision is made in each particular case with full account of all available data. – What is the current state and what are the prospects for the Russian naval exports? – Rosoboronexport’s naval orderbook is worth of 6.5 billion USD. We also continue negotiations and prepare big packages of contractual documents for signing. The present backlog allows us to expect not only the retention of naval exports amounts but also their considerable growth. Every year sees the world naval market more and more saturated with increasingly competitive products and services. Also, some states from among our partners have decided to create national ocean-going fleets using their own resources, labour and finances. We respect their decisions and realise that soon they will be able to independently build destroyers, after them cruisers and even aircraft carriers. Anyway, there will always be demand for contemporary weapons, hydroacoustics, powerplants and other equipment in those market segments where Russian-made products have

a traditionally high export potential. I mean here guided missile systems, modern 3-D radars, combat information management systems, and many other items. We must retain leading positions in these and other prospective areas of naval technology and weapons. – Nowadays it is not enough just to deliver ship or naval system to a customer. To stay in the market it is very important to provide sys­ tems’ trouble-free operation during the whole life cycle. – The guarantee and post-guarantee servicing of supplied materiel is an important part of military-technical cooperation. Rosoboronexport has always given and is giving now much attention to this factor. A systemic approach to both basic features and small details is important. Rosoboronexport together with Russian naval systems’ developers and manufacturers renders technical assistance in designing, building and equipping new or refitted maintenance and repair facilities, as well as improves operational and other technical documentation, provides conditions for naval systems’ software updates, unifies testbench instrumentation needed for components restoration, etc. These activities are bearing their fruit. The purpose is to satisfy modern requirements for systems configuration control and logistic support for supplied equipment which is crucial for market preservation. In conclusion I would like to add that during the 50–years history of mili–tary–technical cooperation with foreign states Russia has exported more than 2,000 main type surface ships and conventional submarines. By this indicator our country has surpassed all other world shipbuilding powers and does not intend to surrender its position.


24 • COOperation • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

MIG VS BOEING:

WAITING FOR THE “LAST ROUND” The tender which the Indian Ministry of De­ fence runs today in terms of its M-MRCA project causes great interest in the whole world, and its “last round” is ready to begin. The reason of such an interest is that the sum at stake is very big. There were many participants in the tender but, as specialists consider, only two “heavy­ weights” have the best chances to win – the American fighter Boeing F/A-18E Super Hornet and the Russian MiG-35. For the Americans the victory means wide­ spread entering the Indian military market which is very promising and where till our days – only European and Russian equipment is well-known. There is no need to say that for the Russian avia­ tion industry getting the Indian order would be a great success. Putting apart economic and political as­ pects  – which, of course, will play an important role in choosing the winner – we will study tech­ nical characteristics of both “heavyweights” and make the conclusion which of them is best suit­ able for the Indian Air Force. Both aircraft, the F/A-18E and the MiG-35, belong to the same generation  – the former is an upgraded version of the F/A-18A (this vehicle had its first flight on Nov. 18, 1978 and was made operational in 1983), and the latter is the modernized MiG-29 (its first flight took place on Oct. 6, 1977 and the vehicle was fielded in 1983). The Super Hornet had its maiden flight on Nov. 19, 1995 and became

operational in 2000. Its latest version, the F/A-18E Block 2 – equipped with the cutting-edge onboard radar AN/APG-79  – became operational in the US Navy in 2006. The MiG-35’s “evolution” started from the MiG29K/KUB (the latter aircraft is shipped for the Vikramaditya carrier in terms of the contract signed between India and Russia). Design Both aircraft have normal aerodynamic scheme with tapered wing, twin vertical tails and a powerplant consisting of two turbojet bypass engines with afterburners. The MiG-35’s airframe (as well as the one of the MiG-29K/KUB and MiG-29M/M2) is a unified version (90%) of one-seat and two-seat aircraft.

In particular, both aircraft have got unified cockpit canopy. The one-seat (F/A-18E) and two-seat (F/A18F) “Americans” have the unification level of 80% but have got different cockpit canopies. The MiG-35’s airframe will get a lot of weldments; besides, partially it will consist of composite materials (15%). Designers rejected the up-to-date aluminium-lithium alloy “01420” used for the airframes “915” and “9-31” and chose traditional materials. The F/A-18E is made of aluminium alloys with wider use of composite materials (22%). The aerodynamic scheme of the MiG-29 was a big success; it was created by Mikoyan Design Bureau in cooperation with TsAGI Zhukovsky in the distant 1970s. In spite of that it still has prospects for upgrading in our days. Some technical changes made

Chief designer Nikolai Buntin among members in the Indian navy project team working on the MiG-29K/KUB and Vikramaditya carrier.


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • COOperation • 25

it possible to increase 30% the new fighter’s takeoff weight, 50% its fuel load, and more than 100% its combat load. The F/A-18E was also manufactured according to the scheme designed in the 1970s by Northrop for their Cobra project and then taken shape in the McDonnell Douglas YF-17 aircraft which, in its turn, became the F/A-18 Hornet prototype. Both vehicles are well prepared for dogfights at subsonic speed and with high g-loads. M>1 characteristics played secondary role during creation of both aircraft. Powerplant The MiG-35 (as well as the MiG-29K/KUB) has got two RD-33MK engines (thrust: 9,000/5,500kgf each). The engine’s dry weight is 980kg; mass-to-power ratio, 0.11kg/kgf. The RD-33MK’s service life limit is 4,000h; service life limit till the first overhaul, 1.000h – parameter corresponding to foreign standards. There is also an alternative decision for the MiG-35: modernized RD33 engines with all-aspect thrust vectoring, like those which the MiG-29OVT has got (RD-33-10M2). The engine is equipped with the digital automatic control system BARK-42 and smoke-free burner section which makes the vehicle less visible.

RD-33-10M2, turbojet engine with vectored thrust

The F/A-18E is equipped with two General Electric F414-GE-400 (2x9,990/6,690kgf) engines, developed on the platform of those used on board the F/A18 and some other aircraft, for example, the Swedish Gripen JAS 39 (F404-type bypass engines). Dry weight: 1,107kg; mass-to-power ratio: 0.11kg/kgf. The engine is controlled (like in case with the RD-33MK) by the FADEC-class two-channel digital system. Both engines belong to the same generation, both have close parameters and good prospects for development.

Weights and loads The US vehicle is much heavier than the Russian one: a non-loaded F/A-18E weighs 14,000kg; the MiG-35 weighs 11,300kg (25% less). Average takeoff weight is 21,600kg and 17,500kg, respectively; maximum takeoff weight is 30,000kg and 23,500kg. In terms of weight the F/A-18E has surpassed one of the heaviest 4G fighters F-15C (13,000kg). As for the MiG35, it has also become heavier than its predecessor, but the vehicle has maintained its positions among “medium class fighters”, such as Taifun and Rafale. Super Hornet landing on Nimitz-class aircraft carrier


26 • COOperation • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

3,800km against 3,000km. But as for India, which is not very big, this parameter is hardly to be considered decisive. During escort missions (when all the suspensions carry weapons) the operational range of the F/A-18E totals 780km. In case the Super Hornet attacks land targets (version: three external tanks and four 450-kg bombs) its range turns bigger – 940km; during flight at medium and big heights it grows up to 1,180km. The MiG-35’s ratio “range-combat load” is smaller. For this reason the Boeing-made fighter has certain advantages, having in mind that India wants to substitute its MiG-23BN and MiG-27ML fighters.

Super Hornet in flight

Being heavier, the US aircraft can carry more combat load: 8,000kg in 12 suspension points in comparison with the Russian’s 6,500kg in 12 suspensions. Range The fact that the Super Hornet’s tanks take more fuel (6,530kg) gives this aircraft advantage: its range

(without external fuel tanks) numbers 2,300km against 2,000km for the MiG-35 (which takes on board 4,800kg of fuel). With five external tanks the F/A-18E’s total fuel weight is very big – 14,000kg. This fact even allows using the aircraft as a “flying tanker”. The US aircraft’s ferry range is bigger than that of the Russian one (with three external tanks):

Maneuverable dogfight As a strike aircraft the MiG-35 is inferior to the big Super Hornet, but is leaves the US vehicle behind in air superiority and air defence. In spite of declarations about “death” of dogfights in modern war conditions (specialists often give as an example the war conflict of 1991 in the Middle East, when the American AWACS-guided aircraft shot down “blind” Iraqi vehicles with medium-range missiles) we can assume that if the needed result is not achieved after the first attack – having in mind that two rival aircraft have more or less equal information and antiradar systems – the struggle will pass at a closer distance and subsonic MiG-35 mockup at MAKS’2009. The difference of tail unit’s configuration differs from the one of the demonstrator aircraft


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • COOperation • 27

MiG-35 is equipped with Zhuk-AE phased array antenna

speed. In this aspect the MiG-35, being lighter and more maneuverable, will have advantage. The Russian aircraft with its less wing loading (417kgf/m2 against 465kgf/m2 for the F/A-18E) and higher thrust/weight ratio (1.03 against 0.92) is more maneuverable even without using thrust vector control. Specialists say that the MiG-29OVT has the rotational velocity of 23.5m/sec. (at the height of 3,000m), and the American aircraft, 20.0m/sec.; the overload of stable sharp turn is 7.0 and 6.2 units, respectively. These parameters are likely to remain for the MiG-35 and the F/A-18E. The MiG-35’s super maneuverability is achieved due to aerodynamic scheme with lessened longitudinal stability and 4-channel digital control system combined with high-thrust vector control engines. The F/A-18E is far to possess such characteristics. Long-range air combat Long-range air combats have become the main kind of combat operations in modern conditions. In this aspect the MiG-35 – with its better flight characteristics  – has certain advantages in terms of occupying better position for missile attack. Its maximum speed is higher than that of the F/A-18E (2,100km/h against 1,900km/h). The MiG-35 spends only 13.3-14.0 seconds to achieve 1,100km/h (starting from the speed of 600km/h), while the F/A-18E needs 18.0-18.5 seconds. Their maximum rate of climb is 300m/sec. and 240m/ sec., respectively. In a long-range air combat, however, there are some other important parameters, namely weapons control systems and means of destruction. The MiG35 is equipped with the Zhuk-AE onboard radar with phased array (the system was created on the platform of the Zhuk-ME, used by serial MiG-29K/KUBs), designed by Fazotron-NIIR. The X-radar weighs 200kg; its phased array has 680 modules for transmission/ reception and is 575mm in diameter.

The maximum target detection range with RCS=3m2 for the Zhuk (forward semisphere, keep-out zone) is 130km, and 120km near land; in rear semisphere, 60km (keep-out zone), and 50km near land. The system can work in combined modes; it makes high-precision mapping, including aperture synthesizing (resolution: 1x1m at a distance of up to 20km). The angles of azimuth deflection and elevation deflection are +/-60 degr.; the pulse power is 3.4kW. The nonfailure operating time is not less than 500 hours. In air-to-air mode the system automatically detects and tracks up to 30 air targets providing simultaneous launch of small- and medium-range missiles against six targets. At the same time it does not stop to observe the air area, detect targets, correct missiles’ flight and transmit sighting information to the helmet-integrated system. Mikoyan and Fazotron-NIIR see some new steps in the Zhuk upgrading, in particular its phased array diameter increase up to 688mm and growing of number of modules up to 1.064 units. If this plans become reality all the radar characteristics will im-

prove, including the range of detection (to grow up to 200km and even more) and number of tracked and attacked targets. With that, it is planned to bend 200 the antenna curtain in order to improve detection in upper semisphere. The F/A-18E has got a heavier radar with phased array, the Raytheon AN/APG-79, created on the platform of the AN/APG-73 radar (the latter system is carried by the F/A-18E/F Block 1). The radar is octangular and 200 inclined. Its power makes 70% of the one of the F-22A (AN/APG-77) and it detects targets with RCS=3m2 at a range of 170-180km. It simultaneously tracks up to 20 air targets and provides missile launches against eight targets. The AN/APG’s target detection range can be increased up to 200km. Specialists from Raytheon say that in future their radar will be able to cause damage to enemy radars with the help of powerful impulses. Nobody knows, though, if they are going to offer this technology to India in terms of M-MRCA project. In general, the possibilities of the Russian and the US aircraft in terms of radar equipment are more


28 • COOperation • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

MiG-35 cockpits interior

or less the same; they create equal conditions in a long-range air combat. A serious advantage of the MiG-35 is modern optronic equipment which enables executing missions 24h a day even without radar. The optronic sighting system OLS-UEM (13SM-1) was designed by the Uralsky Optical and Mechanical Plant (UOMZ). It detects enemy targets at a range of up to 70km, provides automatic tracking of various air

targets, target recognition and laser distance detection. Besides, it provides non-synchronous firing, detection, recognition and automatic tracking of land targets. There is no such equipment on board the F/A-18E. Optronic equipment used against land targets The MiG-35 has got the optic circular radar OLSK for better navigation, reconnaissance and target

indication. Mounting under nacelle makes it possible to control the whole bottom semisphere and turn operational one of the 12 suspension points. The OLS-K consists of IR and television channels, laser target indicator and laser spot detection channel. Tank-type targets are detected at a range of 20km; boat-type ones, up to 40km. The container with OLS-K weighs 110kg. The system is able to track several targets, and this fact is an advantage in front of foreign analogs. The Super Hornet uses a quality navigation and sighting system, the AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR, put inside a suspended container (190kg) and providing lowheight navigation, search of land targets, sighting, laser distance measurement and illumination from the height of up to 15km. Low signature parameters At the F/A-18E design stage a big attention was given to making its airframe low-signature. It differs from the Hornet, its predecessor, by low-signature rectangular ram inlets. The latter have got curved intake duct passages which reflect electromagnetic rays. In front of the engine compressor’s blades radial plates are mounted – they decrease secondary radar emission generated by the compressor. There are some other technical decisions which diminish RCS, such as diamond-shaped perforated metallic screens, antiradar coatings on cockpit canopy, ram inlets, air duct passages and on nose part of the fuselage. As a result, the Super Hornet’s average frontal RCS has lowered up to 1.0-1.2m2 (probably in +/-300 angular range, the most critical during target attack). There is few information about the MiG-35 in terms of low signature measures. Specialists from Mikoyan say they have managed to lower its RCS up to less than 1.0m2. Judging by the fighter’s outside appearance, it was made low-signature due to antiradar coatings; the efficiency of this technological decision will only be seen after the MiG-35 becomes operational. Taking into account Mikoyan’s rich experience in this field we can predict that low signature parameters of Boeing- and Mikoyanmade fighters will be more or less the same.


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • COOperation • 29

Damage control Boeing representatives say that the airframe’s “vulnerable” area has become less than the F/A18C/D had (13% against 25%). The Super Hornet has got new spongy filler for its fuel tanks and new fire extinguishing system with “passive foam” and inert gas. In case an element of the control system comes out of order, the fly-by-wire system automatically chooses proper operational mode without pilot’s participation. For example, if one of controlled stabilizers gets damaged, all of them – without pilot’s interference – take neutral position, and the pitch guidance passes with the help of other aerodynamic surfaces. The MiG-35’s damage control system is in general the same. Nevertheless, the Super Hornet’s bigger dimensions let us think it has wider possibilities in this aspect. In terms of radio warfare, the materials in mass media do not give enough information to compare the two fighters, and nobody knows what variant India prefers in principle.

support. The lateral multifunctional 130mm indicators are the same as for the F/A-18C/D, and the central-positioned one became bigger, 160x160mm – it is an LCD showing the map of overflown territory. To show how the engines work and fuel is consumed, a programmed monochrome LCD (75x130mm) is used. It gives information in graphic form (earlier it was presented digitally). MiG-35. The most part of its avionics was created by Avionika Concern, headed by Ramenskoe Design Bureau. The cockpit looks even more “futuristic” than the one of the US fighter: it has three multifunctional indicators MFI 10-7 (150x200mm) which  – along with “traditional” data – present digital map of overflown territory, situation in the nearby air space, on land/water surface and work in mixed modes. The MiG-35 has got a wide-angle collimating indicator with improved parameters (in particular, its look-up angle is 26 degr. – the rest MiGs have only 18 degr.). As a result, the pilot can estimate situation much better and use his onboard weapons with higher efficiency, especially in dogfights.

Avionics The circuit “pilot-onboard radioelectronic system” turns in our days more and more important when we speak about manned aircraft. Operational efficiency wholly depends on this aspect, and Mikoyan and Boeing specialists perfectly know that. F/A-18E. Instead of indicators with tape scale it has got a 75x130mm monochrome multifunctional LCD which shows all the data referring navigation, friend-or-foe system, radio communication and EW

Weapons In terms of weapons both fighters have equal possibilities. They carry air-to-air missiles (AIM-9X for the Super Hornet and R-73 for the MiG-35 – the latter were presented at MAKS’2009 as RVV-MD) and guided medium-range missiles, AIM-120C AMRAAM and RVV-SD, respectively. Both fighters have builtin guns, the 20mm M61A1 Volcano (six-barrelled) on board the Super Hornet and the 30mm GSh-30 (single-barrelled) on board the MiG-35.

Super Hornet cockpits interior


30 • COOperation • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

To destroy land and water surface targets, the US fighter uses the AGM-65, AGM-88 HARM, AGM-84H SLAM-ER, and AGM-84A missiles. As for the Russian aircraft, it takes on board the cutting-edge guided missiles Kh-38ME (various versions), Kh-35UE, Kh-31AD and other missiles. By parameters the Russian missiles are practically the same as the US ones. Operational peculiarities Big self-sustainment level for both fighters was achieved due to new technical and technological decisions. For instance, both vehicles have got on board an oxygen station. The MiG-35 can land on unorganized aerodromes at nighttime and in difficult weather conditions. During a combat mission a group of MiG-35s can quickly disperse and escape from the enemy. The takeoff run for the MiG-35 is 500m; the run length, 550m. The use of a ski-ramp lessens the takeoff run to 200m, and the landing distance turns much shorter due to the thrust vector control system. The Super Hornet, being a fighter for aircraft carriers, uses arresting units and cats – its flight strip is 200-400m long. In general, in everyday operational conditions takeoff and landing characteristics are the same for both aircraft. The MiG-35’s service life is not less than 40 years; its sortie rate exceeds 6,000h. It has got safe airframe, powerplant and avionics. In comparison with the MiG29, the number of units with limited service life has lessened 250 percent. As for the Super Hornet, it is planned to increase its service life limit from 8,000 to 10,000h, as media report. Compared characteristics of F/A-18E and MiG-35 Aircraft

F/A-18E

MiG-35

Wing span, m

11.43

11.99

Length, m

18.31

17.30

Height, m

4.88

4.50

2

46.45

42.00

Weight of empty aircraft, kg

14,000

11,300

Standard takeoff weight, kg

21,600

17,500

Wing area, m

Maximum takeoff weight, kg

30,000

23,500

Weight of fuel in internal tanks, kg

6,530

4,800

Maximum combat load, kg

8,000

6,500

Maximum speed, km/h

1,900

2,100

250

300

Operational ceiling, m

15,240

17,500

Practical range without external fuel tank(s), km

2,300

2,000

Ferry range with external fuel tank(s), km

3,800

3,000

550

620*

600

700**

Climb rate, m/sec.

Takeoff distance, m Run length, m * – without using cat ** – without using aircraft arresting unit

General estimations In terms of characteristics and combat potential the F/A-18E and MiG-35 stand on the same scale; no one has serious advantages. The US aircraft is a bit better in strike missions, and the Russian one is more maneuverable and better adapted for air defence. India should decide what qualities to choose. Speaking about the Indian tender we should mention that during several decades India has been having at its disposal Russian- and French-made aircraft (together with airborne weapons). As a result, its combat air fleet can now use both French and Russian weapons on board (in particular, air-to-air missiles). If the F/A-18E wins, it does not mean that India will stop upgrading and acquiring new MiG-29s, Su-30MKIs, MiG-21UPG, and Mirage 2000s – all these vehicles will continue their service. After choosing the Super Hornet India will get US-made missiles, and it will take much time and money to adapt Russian weapons to American carriers, and vice versa. If India does not run the adaptation process, its airborne weapons will exist “in parallel”, which is simply unacceptable. It is worth mentioning that there are some more participants in the tender. From France, it is the mul-


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • COOperation • 31

tirole fighter Dassault Rafale (we will speak about this vehicle in detail in the next Arsenal issue). After the decision to mount radar stations with phased array on exported Rafale aircraft this company has today far better chances to win. The Swedish SAAB Gripen NG is one more competitor. It is the most “lightweight” vehicle among the tender participants, but it is very cost-effective, and in future – no matter how the tender ends – it will play more important role in the international aircraft market “making life a burden” for the main exported US aircraft, the 5G F-35 Lightning II. The last participant, Lockheed Martin F-16, can be called outsider. This aircraft, belonging to 4G vehicles – as well as the MiG-35 and the F/A-18E/F – does not have wide-scale innovations (it is equipped with phased array, though) but it belongs to the family of fighters with good reputation in dozens of countries, gained after more than 30 years of service. To end, let us repeat that in spite of all the pros and cons the “champion” will be chosen by India who is “chief referee” in this competition. Vladimir Ilyin

Initially Dassault Rafale, as well as Super Hornet, was designed to be a carrier-based fighter

Swedish Gripen stands among the tender participants


32 • MAKS 2009 • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

MAKS’2009 D

espite the worldwide crisis, this year’s MAKS’2009 – the International Aerospace Saloon held on the territory of Europe’s biggest flight test base near Zhukovsky, south of Moscow – gave the Russian industry a punch of new orders estimated at US dollar 10 billion. The show dates were 18 – 23 August inclusive. The most important contracts came from the Russian Ministry of Defense for a total of 64 Sukhoi jetfighters types Su-27SM, Su-30 and Su-35. Separately, MoD ordered 14 types of missiles from Tactical Missiles Corporation (Russian acronym TRV). Ilyushin Finance leasing company signed for 90 mainline and regional jetliners types Il-96, Tu-204 and An-148. Airfreight Aviation from United Arab Emirates (UAE) placed order for 20 Mi-171 helicopters. These orders came timely and helped the striving Russian industry to sustain the worldwide economic downturn. Russia suffers the crisis more

than many other countries, due to a big decline in sales of oil, natural gas, metal and timber – the nation’s primary export products. The first two quarters of 2009 showed double-digit decline in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP): in the first half of 2009 the GDP dropped by 15%. In the third quarter of 2009 the decline reduced to 8.9% (economic output dropped by 9.4%), yet it was largest among BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries. Hard currency income from sales of oil and natural gas halved compared to 2008. Foreign investors pull their money out of Russia, creating a shortage of capital in the local financial market. This entails high interest rates, at 14 to 20%. At the same time, China had a rise of 7.7% and India at 6.1%. It is important for the Russian industry, since both nations are largest buyers of Russian military equipment. This year (not at MAKS’2009, though) China awarded Russia

MAKS is special in that it has numerous anti-aircraft systems on display, and able to bring down everything that flies there

a number of new orders, including large ones for the AL-31FN engines (to equip J-10 fighters) and D-30KP2 turbofans (for Il-76 air lifters and other designs). India ordered additional Mi-17 helicopters and Su-30MKI fighters. These and other recent orders from the great Asian powers certainly improved the mood of the Russian manufacturers exhibiting at MAKS’2009. Overall, the ninth event in the chain of biannual aerospace shows was in many ways controversial. A number of local and foreign manufacturers traditionally ordering big exhibition space at MAKS were absent this year. Those who did participate multiplied their marketing and PR efforts. They tried hard to draw attention of the government leaders and general public to recent achievements and key technological developments. A total of 735 companies ordered space at the show. Foreign participants made between one-


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • MAKS 2009 • 33

fourth and one-third, with the largest being EADS, ESA, Safran, Thales, Finmeccanica, Boeing, United Technologies, AVIC, HAL, and IAI. The exhibitors placed orders for a bit less than 30 thousand square meters of indoor space, 7% down from 2005. As a result, the show organizers did not manage to fill in all of their pavilions measuring 31,750 square meters. At the same time, the whole of open space sites, measuring 7,840 square meters, were occupied, and many of the participants had to place their exhibits “in the field” (green area between pavilions). The number of chalets rose to 83 and required a huge effort from the organizers to erect them all on time. MAKS’2009 attracted 550 thousand visitors (470 thousand came on public days) compared to 600 thousand in 2007 and 400 thousand in 2005. In part, the decline to 2007 figure was due to the fact that the Russian Air Force reduced its participation in MAKS’2009 flight display program. The major attraction of the show in Zhukovsky, namely spectacular flight display involving performances of Russian super agile fighters of Sukhoi and Mikoyan designs, was partly curtailed after the midair collision of a Su-27 fighter and a Su-27UB operational trainer belonging to the Russian Knights air display team of the Russian Air Force. The collision happened in the morning of 16 August, during general rehearsal of opening day flight performance. Two pilots (Igor Kurilenko and Vitaly Melnik) ejected safely, but Colonel Igor Tkachenko died at the controls of this Su-27UB side number 18. The air collision happened when the Russian Knights were changing formation after having completed their flight display rehearsal. Flying in clouds, the ill-fated Su-27 side number 14 crashed into the Su-27UB from above, with its air intakes striking nose section of the lower-flying twin-seater. Furthermore, the US Air Force, present with dozens of its aircraft at MAKS’2005 and MAKS’2007, did not come this year. This contributed to a decline in number of aircraft on display. This year MAKS visitors saw only 189 airplanes and helicopters,

including 39 brought by foreign participants. The number of aircraft taking part in aerial display was 84, performing a total of 241 flights. Among foreignmade aircraft the best-performing were the Rafale fighter and C-27J Spartan tactical air lifter. The opening day of 18 August was marked by the arrival of Vladimir Putin. The chairman of the Russian government took part in the opening ceremony. Then, he watched flight display lasting less than half-an-hour and then made a three-hour tour, inspecting exhibition halls and aircraft on static display. In the evening of 18 August, Vladimir Putin chaired session of the Russian government. It was held behind closed doors in the newly erected MAKS media center. Formally, the session was devoted to civil aviation. But the discussion, which lasted for hours on the day’s end, went much further than that, touching on many strategic and military programs and the situation in the whole of Russian aerospace industry. Putin applied some heavy critics towards leaders of state-controlled enterprises for their slow reaction to changing economic environments and bad management. A number of Russian aviation programs generate losses, including slow-rate production of commercial jetliners and even certain military exports. But the industry finds it difficult to make them profitable in the current market conditions, the time of downturn in the global economy.

The Russian leader said he will not tolerate unprofitable industrial programs any more. He threatened to stop government financial support to local manufacturers if they fail to generate a profit. Putin said that this year the Russian government invested Ruble 80 billion into local aviation industry and will continue with large-scale investments. Additional financial injections shall help rebuild the Russian aviation industry and make it competitive in the international market for not only combat aircraft but also commercial jetliners. Vladimir Karnozov


34 • MAKS 2009 • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

New orders

for Russian fighters

T

he MAKS’2009 air show provided convenient place for the Russian air force to demonstrate, for the first time, a number of its new acquisitions. Although aircraft of the same types had been on display earlier, these had been development prototypes owned by the industry: the Su-24M2, Su25SM, Su-27SM, Su-34, MiG-29SMT, MiG-31BM and Yak-130. In addition to operable examples of the above mentioned types taken from line units, the Russian Air Force brought to the show a Tu-160 (“Nikolai Kuznetsov”, side 10) and a Tu-95MS (“Samara”, side 21) strategic bombers, an An-22 air lifter (“old but gold”, a rare bird, at MAKS for the first time – RA09309) and an A-50 (side 50) airborne early warning and control aircraft. This bunch of flyable hardware was brought to Zhukovsky to support a big effort on publicizing new large orders for the domestic manufacturers. On the MAKS’2009 opening day, Russia’s Ministry of Defense (MoD) awarded Sukhoi a huge contract, for a total of 64 Flanker series fighters. This order is the

biggest one for Russian jetfighters coming from local customer since demise of the Soviet Union. Sukhoi shall deliver twelve Su-27SM single seat and four Su30M2 multirole fighters in 2009-2011, and 48 Su-35 single-seat multirole fighters in 2010-2015. The Su-30M2 and the Su-35 aircraft are ordered new, while the Su-27SM airframes are rebuilds of Su-27 aircraft from line units. This comes with a rider that some sources claim the twelve additional Su27SM aircraft will rather be newly assembled than converted from already-flown examples. Since 2003 the air force has been sending its Su-27s to the manufacturing plant in Komsomolskupon-Amur (KnAAPO, maker of the Su-30M2s and Su-35s) for repairs, lifetime extension and modernization work. The Russian Air Force already operates about 40 Su-27SMs converted earlier from Su-27s. One of those, side 06, was on display. This aircraft operates with the Fourth Center of Combat Usage and Aircrew Personnel Retraining headquartered in Lipetsk. The Side 06 was delivered back in 2003, one from the early batch.

As a part of the upgrade work, the Su-27SM aircraft will receive new avionics (which involves replacing of dial instruments for multifunctional displays with color liquid crystal panels) and rebuild engines (AL-31F turbofans will undergo extensive work at MMPP Salut plant with involving replacement of their low-pressure compressors with new ones with increased diameter and air flow, - those will deliver more thrust and have extended lifetime). In addition to awarding this order for the 64 Flankers, the ministry officials seized the opportunity at MAKS’2009 to officially confirm that earlier the MoD awarded Sukhoi an order for 32 additional Su-34 interdiction aircraft – in Russia they are classified as frontal bombers. Those will be assembled at Novosibirsk aircraft plant (NAPO). According to Russian media, the MoD plans to have sixty Su-34 frontal bombers in line units by 2015. At MAKS’2009 the Russian Air Force exhibited the Su-34 side 01. This one was delivered in 2006. Two more aircraft of that batch, and three semi-experimental Su-34s had also been assembled at NAPO.


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • MAKS 2009 • 35

These are now undergoing firing trials at Akhtubinsk air force base, Astrakhan region, southern Russia. The Russian Air Force also exhibited a MiG-31BM, with “M” letter in the suffix point for modernization work done on the aircraft at the Sokol plant in Nizhny Novgorod. The plant has been carrying out work on in-service MiG-31 interceptors for several years now. It focuses on lifetime extension and upgrade of avionics equipment, including the Zaslon radar with electronically scanned phased array antenna from Tikhomirov NIIP (Scientific Research Institute named after Tikhomirov). The upgrade work on the radar, replacement of processing units and installation of new software considerably enhances MiG-31’s target detection and strike capability. It enables the formerly pure interceptor to see and engage ground targets. This large aircraft, capable of sustained supercruise (cruise flight at speed higher than the speed of sound), remains the key element of Russia’s air defense system. The Sokol plant is also contracted by the Russian Air Force to supply Yak-130 advanced jet trainers. The service already uses aircraft of the initial batch co-owned with the industry. At MAKS’2009 the air force exhibited side 090, the first Yak-130 airframe built purposely for line units (in this case for Kachenskoye flight school of the Russian Air Force). The side 90 was the newest of all aircraft at MAKS’2009: it took to the air for the first time on 19 May this year. The aircraft was accepted by the air force days before the show started. The Sokol plant officials said three more airframes shall be delivered this year and eight more in 2010, according to the contract with the Russian Air Force for a total of 12 units. The service is expected to buy up to sixty Yak-130s for flight schools. The side 90 spent all of the show time on static display, while another Yak-130 (side 01) participated in flight display. This airframe belongs to the industry. It is being used for assessment of English-language cockpit developed for foreign customers. Exportable

Yak-130s are assembled at Irkutsk plant of the Irkut Corporation. Algeria ordered 16 Yak-130A aircraft (suffix “A” stands for Algeria) with extended functionality, including coastal patrol and anti-shipping. First of them had its first flight from the aerodrome of the manufacturing plant on 21 August 2009 (i.e. when the show was on). Nine Yak-130As are said to be ready for delivery by the year-end. In addition to Yak-130, Irkut makes Su-30MK series fighters with vectored thrust for India, Malaysia and Algeria. Irkut president Oleg Demchenko held a press conference at MAKS’2009. He said 22 out of 28 Su-30MKA fighters ordered by Algeria had been delivered. On the eve of LIMA-2009 Irkut reported about having delivered the remaining six aircraft to that customer. A day before MAKS’2009 opening the Royal Malaysian Air Force accepted the last Su-30MKIs out of 18 ordered. Same month Irkut completed deliveries of 18 Su-30MKIs to India as replacement for 18 Su30Ks. Russia purchases from India earlier delivered Su-30Ks so as to allow the customer operate a uniform fleet of Sukhoi Flanker fighters, all corresponding to a single specification, that of the Su-30MKI. The Su-30MKI side 02 owned by the industry participated in flight display, demonstrating breathtaking maneuvers centering on the use of thrustvectoring. The most advanced Russian fighters displayed at MAKS’2009 were the Su-35 and MiG-35, in the form of development prototypes. The aircraft opened the show flying in a four-unit formation with a Superjet 100 and Su-30MKI. Core avionics for both the Su-35 and MiG-35 is developed by Ramenskoe PKB, a member in Avionika concern headed by Givi Dzhandzhgava. Even for an inexperienced eye, a brief inspection of the Su35 crew station provides enough evidence to assert that its information and control field is more advanced than that of the competing western designs including the Rafale, Eurofighter EF-2000 Typhoon and the F-22A Raptor. In fact, the Su-35’s crew station seems to at the

Su-35 cockpit features high-angle HUD and wide MFDs

level of the F-35 Lightning II. Both the Su-35 and the MiG-35 incorporated revolutionary design solutions in terms of high degree of integration of various advanced sensor and artificial intellect subsystems. Both are enabled with multi-channel observation, targeting and weapons control functions. The MiG-35 offered to the Indian air force corresponds to the latest revision of the HOTAS (hands-on-throttle-and-stick) concept coupled with the elements of the synthetic vision using the helmet-mounted sight and wide-angle head-up display. It seems that the Russian Air Force decision made late last year on acceptance of the MiG-29SMT prompted India to, finally, signing the agreement on upgrade of some 70 early model MiG-29s. At this time details on the Indian upgrade deal remain scarce. It is yet to be known whether the customer decided to upgrade the airplane’s original N-019 Topaz radar or replace it by newer Zhuk-M. The latter was the choice of Yemen and Eritrea, the launch customers for the MiG-29SMT. These nations already operate this type of aircraft.

MiG-29KUB in Indian navy colors on static line had Kh-38 and Kh-59MK2 missiles beneath it


36 • MAKS 2009 • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

Initially, the Russian Air Force was favoring the upgrade option, but accepted the Zhuk in late 2008. One airframe so equipped was on display at MAKS’2009. This particular aircraft, side 03, is one of the 24 MiG-29SMT single-seat multirole fighters the Russian Air Force acquired in late 2008 and the first half of 2009. This acquisition is part of a bigger deal between the Russian government and RSK MiG (Russian Aircraft-manufacturing Corporation “MiG”). The deal was made public in February, when chairman of the Russian government Vladimir Putin paid a visit to RSK’s Engineering Center named after Artyom Mikoyan. The Russian government agreed to render financial support to the ailing manufacturer. The rescue package is worth Ruble 30 billion. Half of it was provided early this year. The second half is expected by the year-end or early next year. With that, the Russian MoD was encouraged to buy ex-Algerian Air Force MiG-29 fighters from the stock of the manufacturer.

Algeria signed for 28 MiG-29SMT single-seat multirole fighters and six MiG-29UBT twin seat operational trainers in 2006. Of those fifteen were delivered before the customer informed the manufacturer that he was not happy with the manufacturing quality of those aircraft and did not accept them. After a lengthy negotiating process all of these fifteen airframes were shipped back to Russia and placed in the RSK MiG’s stock. Under the terms of the deal between the Kremlin and RSK MiG, the Russian Air Force will take all of the 34 “Algerian” MiGs by the year-end. The manufacturer has to install relevant friend-or-foe and radio communications equipment into these aircraft. The Russian government and RSK MiG continue negotiations so as to work out a working scheme that would enable the manufacturer fulfill obligations before its foreign customers. India is one of those. In addition to upgrade of early model MiG-29 fighters in service with the Indian Air Force, New Delhi holds order for 16 MiG-29K/KUB deck fighters for the Indian Navy air arm. The manufacturer says its order backlog stands at US dollar four billion, but it feels short of cash to implement the contracts (estimations of company’s debts, depending on source of such information, range between one and two billion dollars). Most of the respective contracts call for relatively small prepayment, with the buyer paying off upon actual deliveries of aircraft. Up to a dozen of MiG-29K/KUB aircraft have been completed, and are due for shipping to India. Some of those are involved in various testing and personnel training programs. The MiG-29KUB side 804 carrying Indian Navy insignia was on static display at MAKS’2009. On 28 September a MiG-29KUB side 672, also in the Indian Navy markings, made landing on the deck of the Russian Navy Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier as part of the type’s flight trials. The carrier was out in the Barents Sea for these trials. In 2003 India ordered 12 MiG-29K single-seat and 4 MiG-29KUB twin seat fighters. The respective contract comes with an option for more such aircraft (reportedly, 29), which India is expected to firm up in 2010, after accessing the aircraft of the initial batch. The Russian Navy officials issued a very positive report on the performance of the Indian Navy aircraft in the flight trials. These commenced in early 2007, when the first airframe built to the Indian Navy specification, side 941, took to the air. Upon successful carrier landings and takeoffs, the Russian Navy announced plans on purchase of 26 MiG-29K/KUB aircraft which would supplement and partly replace ageing Su-33 (Su-27K) deck fighters that currently equip the Admiral Kuznetsov. Admittedly, the Russian Navy launched upgrade on its remaining Su-33s including avionics replacement and installation of more powerful AL-31F-M1


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • MAKS 2009 • 37

engines. One set of these engines have been shipped by MMPP Salut to the main base of the Russian Navy air arm in Severomorsk. It may happen than the Indian deck fighters will be equipped with some fairy capable missiles whose types were not initially on the specification. Russia may offer new types of missiles as sweeteners: the completion of the Vikramaditya carrier (Project 1143.0) at Sevmash shipyard has been postponed for 2012. This «STOBAR» (short takeoff but arrested recovery) ship is a rebuild of the ex-Soviet Navy aircraft carrying cruiser Admiral Gorshkov of Project 1143.4 commissioned in 1987. The rebuild involves turning the ship into a through-deck carrier with sky ramp in the forward and arrestors in the aft sections of the upper (flight) deck. At MAKS’2009 the MiG-29KUB side 804 in the Indian Navy colors was exhibited on the static with a Kh-59MK2 and a Kh-38 missile beneath it. The all-new Kh-38 air-to-surface missile debuted at MAKS’2007. This year its manufacturer, the Tactical Missile Corporation (Russian acronym TRV) released more information on this and other new designs. The new missile will exist in four main versions: the Kh38MAE with an active radar head, Kh-38MTE with a heat imager, Kh-38MKE employing satellite guidance and Kh-38MLE with laser beam targeting. Geometry is the same: length 4.2m, fuselage diameter 0.31, wingspan 1.14m. Warhead weighing 250kg can be high explosive/fragmentation, cassette or penetrating. Powered by two-mode solid-fuel engine, the Kh38 travels supersonically, at M=2.2, maximum firing range is 40km. The Kh-59MK2 is a new member in the evolving 59 series. At MAKS’2007 TRV revealed Kh-59ME and Kh-59MK with ARGS-59E active radar seeker, along with the Kh-59MK2 with further improved TV guidance (coupled with terrain- and target-recognition system). The Kh-59MK2 weighs 900kg (320kg for warhead) and has a firing range of 285km. The TV version was on display at MAKS’2009 in two variants, the baseline Kh-59ME and improved Kh-59M2E. Both are targeted using Ovod-ME system that includes a targeting pod suspended to carrying aircraft. The carrier aircraft shall be a twin seater, with weapons officer targeting the missile by the picture its camera relays to the aircraft. The M2E variant is 30kg heavier than the baseline model. It has improved data exchange system with the carrier aircraft and a more sensitive low-TV camera. India is not the only intended customer for these and other TRV products. At MAKS’2009 the Russian MoD awarded the manufacturer a Ruble 6 billion order. The customer did not elaborate further on details of that deal. For its part, TRV said in 2008 its deliveries were Ruble 30.5 billion, 10% up from 2007. At MAKS’2009 TRV unveiled the Kh-35UE anti-ship missile. It represents a much reworked Kh-35 that went

into Indian service in 1999. The UE version has a new, more fuel efficient engine in lieu of the R95TM300 dual flow turbojet. As a result, the firing range rises from 130 to 260km. The missile cruises at Mach 0.85, at altitude of 10-15m, lowering to 4m when closing onto target. After launch the Kh-35UE can execute a 130-degree turn to target compared to 90 degree for the initial version. Now, the missile can be launched from altitude of 10km instead of 5km previously. Improved active radar seeker has target search range of 50km instead of 20. Guidance is improved through use of satellite navigation. Airplane-launch version weighs 550kg. That for use from helicopter is 100kg heavier, as it uses starts using a solid booster. Warhead is 145kg in both cases. At MAKS’2009 TRV unveiled new versions of the Kh-31 supersonic missile. The Kh-31AD anti-ship missile features twice the range and 15% heavier warhead. Compared to the baseline Kh-31A, it can sustain 15 landings on aircraft instead of 10, and withstand 70 hours on pylon of a flying carrier aircraft instead of 35. The Kh-31PD is further evolution of the Kh-31P anti-radiation missile, with firing range increased to 180-250km (when launched from an aircraft flying at 15,000m, at speed corresponding to Mach number 1.5). It weighs 715kg, including 110kg warhead. In its leaflets, TRV published images of a Su-30MK fighter launching a Kh-58UShKE anti-radiation missile, another new product under development. The missile

has a range of 245km, accelerating to 4,200km/h. Weighing 650kg, it has a 149kg warhead. The Tactical Missile Corporation also released some information on new versions of 1,500kg and 500kg caliber guided bombs. The KAB1500 LG-F-E (K022E) weighs 1,525kg, including 440kg of explosive. This version features a laser, gyro stabilized warhead proving accuracy of 4-7m. The KAB500S-E is another version of the long-serving KAB-500, featuring satellite guidance. New developments in the air-to-air missiles available for close inspection at MAKS’2009 included the RVV-MD short range weapon, further evolution of the long-serving R-73. It features increased firing range, now at 40km in the case of targets flying at altitudes between 20m and 20km. The RVV-MD missile weighs 106kg, including 8kg for warhead. The RVV-AE (another designation R-77, dubbed “Amraamski” in the West) provided base for the RVVSD medium range weapon. The newer version is made longer (3,710mm against 3,600) and heavier (190kg against 175), to extend firing range from 80 to 110km. The SD can defeat target maneuvering with 12g, while AE is limited to 9g. With a vast backlog of orders, the Russian jetfighters and their guided munitions continue to evolve. The next-generation PAK FA fighter, that is due to have its maiden flight in 2010, will further expand and extend this evolution. Vladimir Karnozov


38 • MAKS 2009 • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

AESA radar for next-generation fighter

U

nveiling of the active electronically scanned array (AESA) for Russia’s next-generation fighter was the most sensational and intriguing event of MAKS’2009. The radar was on display on the opening day of 18 August, but not for general public. The covering cloth was removed for a short period of time, just enough to demonstrate the device to the chairman of the Russian government Vladimir Putin and his entourage. For two more days the radar remained under cloth cover. Finally, it was unveiled at noon of August 20, after all necessary permissions from the competent organizations had been obtained. It was rumored that the general public were shown some sort of substitute. But the device maker, Tikhomirov’s NIIP (Scientific research institute of Instrument Building named after Tikhomirov), insisted the unit on display was the real thing that underwent a series of tests earlier in 2009. Such a statement was made to the journalists by Anatoly Sinani, chief designer at NIIP and the genius behind all electronically scanned antenna designs from the institute. The radar is said to be operating in the X-band and having more than a thousand of solid-state receiving-and-transmitting modules. Certain Russian media suggested than the actual number of the modules is little over 1,500. The media also suggested that this particular radar is intended for PAK FA, Russian acronym for the Future Aviation Complex of Frontal Aviation, which is effectively the fifth-generation fighter of the Russian

air force. The media also suggested the name for the new radar as the N-050, to reflect the inner designation of the PAK FA with Sukhoi – the T-50. A development prototype of PAKFA is expected to fly in 2010. Initial flight tests shall complete in 2012 so as initial production batch of these aircraft commences operational trials with the Russian air force in 2014-15. In his interviews with the local media at MAKS’2009, Tikhomirov’s NIIP director Yuri Beliy said his company had been selected by the Russian MoD

to lead development of the AESA radar for the nextgeneration fighter. He further said the aircraft will actually have a totally new architecture of its sensor system. Its radar set will consists of several antennas operating in X- and L- bands. Some of the antennas will be fitted into leading edges of the wing. Figuratively speaking, outward surface of the future fighter aircraft shall be something of “intelligent skin”, i.e. equipped with built-in sensors, including specially shaped (not to spoil aerodynamics) radar antennas. The element base for the radar is of Russian origin, using technologies of GaAs nano structures. Belyi stressed that NIIP has been keeping leading positions in advanced airborne radar technologies for more than forty years. The company developed the world’s first fighter-class electronically scanned radar, the RLPK-31 Zaslon. It went into service on the MiG-31 interceptor in 1981. The Russian air force MiG-31 fleet is now undergoing upgrade. The work calls for implementation of various technology insertions in the radar to achieve higher reliability, longer ranges and introduce additional working modes. Development of the new radar goes on schedule agreed with Sukhoi, the developer of the next-generation fighter. In November 2008 NIIP completed intermediate development phase of laboratory testing on the X-band radar prototype. Then, it commenced testing of the first radar prototype on a comprehensive testing stand. While the testing proved key technologies and design solutions workable, NIIP encountered a number of issues requiring additional effort to be resolved. Beliy said the company is now working out on perfecting the key technologies which requires introducing certain changes to the tested hardware. In parallel, the company is assembling a second prototype in the view of its completion by the year-end.

PAK FA-intended radar (center), the genius behind its antenna design Anatoly Sinani (left) and Tikhomirov’s NIIP General director Yuri Beliy (right) at MAKS’2009


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • MAKS 2009 • 39

The research and development program calls for several prototypes to be assembled and tested on stands and aboard an aircraft in flight. Belyi said that the proposal to create a test-bed aircraft especially for in-flight radar trials have been accepted by the customer. The test bed shall fly in the middle of 2010. Meantime, testing in laboratory conditions will continue using modern non-echo chambers at NIIP, equipped to “very latest standards”. The key elements of AESA radar – its solid-state receiving and transmitting modules – are supplied by NPP Istok (Scientific Industrial Enterprise “Istok”) based in Fryazino, Moscow region. Belyi said that the enterprise has mastered low-rate production of the modules in sufficient numbers for NIIP to carry out the AESA radar development. At the same time, massive production of affordable modules is something that on agenda and requires a special effort. Another key participant of the AESA radar program is the State Radio Plant in Ryazan (Russian acronym GRPZ). This company participates in the development process and prepares for mass production of AESA radars. Today, the enterprise assembled various radars for different applications, including NIIP-developed N-011M Bars equipping the Su-30MK series fighters and the N-035 Irbis-E intended for the Su-35. Belyi said the technologies being developed for the radar in question will at some point of time be shared with the Indian partners in frame of the Russo-Indian joint effort on development of the fifth-generation fighter aircraft. Respective program is referred to as the FGFA. This airplane is expected to enter service with the Indian air force in 201718. The airframe design and key technologies of the FGFA and PAK FA shall be in common. Besides, the Indian air force is offered a mid-life upgrade program on its Su-30MKI fleet. It would, at some point of time, involve installation of an AESA in

lieu of the electronically scanned passive antenna on today’s N-011M Bars. The offer is shaped so as the Indian industry would participate in the respective industrial effort and master newest high technologies in the process. Furthermore, NIIP is proposing its own solution for the Indian version of the MiG-35 now competing stern rivals in the MMRCA tender for 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft. As of this time, MiG-35 prototypes are equipped with an experimental AESA radar from another Russian specialist, PhazotronNIIR corporation. It is important to notice that Phazotron was the first of Russian design houses to unveil a fighterclass AESA. The unit was on display at MAKS’2005. Then, at Aero India 2007 Phazotron general designer Yuri Guskov demonstrated Indian journalists a solid-state receiving and transmitting module developed for the Zhuk-AE. The latter is Phazotron’s offer for the Indian version of the MiG-35. Guskov was demonstrating the module behind the MiG-35 prototype exhibited at Aero India’2007. Invited members of the media was then shown the experimental example of the Zhuk-AE radar actually installed on the aircraft, for which RSK MiG ground crews dismounted the radar cone.

At Aero India’2009 the same MiG-35 prototype was flown by Indian pilots who were allowed to turn on the radar. The pilots then told the media that they actually saw the radar working, detecting aerial targets and displaying them on the MFDs. In its turn, Phazotron issued press releases stating that the Zhuk-AE radar was successfully going through its paces, with the promise to have the radar development completed by the time the MiG-35 – if selected by the Indian air force in MMRCA tender – goes into series production. Vladimir Karnozov

Phazotron-NIIR General designer Yuri Guskov demonstrates Zhuk-АE’s transceiver module


40 • MAKS 2009 • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

AIRBORNE WEAPONS AT

MAKS 2009

O

ne of the main events of the airshow in Zhukovsky was the 2-year contract signed between the Russian Air Force and Tactical Missiles Corp. (TRV) and dealing with shipment of up-to-date airborne weapons. At the press-conference colonel-general Alexander Zelin, Commander-In-Chief of the Russian Air Force, said “it is planned to acquire 14 kinds of weapons, and the sum is about 6 billion rubles”. This fact says that the Russian Air Force has finally started is “revival”, for its arsenal has been remaining “untouched” since the early 1990s, and today can be hardly considered modern. This contract proves that many branches of the national defence industry managed to overcome the difficulties of the collapse occurred with the Soviet military-industrial complex, to restore cooperation and to achieve serious results in comparison with those that we had in the past (long-drawn R & D projects, single orders for foreign partners, etc.). In terms of the contract new weapons against airborne, land and water surface targets will be shipped. Zelin stressed that this contract is one of the most important in the history of newborn Russia. Notably, the missiles and guided bombs to be acquired will not be used onboard 5G aircraft, since those vehicles are going to appear in the Russian Air Force only in the mid-2010s; most probably they will Alexander Zelin, Commander-In-Chief of the Russian Air Force


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • MAKS 2009 • 41

be used by such aircraft as the Su-25SM, Su-27SM, Su-34, Su-35, MiG-29SMT, and MiG-35 – part of these vehicles is already operational, and another part will become operational in two or three years. Some new weapons – in export version – were presented at the stand of the Tactical Missiles Corporation, directed by Boris V. Obnosov. Obnosov, at the pressconference where he took part, said: “We have created efficient weapons with characteristics comparable with the western ones. Today we are at the stage when we are able not only to ship our products to traditional partners abroad but to our own Air Force as well. I say once again: our products are not worse than the best western items. We have made enormous work creating new weapons for our Air Force. I have always stressed that the main task of our holding is create armaments for national armed forces. Yes, it is good to have foreign customers, but they must stay always the second. The priority must be given to the combat potential of our aircraft systems. Today’s exhibition is very important for us. You have seen in our exposition many products made for export. The nearest two  – three years will be even more tense. We hope all the planned state tests  – the schedule is very rigid – pass successfully”. GUIDED AIR-TO-AIR MISSILES For the first time at the exhibition there were demonstrated air-to-air missiles created by Vympel Design Bureau (company belonging to Tactical Missiles Corp.) and designed both for aircraft in use today and for those which will be upgraded. RVV-MD is a highly-maneuverable short-range missile created on the platform of the R-73E. The latter was designed in the distant 1980s, but today remains one of the best in its class. In fact, aerodynamic design, arrangement and dimensions of the RVV-MD are the same as the basic model has. The pointing system works in the following manner: the double-range IR warhead (pointing angles: ±60 degr.; angle of travel of corrector: ±75 degr.) provides allaspect passive IR homing guidance. The modernized combined aerogasdynamic control system makes the missile highly maneuverable and with bigger angles of attack in comparison with the R-73E. It hits targets maneuvering with overloads up to 12 un. (maximum for modern aircraft and UAVs). The RVV-MD has high jam immunity, thus enabling efficient results in difficult conditions (incl. near the ground) and under enemy jamming blanket. It is powered by a dry-fuel fixed-thrust engine. There are two modifications of the missile which differ by their explosive devices: one with laser non-contact target sensor (RVV-MDL) and the other with radar noncontact sensor (RVV-MD). The warhead weighs 8kg. The maximum bombardment range in the forward semisphere is 40km; it is 10km more than the basic

Boris Obnosov Tactical Missiles Corporation General director

model has and 15km more than that of the best U.S. analog AIM-9X. At the same time its maximum range is a bit less than that of the French missile MICA-IR (50km). The minimum firing range of the new missile is 300m, and the height of targets that may be hit is from 20m to 20km. The RVV-MD is mounted on the aircraft with the help of the launcher P-72-1D. It can also be adapted to foreign-made launchers (at the stand you could see several variants). The RVV-MD is 2.92m long, 170mm in diameter, its wing span is 510mm. The missile’s launching weight is 106kg (more than the American AIM-9X has – 86kg), and it is, in fact, the same the MICA-IR has (112kg). Notably, both the American and the French missiles have better prospects for upgrading; but as for the Russian one, it is more “simple” and more cheap. It was designed on the basis of well-tested technologies of the 1990s. As for 5G aircraft, Vympel Design Bureau is working on a missile with matrix homing device.

RVV-SD are medium-range missiles (for the first time shown at MAKS 2009), modification of the RVVAE; the latter is serially produced and operational in several countries. Representatives of the corporation say that the RVV-SD is an efficient means of destruction of aircraft, helicopters and guided missiles 24h a day, in active jamming, over land and sea, including the regime of multilateral fire. The RVV-SD hits targets maneuvering with overloads up to 12 un., and this result is much better than that of foreign analogs – medium-range missiles AIM-120C AMRAAM which hit only targets with 9 un. overload. If today manned aircraft can not fly with overloads more than 9 un. (because of limit of human physical abilities and some other factors), this can not be said concerning new combat UAVs which are ready for much higher overloads. The maximum engangement of the missile is 110km; it is 35% more than that of the RVV-AE and more or less the same as the American AIM-120C-8


42 • MAKS 2009 • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

Стенд Корпорации ТРВ на МАКС 2009, ракеты класса «воздух-воздух»

has (the latter is also going to become operational). This result was achieved due to modernized engine with better energetic characteristics. The launch-and-leave principle works due to combined homing with radio correction and active radar self-homing at the final part of the trajectory. In comparison with the RVV-AE, the launch weight of the RVV-SD grew 15kg (from 175kg to 190kg). The RVV-SD is launched from the airborne cat AKU-170, but it can be adapted to foreign-made cats as well. One more guided air-to-air missile that was never shown at international exhibitions is R-27EP1 – it is exported version of the medium-range missile R27EP. As well as the R-27P1, the new missile has passive radar self-homing warhead with no analogs in the world. It can work by the launch-and-leave principle and at the same time provides complete operational security. The R-27EP1 hits signal-emitting air targets with active jamming. It can be used 24h, in any weather conditions and over land and sea. In comparison with the R-27P1 it has more powerful engine  – a

dual-mode solid-fuel engine, and this fact enabled growth (forward semisphere) from 72km to 110km. The warhead weighs 39kg; it becomes active due to radar proximity fuse or contact target sensor. The launch weight of the missile is 345kg. It is fixed on an aircraft with the help of the standard aircraft launcher APU-470. GUIDED AIR-TO-SURFACE MISSILES In this class of weapons the Tactical Missiles Corp. demonstrated several multipurpose and special-purpose missiles, as well as guided bombs with various homing systems. The most modern product is the Kh-38ME, module general-purpose guided missile. Two years ago (MAKS 2007) it was one of the most interesting among missiles for aircraft. At MAKS 2009, as Boris Obnosov promised, we got detailed information about it. The Kh-38ME missile has the launch weight of 520kg; its length is 4.2m; it is 310mm in diameter; its wing span is 1.14m. It can be used onboard aircraft and helicopters, and it significantly increases their

combat power. The Kh-38ME can be also carried by stealth aircraft. The missile is manufactured in 4 exported versions: • Kh-38MAE with inertial + active radar homing system; • Kh-38MKE with inertial homing system + satellite correction; • Kh-38MLE with inertial + semi-active laser homing system; • Kh-38MTE with inertial + thermal imager homing system. The above modifications are designed to destroy wide spectrum of targets: armoured, defended and not defended individual targets and groups of targets, as well as enemy vessels in coastal zones. The Kh-38ME is an all-purpose weapon which can be used both above battlefields and at tactical depth. The homing systems used there provide ±800 angle of target bearing (horizontal plane at the moment of launch). The probability of hitting (without radar countermeasures) is 0.8; with radar countermeasures, 0.6. The Kh-38ME’s modular hardware weighs 250kg (about 50% of missile’s own weight), and this index is very high. It can contain high-explosive and cumulative warheads (Kh-38MAE, Kh-38MLE, Kh-38MTE), as well as cluster warhead (Kh-38MKE). The Kh-38ME is powered by a dual mode solid fuel engine which provides M=2.2 speed (which is more than foreign analogs have). In comparison with national modular missiles of the previous generation (Kh-25M), the Kh-38ME’s maximum range is fourfold (40km against 10km for Kh-25ML). The minimum engangement range is 3km. The heights vary from 200m to 12.000m; carrier velocity at the moment of launch, from 12 to 450m/sec. Thus the Kh-38ME is very “flexible” and, besides, can be launched both from helicopters at low heights and from aircraft flying at M=1.6 at the height of 12km. The new missile is more safe and has longer operational life if compared with predecessors. Its service


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • MAKS 2009 • 43

life period is 10 years. Its service life limit for aircraft is 15 cycles, and for helicopters, 30 cycles. The corporation presented as well its high-speed antiradar Kh-31PD designed by the head enterprise, and the Kh-58UShKE (with the same functions) by Raduga. Both missiles possess INS and wide-range passive self-homing radar warheads. They can hit enemy radars in any weather, those that work in impulse regime (1.2 – 11.0GHz, combined A', B, B', C range) and in continuous emission (A range). The Kh-31PD’s launch weight is 715kg; its warhead weighs 110kg; it is 5.34m long; 360mm in diameter; its wing span is 1.102mm. It has some advantages if compared with the previous version, the Kh-31P (the latter was earlier fielded as part of the MiG-27 and Su-24M complexes). The Kh-31PD has increased flight speed (more than 700m/sec.), its maximum range doubled, and its warhead’s weight (and efficiency) grew 25%. The bearing angles at the moment of launch can be +/– 15 degr.; target detection is made within +/– 30 degr. Target detection is also real after the missile is launched. The Kh-31PD can be carried by Su-30MK (MKI, MKM, MK2), Su-34, Su-35, MiG-29K, MiG-29KUB, MiG-35 and some other aircraft. Depending on aircraft parameters in the moment of launch the maximum missile’s range varies from 180 to 250km. The peculiarity of the solid-fuel Kh-58UShKE is that this missile can be launched not only traditionally (AKU-58) but as well from interior UVKU-50-type cats. This result was reached due to the existence of folding aerodynamic planes. The launch weight of the Kh-58UShKE is about 600kg; maximum speed, 1.000m/sec.; cruise speed, 700 m/sec. The engangement range has also grown in comparison with the Kh-58E. The range of heights of the Kh-31PD and Kh58UShKE varies from 100 to 15.000m, and in terms of speed the range is M=0.65 – 1.5. The corporation presented two modifications of anti-ship missiles: Kh-31AD and Kh-35UE. If com-


44 • MAKS 2009 • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

pared with its predecessor, the Kh-31A, designed in the distant 1980s – the Kh-31AD has much bigger range (120 – 150km, depending on aircraft parameters, in comparison with 50  – 70km that the Kh31A had), and its warhead’s weight has increased 15% (110kg). To provide quality homing at big distances INS is used. The service life limit grew 100% (on board the aircraft), and safety parameters significantly improved. The Kh-31AD hits surface ships in any weather conditions with sea disturbance of 4 – 5 points. To bring out of operation a destroyer only 1 or 2 missiles are needed. The Kh-31AD is operational on board the Su-30MK (MKI, MKM, MK2), Su-34, Su-35, MiG29K, MiG-29KUB, MiG-35 and some other aircraft. The launch weight of both missiles – Kh-31AD and Kh-31PD – is 715kg. The subsonic anti-ship missile Kh-35UE (versatile deployment) was also presented at MAKS 2009. It is the next step after the Kh-35E. It has the same dimensions (airborne version: 3.85m long; 420mm in diameter; wing span, 1.33m) but has bigger launch weight (airborne version, 550kg; helicopter version, 650kg; ship-borne version, 670kg). The Kh-35UE can be carried by surface ships, aircraft, helicopters and be element of coastal missile systems. It can be used in whatever weather conditions with sea disturbance up to 6 points. As Boris Obnosov said at MAKS 2009, the corporation used lots of new technical and technological decisions during creation of the Kh-35UE. In particular, the missile is all-digital. Its engine is twice shorter, and this fact enabled increase of fuel tank volume – so the range grew substantially (for the exported version, up to 260km). The maximum angle of after-launch turn in horizontal plane has achieved 130 degr. (90 degr. for the Kh-35E). The maximum height grew from 5.000m to


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • MAKS 2009 • 45

10.000m. As the Kh-31A, the new missile flies at the height about 10m (practically invulnerable for modern air defence), and at the final stage of flight lowers up to 4m (level of waves). The cruise Mach number grew from 0.80 (for the Kh-31E) to 0.85. The Kh-31AE has got new INS, more efficient and added with satellite correction system (thus having become multipurpose, with high probability of destroying small land targets with known coordinates). One more novelty is the transreflective system developed by Radar, which provides higher accuracy and jamming resistance, as well as widens the spectrum of potential targets (incl. in conditions of jamming blanket). The system covers up to 50km (20km for the Kh-35E). For the first time Raduga showed their multipurpose Kh-59MK2 cruise missile, created on the platform of the anti-ship missile Kh-59MK, with active self-homing warhead ARGS-59E. Its homing and autonomous control system is based on gimballess INS, GLONASS/GPS receiver and module of autonomous topographic identification. The Kh-59MK2 is designed for destruction of wide spectrum of motionless targets with known coordinates, including those which do not have radar, IR and optical contrast against background. The missile works on the launch-and-leave principle and flies at low heights: the route is given beforehand. The Kh-59MK2 can be used in whatever season and at whatever terrain. The launching altitudes of the missile vary from 200 to 11.000m; M range in the moment of launch is 0.5 – 0.9; maximum range is 285km (for exported version). As for the target aspect angle, during the launch it can achieve ±450. The height of flight over land depends on the terrain and varies from 50m to 300m. The average speed is 900 – 1.050km/h. Circular expected bias: 3 – 5m (e.g. the missile can destroy well-fortified targets, such as command posts, tunnel entrances, equipment in protected shelters, etc.). The Kh-59MK2 can carry modular warhead in two versions, cumulative and cluster ones, which weighs 320kg and 283kg, respectively. The launch weight of the missile is about 900kg; it is 5.7m long; 380mm in diameter (420mm in the nose part), and its wing span is 1.3m. In general, in terms of its characteristics the Russian missile is the same as such foreign missiles as the JSOW AGM-158, KEPD-350 or Scalp, but its design is more simple (and, naturally, more cheap) and its homing system is more “flexible”. The Ovod-ME system with the airborne Kh-59M2E missile is designed for destruction of various objects seen by operator (motionless land and water targets with known coordinates) and can be used in wide spectrum of situations, including limited visibility and darkness. The new missile is 30kg heavier than its predecessor (its launch weight is 960kg) and has got


46 • MAKS 2009 • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

transmission-command homing system instead of television-command. The cumulative warhead (the same as for the Kh-59MK2) weighs 320kg; the cluster one, 283kg. The speed en route is M=0.72 - 0.88. As for the flight and launching conditions, they did not suffer changes in comparison with the Kh-59ME. Today the missile’s maximum range is 115km, but it is planned to make it 140km. The Scientific and Production Enterprise Region, head designer of guided bombs, presented several “clever” products with laser self-homing warheads – KAB-1500LG (caliber: 1.500kg). In this family of bombs, besides the KAB-1500LGF-E with high-explosive warhead which was demonstrated earlier, we could see new ones, such as the

KAB-1500LG-OD-E and KAB-1500LG-Pr-E. These ammunitions have got, respectively, volume-detonating and cumulative warheads. The KAB-1500LGOD-E is designed to destroy motionless land targets, such as railway and road bridges, military and industrial objects, defended posts (incl. hidden) and ships. The KAB-1500LG-Pr-E destroys motionless rugged structures and buried structures (concrete structures, command posts, ammunition stores, etc.). The KAB-1500LG bombs are carried by front-line aircraft with laser systems of target illumination on board and can be used 24h a day. KAB-500S-E was one more interesting product among the bombs shown at MAKS 2009 because of its satellite correction equipment. The bomb has got

high-explosive warhead and destroys targets 24h in whatever weather conditions. It has got the contact fuse AVU-ETM with three delay intervals which begin to function after the bomb is installed in the aircraft. The ammunition weighs 560kg (195kg for explosive agent). The bomb is released at the speed of 550 – 1.100km/h, at the height of 500 – 5.000m. The accuracy of homing is 7 – 12m. The KAB-500S-E is simple in operation. It is designed for front-line aircraft, such as Su-24M2 and Su-34, and for the multipurpose fighters Su35 and MiG-35. Notably, the ammunitions presented by Tactical Missiles Corp. at MAKS 2009 are primarily designed for modernized national front-line 4+ aircraft (MiG-

Main tactical and technical characteristics of KAB-1500 bombs Weight, kg (total, warhead, explosive agent) Dimensions, m length diameter fin Height of release, km Speed of aircraft during release, km/h Accuracy of homing (CEP), m Warhead Detonating fuse

KAB-1500LG-Pr-E

KAB-1500LG-F-E

KAB-1500LG-OD-E

1.525/1.120/210

1.525/1.170/440

1.450/1.170/650

4.28 0.58 0.85 (folded) 1.3 (open)

4.28 0.58 0.85 (folded) 1.3 (open)

4.24 0.58 0.85 (folded) 1.3 (open)

1-8

1-8

1-8

550-1.100

550-1.100

550-1.100

4-7

4-7

4-7

Cumulative

High-explosive

Volume-detonating

Impact, with 3 kinds of delay

Impact, with 3 kinds of delay

Direct-action


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • MAKS 2009 • 47

29SMT, MiG-35, Su-27SM/SM2, Su-34, Su-35) and for export. There were no new generation ammunitions for the advanced front-line aircraft system at the exhibition because the work on them has not ended yet, though it is close to the end. Speaking about the prospects for development of national airborne weapons, Boris Obnosov said that his corporation works on hypersonic means of destruction operating at M=12 – 14. “I don’t want to reveal our secrets but we work intensely in this direction and soon hope to see the results”, he said to the journalists. He added that Russia has “certain platform in this field and we can not lose time”. Ka-52 with Ataka missile system

EXPOSITION OF KBP INSTRUMENT DESIGN BUREAU KBP Instrument Design Bureau, Tula, for the first time presented information about their tactical multipurpose missile system Germes, to pass into service in the Air Force, Navy and land forces. As the head of KBP delegation at MAKS 2009 Yuri Savenkov said, flight tests of Germes (version for the Air Force) are expected to be finished in 2010, “and after that it will become operational”. The new system seems to substitute the missile complex Ataka which today is used by the upgraded helicopters Mi-24 and new Mi-28s and Ka-52s. The Germes is designed to destroy tanks, infantry combat vehicles, permanent fire positions, air targets at low height, water surface targets and personnel in shelters distanced more than 15km. The Ataka (specialized in destroying armoured targets only) has the range of only 6 – 8km. The Germes can be carried by helicopters, aircraft, ships, and be fired from land launchers. “Next

year we plan to run its flight tests, and in 2011 – 2012 start serial production for the Russian Ministry of Defence”, Savenkov said. The first helicopters to get the Germes will be the new generation Mi-28N and Ka-52. Today KBP plans to increase the system’s range from 16 to 20km. Yuri Savenkov underlined that in terms of design the Germes is compatible with the Pantsyr S1 missileartillery system created for the Air Force, but in future it will be used more widely. It means that the Germes missiles can be also added to the Pantsyr S1 system. The missiles have high accuracy due to combined flight control. When a missile is launched to the point where the target is situated, operators use on-board inertial correction system based on GLONASS signals. For Germes made for land forces and Navy the latter is backup; it functions together with radio commands. This combination makes the whole complex more stable and widens the possibilities of its use. At the end stage a self-homing warhead is insert-

ed – it can be thermal, radar active or combined, with IR and semi-active laser channels. Curved trajectory which is used in firing provides target hitting from above, and small radar cross section (0.01m2) makes the missile difficult to neutralize by enemy air defence. The guided missile has got a powerful versatile warhead (28kg) with adaptive fuse and regulated delay of explosion, in dependence of the type of the target. The airborne version in container weighs 110kg. The caliber of the launching stage is 170mm; of the main stage, 130mm; the length of container with missile is 3.500mm; the maximum speed is 1.000m/ sec.; Mi-28 and Ka-52 helicopters will take on board a set of 16 missiles. Airborne ammunitions were also presented at MAKS 2009 by other companies of the national defence industry, but, unfortunately, they did not show new products. Vladimir Ilyin


48 • MAKS 2009 • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

UAVS AT MAKS 2009

R

ecently (especially after the Caucasian conflict in August 2009) the equipment for the Russian Armed Forces – due to various reasons – became a very sensitive issue, arousing interest not only among specialists, but among general public as well. The problem is certainly in the centre of Russian physical defence structures’ attention. Thus, Oleg Barmin, Russian Air Force Chief for Weaponry, noticed, that in the foreseeable future UAVs will be used not only in reconnaissance missions but also in combats, which are now performed solely by men, front and long-range aviation. According to his words, new UAV models would be entering service since 2011. And while the Air Force is being transformed, UAVs could comprise up to 40 per cent of the total Air Force potential. The “unmanned” theme was reflected at MAKS 2009 as well. Several types of new Russian reconnaissance military unmanned systems and “airplane” type tactical and prestrategic UAVs were for the first time presented at the event. Nevertheless, despite the Ministry of Defence’s arousing interest to Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles (UCAV) the information about the systems of this class almost lacked in Zhukovsky (obviously, this fact testified a higher security level rather than lowering interest to the subject). At the same time tactical UAVs were widely presented at the show (including those which had turned into serial models already supplied to customers within our country and abroad).

RUSSIAN AIRPLANE TYPE UAVs AND THEIR FOREIGN ANALOGS Luch Design Office, comprising VEGA Radio engineering concern, which is Russia’s main military UAV developing structure, presented at MAKS 2009 their full-scale mockup of a new UAV BLA-08, comprising the Tipchak system. The latter was originally designed as a means of artillery fire arbitrary correction. Now it is considered to be a multipurpose device for air reconnaissance, surveillance and artillery support. The system includes: • an aerial system equipped with a system allowing to perform radar guidance of two UAVs flying at low altitude at the same time; • control room; • transport/launch system with pneumatic cat and six containers for UAVs. The range is 70km, the operating speed of the vehicle is 90 – 190km/h, the altitude range is 200 – 3.000m. The Tipchak’s main advantages are: • digital jam-resistant radio line for control and transfer of broad-hand information; • modern piloting-navigation set; • portable high resolution electro-optical system; • information-bundled software for real-time intelligence mechanized processing; • up-to-date element base.

At present the disadvantage of the Tipchak is overweight of the ground component, made up of four KamAZ-3314 six-wheeled vehicles. The BLA-08 is designed for long-term air reconnaissance. The designers began their work in 2005, and at present the construction of the first prototype is close to the end. The new UAV is designed according the ordinary “fuselage” scheme (unlike the twin-boom BLA-05), it has a high-aspect wing, V-shape tail and fuel tanks with increased capacity. The vehicle’s propeller and combustion engine are situated in the centre of the fuselage. The BLA-08 is the largest vehicle comprising the Tipchak system. Its maximum take-off weight is 90kg and target load weight is 15kg. The UAV, according to the current tasks, can be equipped with a digital double-spectrum camera, a gyrostabilized electro-optical surveillance system (including TV and thermal vision camera and laser range-finder), a pocket-size side-looking radar, relaying, electronic intelligence, electronic warfare and radiation-chemical reconnaissance hardware. In comparison with the BLA-05 the new UAV has increased the flying speed from 65-125km/h to 80180km/h. The flight endurance was also almost doubled and now is over eight hours. The acoustic signature has significantly lowered. At the same time the ground component of the Tipchak with the BLA-08 has remained the same. The same trucks,


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • MAKS 2009 • 49

as in the original system, are used for UAV launching, flight control and ground maintenance. The new UAV takes off via the standard cat, used for the BLA-05 and other Tipchak family vehicles, and it lands by parachute or “like an airplane”, on a flat ground zone. When folded down, six BLA-08s (like BLA-05s) can be transported at the sides of the transport-launch site truck in six pulldown cases. The information about improvement of the air surveillance and artillery fire correction UAV BLA05 (9М62), which was the first to enter Tipchak, was also presented at the show. In 2007 this UAV successfully passed state and operational service tests; after that it came under operational test. In 2008 BLA-05 preproduction started. By early 2009 the Russian army had one packaged serial system and, altogether, 20 UAVs. In August 2008 the Tipchak took part in combat operations in Northern Caucasia, and with this experience nowadays it is being modernized step-by-step. The twin-boom vehicle has a13-hp thrust propeller engine, 60-kg takeoff weight, 14.5-kg target load weight, including replaceable modules with IR and video cameras, electronic reconnaissance set and radiation-chemical reconnaissance and relaying unit. With LDCCU the vehicle can be used for guidance of adjusted projectiles, missiles (Klevok/Germes) or other high-accuracy equipment with semi-active laser or combined warheads. The range of use of this UAV has increased. The customer noticed (particularly after the North Caucasian conflict in August, 2008) the relatively high noisiness of the original BLA-05 (it was initially de-

signed only for artillery fire correction and for obvious reasons acoustic concealment was out of question). The notice was taken into account in the upgraded model. It became less acoustically traceable, which made the BLA-08 suitable not only for artillery fire correction but for air surveillance as well. The performance of the vehicle is being improved. In particular, the range is increasing up to 100-120km (which allows correcting fire of the newest salvo fire systems) and flight endurance – up to six hours. In the long view Tipchak is considered to be basic: the creation of a number of new different purpose short and medium range UAV complexes for Russian Military Forces and different security, state and commercial agencies is planned using its standard components and well-proven technologies. In particular, the maritime (shore) version of the Tipchak system, allowing a full sequence reconnaissance and surveillance of the water surface at any time using two UAVs at the same time. The system performs real-time imagery acquisition and processing, and releases it to the control post deployed on two trucks: aerial and operator’s. The maritime complex also compounds a transport-launch site truck (or a fixed launcher), a maintenance truck and up to six UAVs of different types. The new small-sized piston engine tactical UAV BLA-07 was designed for water-borne targets reconnaissance. It can carry a TV/IR camera and a hi-res digital photo camera as target load. OJSC “Luch” has also designed an original UAV: the US-K guided missile, comprising the1K133 land forces artillery intelligence complex and equipped

with an integrated TV and IR BARU-K radio control airborne equipment camera with Tipchak-OMB optomechanical block as part of the Tipchak. The pre-production of the complex is being completed by now. The foreign analogue of Tipchak is the German Reinmetal KZO reconnaissance UAV, which is evolution of the French-German Brevel complex (the name is composed of Bremen and Veliz, where most of the work was carried out). The UAV has been designed since 1983. It is “tailless”, has a folding wing, a thermal ice-protection system (which allows operating under winter conditions), a takeoff powder booster and a 30hp Schrich SF2350S main engine, mounted on the fuselage stern and equipped with a two-bladed propeller. KZO’s takeoff weight is 160kg, the modular target load is comprised with a fully stabilized TV-thermal imaging system. The other options are electronic intelligence and electronic warfare equipment. Its flight endurance is up to 3.5h, max speed – 220km/h, operating altitude range  – 300  - 2.500m. KZO is launched from a transporter-launcher container by a powder booster (this is disadvantage in comparison with Tipchak’s pneumatic cat). The advantages of the German vehicle are small geometry, allowing a lower optical and radar signature, simplicity of operation and high IR imaging precision (at the altitude of 2.000m it can locate and identify a target like “jeep”). An anti-jamming data transmission line allows transmitting video image to the land station at the distance of up to 120km, and the UAV’s angle of sight is 2 degrees (the data transmission “pancake-shape” system’s aerial is Compact BLA07 air vehicle of the Tipchak family


50 • MAKS 2009 • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

Standard transport and launching platform of the Tipchak system with mockup of BLA08 air vehicle. The system has four road vehicles and six air vehicles able to stay airborne for 3 to 8 hours

mounted at the top of the fin). If image transmission to land is impossible it is recorded by the airborne video recorder. The KZO consists of: 10 UAVs, a land control and intelligence information processing station with the associated communication set, allowing data transmission to the recipients; a launcher with transporter-launcher containers; transports for searching and picking up and carrying rather heavy (in contrast with those of Tipchak) aerial vehicles. All the ground equipment is mounted on four-wheeled car chassis. The land control and intelligence information processing station is mounted on the 4 tons cross-country vehicle (its powerplant is transported on a separate light trailer) and equipped with three UAV operating positions with two TV displays in each. They are also supplied with a communication terminal and a cartographic tactical information real-time imaging plotter. The KZO production began in 2005. By 2010 Bundeswehr is to receive six platoons (complexes), having 10 UAVs in containers and two special vehicles each. It was reported at the Moscow aerospace show that in the beginning of the current year the first “flight version” Aist UAV unit was produced at Samara Progress factory. The tests are scheduled for September-October. It is worth mentioning that even though Aist had been announced as one of the exhibits, unfortunately, there wasn’t any at MAKS 2009. The work on this UAV started in 2006 by OJSC “Vega” radio engineering concern with the participa-

tion of OJSC “Kulon” R & D Institute and OJSC “Luch”. In 2007-2008 the development of design documentation finished and preparations for the new UAV production started. The vehicle has 600kg takeoff weight, 4.7m length and 8.0m wing span. It has ordinary aerodynamic design with a low-set folding small sweep wing (which simplifies transportation and spacing in covers) and a V-shape tail. Its hull is mainly made of nonmetallic materials. It takes off and lands like a plane using a tricycle retractable gear. In this regard its takeoff and landing run should be 150m, and the necessary length of the landing ground is 300m. The UAV is powered by two piston engines with propellers mounted on short suspension towers above the wing. Its flight operation speed may vary from 130 to 250km/h, the operating altitude is 100-6.000m and the flight endurance is more than 12 hours. The all-digital UAV can be used in the operations of the Ministry of Defence and also in civil operations. The latter are earth and water surface monitoring, emergency operations, searching of required objects and surveillance of offshore zones, power transmission lines, pipelines and oil and gas extraction areas. Besides, the vehicle can transport up to 100kg of cargo to the target point. Its target load weight is 100kg. The centimeter and ultra high frequency information-command radio link (ICRL) performs real-time video and service information transmission to the ground control sta-

tion within the line of sight. The same radio link is used to give it commands, to control the vehicle itself and its equipment. A retransmitter – UAV of the same type – may be used to increase the communication range between the UAV and the ground control station. SOH-100 two-channel optical-electronic equipment mounted on a gyrostabilized platform, being designed by “UOMZ” Production Association FSUE, will allow using the complex at any time under ordinary weather conditions. The sidelooking radar with synthetic aperture (designed by OJSC “Kulon” R & D Institute) mounted on Aist UAV allows operating in rough weather. According to the designers’ statement made in the beginning of the current year, using the UAV as a part of scout-attack system, including Iscander prestrategic guided missiles, should become one of the application fields for the Aist. The range of Iscander, which was reported by mass media to be about 500km (and limited by international agreements), obviously determines the action radius of the Aist using UAV-retransmitter. By its characteristics and “niche” in armed forces the Aist is close to the American RQ-5 Hunter army reconnaissance system, which is a division-corps unit, designed in the mid-1990s by Israeli IAI company especially for American requirements and delivered to the US and Belgian armies in limited quantities. The RQ-5 is in the same “weight category” as the Aist (its takeoff weight is 730kg), it is supplied with a twin-engine (2x64hp) piston power plant (which is aimed at increasing damage control and the op-


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • MAKS 2009 • 51

erational capability of the vehicle), and generally the same set of objective equipment. The flight endurance is eight hours. Like the Russian analogue, it is operated like a plane, without using cat. At the same time the Aist has much better flight performance (operational speed is 250km/h against the Hunter’s 200km/h, and the ceiling is 6.000m against 4.600 m); its takeoff and landing distance is twice shorter and it is likely to have higher radar and thermal concealment, which would improve its survivability when operating under the conditions of enemy’s modern air defence (it is worth mentioning that the Hunters, which were used in Yugoslavia and Iraq, suffered heavy losses). The Hunter was used in its combat version, with two AGM-114 Hellfire guided missiles. The Aist scheme is likely to allow making the combat version on its base. The Dozor-600 middle-class UAV made by Tranzas company was presented at the airshow for the first time. According to the company’s chief designer Gennady Trubnikov, the UAV is offered to the Russian Ministry of Defence as a strike complex. It can carry over 120kg of payload, such as different precision weapons, and stay in the air up to 30 hours. He considers the Dozor-600 to be the first Russian modern long-range UAV. At the flight endurance of four hours the combat load weight can be increased up to 220kg. It is noticed that the new UAV can be used in civil area as well, for example, in monitoring of the state border and oil and gas pipelines, in protection of forests, creation of topographic maps, etc. The vehicle has ordinary aerodynamic design with straight high-set wing, V-shape tail, tricycle fixed landing gear and a combustion engine with thrust propel-

Dozor-100 UAV

ler mounted on the fuselage stern. The scheme is very simple, the Dozor’s fuselage is simplified and has box-like form. According to the mission, the Dozor-600 is equipped with strike weapons and other target load: an optical-thermal imaging gyro-stabilized air surveillance system, hi-res digital photographic equipment, forward-looking radar or precision weapons. The flight testing of the UAV will start in 2010. It is reported that the Dozor-600 was created in only two years. Its takeoff weight is 640kg, wing span is 6.7m, length is 2.3m, cruise speed is 150km/h, maximum speed is 210km/h, operational ceiling is 3.700m, and flight range is 3.700 m. The vehicle takes off and lands like a plane.

By its performance the Dozor-600 is close to General Atomics MQ-1 Predator UAV, in service with the US Air Force – the similar characteristics of speed, range and flight endurance, but it differs from MQ-1 by less weight (640kg and 1.020kg respectively) and simple design. Another Dozor-600 analogue was Israeli Silver Arrow’s (Elbit Systems daughter enterprise) Germes 450. This UAV, created in the mid-1990s, became wide spread and now it’s practically absolute monopolist in the world market (in its class) and the example in a number of countries running for their own UAV projects. The Germes 450 is in service with the armies of Israel, Great Britain, Georgia (it was used during the “08/08/08” con-


52 • MAKS 2009 • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

ZALA 421-16 UAV Characteristics Takeoff weight (max), kg

18

Payload weight, kg

3

Wing span, m

1.62

Speed, km/h

70-150

Action radius, km

50

Flight endurance, h

7

Engine Frame resource Temperature limits,°С

flict), Mexico, Singapore, Croatia and the US Coast Guard. In Caucasian combat operations Georgian UAVs of this type (having quite poor flight characteristics) suffered heavy losses from the Russian Air Defence and Air Force. The Israeli vehicle is produced twin- and singleengined and distinguishes itself by hi-tech design. It’s latest modification, powered by a 80hp rotary engine, has increased flight endurance (from 14 to 20 hours). The Germes 450’s takeoff weight is 450kg, max speed – 170km/h, cruise speed  – 130km/h, Unmanned helicopters of ZALA family

operational ceiling – about 6.000m. Nowadays the cost of one UAV equipped with standard set is $2mln, and the cost of one complex (with all ground elements) is about $10mln. Among the “lighter” UAVs presented at MAKS 2009 the Izhevsk Bespilotnyie Sistemi-produced ZALA 421-16 is worth mentioning for it weighs 18kg (takeoff weight). The vehicle is designed for reconnaissance and surveillance in a broad range of weather conditions (including difficult terrain) and water areas, allowing real-time TV and infrared image

Combustion engine with discrete oiling Not less than 100 landings -35…+45

acquisition. It can well see the targets and obtain, store and process data. In standard version the UAV is equipped with a 10Mpix digital mirror camera and a gyrostabilized high quality video camera with digitizer and recorder. An additional option is an IR-camera with the resolution of 640x480. A reserve navigational system to operate in the conditions of heavy electronic countermeasures is provided too. In the long view the functional capabilities of the UAV will be broadened due to a small-sized remote aerosol analyzer. Creation of several versions of ZALA 421-16, for target detection and data relaying, is also planned. The UAV will also deliver cargo, weapons and medicines (accuracy: 200m) to places 50km away from the launching point. As the previous UAVs of the similar type created by Bespilotnyie Sistemi (ZALA 421-04М, ZALA 421-08, etc.), ZALA 421-16 has the “flying wing“ scheme. It is equipped with an internal combustion engine placed in the nose part of the vehicle, with a two-blade propeller. A portable cat is used for its launch, and its landing passes via parachute or a special net. Low signature technologies are used in the vehicle design, which is especially important for the UAVs used in the Russian armed forces. Bespilotnyie Sistemi claims that in the ZALA 421-16 design they took into account the battle experience of ZALAs, their work with civil organizations and fuel and energy industry, and, to add, the Ministry of Defence, the Federal Security Service of Russia Frontier Service, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry for Emergencies. FSB Frontier Service officials, familiarized with the characteristics of the new UAV, noticed that these vehicles were the closest to the required performance for guarding the border and performing long-term and distant flights. By now Bespilotnyie Sistemi has delivered plane- and helicopter-type UAVs to FSB Frontier Service, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Defence. Using its UAVs the company monitors from air Gazprom gas pipelines. It was re-


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • MAKS 2009 • 53

ported that some vehicles were successfully used in combat operations in the North Caucasus in August, 2008. ENICS company presented its Eleron-10D complex, which is an Eleron-10D complex version with electric-powered UAV. Unlike its predecessor, the Eleron-10D is powered by a combustion engine with a two-blade propeller. These UAVs, weighing 12kg, are equal in all the rest. The combustion engine significantly increased (from two up to six hours) the flight endurance and made the UAV one of the best in the world in this sense. The operation speed has also increased: from 60-120km/h to 140-180km/h. The remote surveillance complex has a ground station with antenna, an automatic starting device (pneumatic cat) and two UAVs. The whole complex is transported by car. The standard kit is: a TV camera with 10-fold zoom, a photo camera, a thermal imaging camera, retransmitters, and jamming systems. Any other needed load can be installed. The Eleron-10D’s piloting navigational system is the same as that of the basic model. The UAV is equipped with GLONASS/GPS satellite navigation receiving set. The flight is performed by a ready-made course, according to terrain. The flight modes are manual and automatic with manual option. The programmed maneuvers are the following: flight over object, object surveillance, return and landing. The UAV is controlled from the ground via cryptoline which provides efficient results at an up to 50km distance. The ground station is computer-based and well defended. The aerial unit is equipped with an automatic tracer. The UAV is launched by a pneumatic cat, and lands with the help of parachute. The Bertha Е08М’s air platform (ground start), also presented at MAKS 2009 by ENICS, is considered to be a base for making new UAVs for various purposes. The jet version with the endurance of 30min was also presented. Some alternative versions can be powered by piston engine or a smallsized gas-turbine jet, which allows increase the flight endurance up to eight hours. The 150-kg vehicle has a “tandem“ aerodynamic design with a rudder unit on the wingtips of the rear wing. It is launched like a plane, by ground launcher (for the piston engine and gas-turbine jet versions). The action radius (determined by resource of control system) is 50-70km, the flight altitude is 100-3.000m, and the operational speed is 200-300km/h. Its flight modes are automatic, with an option for radio command control and autonomous. The UAV is navigated by GPS and GLONASS. It lands like a plane (for the piston engine version) or with parachute. The complex has a control vehicle, a transport vehicle (mounted on GAZ-3308 chassis), a pneumatic cat, and one or two UAVs.

The target load has max weight of up to 25kg and may include a TV camera, a photo camera, a thermal imager, IR-tracers, heat flares and other needed equipment. At MAKS 2009 Penza OJSC “Radiozavod“ for the first time presented its unique anti-UAV complex. The PU12M7 serial battery control center, originally designed to control a group of Strela-10, ZSU-23, Tunguska, Tor, fighting vehicles and portable surface-to-air missile systems, was used here as an integrated part. The PU12M7 movable control was first designed to work for air defence, and then it was interfaced with electronic intelligence stations (EIS), electro-optical reconnaissance stations and radar stations. The EIS detects light and ultralight UAVs contacts and traffic channels (the complex works as a standard air defence system with heavy and middle UAVs). It locates the target, transmits the target detection to radar station and then the electro-optical system is engaged, allowing to receive exact coordinates of the enemy UAV. After that an interceptor UAV comes out into the target area, which jams enemy UAV’s traffic channels. The PU12M7, in association with other systems, is said to allow close detection (about 25km) thanks to the latter’s emission (in particular, by their working GPS system). By now, according to the OJSC “Radiozavod“ officials, a series of flight experiments of light UAVs detection has been performed together with Kazan CJSC ENIKS. Sperwer’s Crusade to Russia In the last years the Russian Ministry of Defence has been giving preference to foreign weapons and military equipment. In some cases this enthusiasm looks reasonable, taking into account our problems in the 1990s and lack of money in our industry. On the other hand, we salute our contract with Thales concerning the acquisition of Mistral-type helicopter carriers.

Sperwer Mk.2 UAV Characteristics Wing span, m

4.2

Length, m

3.6

Height, m

1.3

Takeoff weight, kg

330

Target load, kg

45

Max speed, km/h

240

Air rage speed, km/h

120-130

Operational ceiling, m

3.800

Average action radius, km Max action radius, km Flight endurance, h

150 180-200 6

At the same time we see the grown interest of other “recognized” countries to Russia. And it is good, since new contracts in other fields give us access to cutting-edge technologies. The French Sagem Sperwer Мk.2 UAV was presented by Thales with the obvious aim to offer it Russia’s Ministry of Defence. Frankly speaking, Sperwer’s crusade to Russia started more than 2 years ago. On June 1st 2007, in Montlucon airport, the French showed to Russian journalists their multipurpose Sperwer 161 UAV for the first time. It goes without saying that demonstrations like that are always organized not only to satisfy Russia’s media interests… The Sperwer, manufactured in the early 1990s, is designed for a wide range of reconnaissance tasks and target pointing for artillery. The Sperwer B version can be used as a strike weapon if needed. The Sperwer is in service with the armies of France, Canada, Greece, Sweden, and the Netherlands. Till 2006 this UAV was in service in Belgium. Within NATO it has been used in Afghanistan (Kandahar province) since March, 2006. The Sperwer system includes three UAVs, a ground control centre, a pneumatic cat mounted Sperver vehicle on pneumatic launch catapult


54 • MAKS 2009 • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

Sperver UAV of France

on 10-t truck and a receiving station mounted on a cross-country truck. The UAV lands using parachute and air dampers (“air bags”). The whole complex can be transported by two Hercules C-130 planes and exploited at unequipped positions. The control station allows guiding two UAVs at the same time. According to manufacturers, several of these stations can control many UAVs in mission on the relay principle. The control station includes such operation planning assets as a 3D digital map, means for incoming images processing, decoding and sending via C41 networks, as NATO communication norms predict. For higher concealment and lower risks for the station it can be deployed in 2km from the receiving station. The Sperwer is a small vehicle (length: 3.6 m, wing span: 4.2 m) having the “tailless” aerodynamic scheme, with triangular wing, V-shaped rudder unit and four-bladed propeller. As the company informs, its flight endurance can be up to six hours (up to 20 hours for Sperwer B version), max take-off weight is 330kg, payload weight is 45kg (up to 100kg for Sperwer B). Its max speed reaches 240km/h; cruise speed, 130km/h; max action radius, 200km; and operational ceiling, 3.800 m. The vehicle is powered by the 65hp two-cylinder Bombardier-Rotax 562UL engine (6.500 r/min). It is installed in the tail part. The UAV lands with parachute which has 117m² dome area. Three air dampers (“air bags”) are used to ensure its soft landing. It is stressed that the vehicle can be used in severe weather conditions within wide range of temperatures. The target load includes a gyro-stabilized platform with OLOSP raster infrared radiometer; this fact allows getting high-resolution images anytime and

rigid survey control over the objects (image precision: not less than 20m). It is also possible to use electronic intelligence systems and EW assets and to install a retransmitter or synthetic aperture radar. The UAV is equipped with digital transmission J-range data system (150 GHz). The “combat” Sperwer B has two under-wing carrying points: each of them can carry 30kg of weight. As a matter of fact, they take on board the Israeli- manufactured Spike LR anti-tank missiles or a couple of other weapons. However, in the combat version the vehicle turns to have less flight range as it needs to take less fuel due to missiles weight. Sagem points out the following advantages of their UAV complex: • completely automatic takeoff and landing; • 24 hours in use; • on-line information receiving; • possibility of target-pointing and fire correction; • possibility to use several UAVs at the same time. By the way, a poster in the French pavilion at MAKS “made a hint” saying their system could “efficiently work together with more commanders, computer specialists and people from reconnaissance”. We conclude that this idea deals with their wish to join some project more or less like our Sozvezdie. Thus, according to the advertising of the French company, the Sperwer is a modern UAV complex, with a number of advantages in front of Russian UAVs, which are nowadays constantly criticized in mass media. Meanwhile, the real possibilities of the Sperwer cause criticism of some Russian experts, who are not at all sure that the French have managed to create a

really efficient UAV complex, which can be used not only on a test site but also in real combat conditions. For example, you can find many interesting things about the Sagem Sperwer in the article of D.V. Panchyk from Zhukovsky Institute (dpla.ru/sperwer. htm). Analyzing materials about Sagem published in open press and the comments of some Sperwer operators, the author of the article concludes that there are some unpleasant things for the company’s specialists: Low power supply capacity of the plane (N/G = 0.197hp/kg), unfavourable design in terms of aerodynamics, low aerodynamic efficiency and high wing loading (G/S = 60 kg/m2) make this UAV poorly maneuverable, with problems in escape from smallcaliber air defence attacks, with low efficiency in mountains (this fact, as Panchuk states, is confirmed by the information from operators: for these reasons Canada lost two UAVs in Afghanistan during the first 40 flights, even without ground fire). The vehicle has limited operational ceiling, he says. The experience of Afghanistan is that at the height of 1.800 m the Sperwer’s longitudinal load allowance in horizontal flight is only 0.034 units. At the same time the company’s brochures claim the ceiling is 3.660 m (by some other information, up to 3.800 m). According to Panchuk, the vehicle’s heavy weight leads to use a complex cat with a big failure probability. The experience of Afghanistan shows this pneumatic cat showed efficient results only in 30 percent of launches. Big quantity and dimensions of the complex’s main vehicles (five-six units and the crew of 15 – 20 men) complicate the maintenance, considerably re-


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • MAKS 2009 • 55

RQ-7A tactical UAV entered service with US Army in 2002. The air transportable system uses six road vehicles and can be carried by three C-130 Hercules airlifters; its has four air vehicles of 150kg each, able to stay airborne for five hours.

duce the Sperwer’s concealment on the move and on-station and increase the chances of its detection by reconnaissance (in Afghanistan the Sperwer was stationary deployed on the territory of a hard-to-hit permanent post). The UAV landing by parachute system is not reliable enough because of limited possibilities in flight which can cause parachute deployment device failure. A great noise produced by the Sperwer in flight considerably increases its acoustic signature; objects of its “interest” simply reduce their activity for some time – thus remaining undetected. In Afghanistan people even called the Sperwers as “lawn-mowers“ because of specific noise which Rotax engine produced. In Panchuk’s opinion, the UAV’s aerodynamic design with a low aspect tapered wing (λ = 3) and high sweep has little efficiency for a reconnaissance air vehicle, one of the main criteria of which is flight endurance. Low aerodynamic efficiency of the vehicle with such design, decreases flight range and endurance and also does not allow using new reconnaissance tactics, which were successfully tested, for example, by the US Army UAVs in Iraq (they used Shadow-200 and Raven com-

Pchela UAV of the Stroi-P “paratrooper” system

plexes which had zero sweep at the leading edge high-aspect wings (λ = 10)). Using the 15GHz operating frequency in intelligence data transmission increases the influence of atmospheric disturbance like rain, thus lowering the quality of the transmitted information (Panchuk states that the experience of Russian Kredo radar station, with the operating frequency of 14GHz showed that even medium intensity rain can considerably decrease its performance). Landing with a parachute on airbags does not provide big terms of the system’s service. This fact is again confirmed by the experience in Afghanistan. The same can be said about the Russian Stroi-P with Pchela-1T UAV in Chechnya and the German Luna UAV which landed in net. Needs in repair lead to downtime of the whole complex and decrease the work efficiency in general. At the same time the UAVs constantly need to “carry“ the parachute system and airbags; and this fact lowers their payload weight. According to Panchuk, there are some disadvantages in design of electro-optical equipment in the telescope suspension in the nose part of the Sperwer: • increases the probability to lose the expensive electro-optical system because the mechanism which takes it back into the hull has few time for function while landing in extreme conditions; • bending vibrations of the nose part of the fuselage and, as consequence, growing moments of force (especially at flights in turbulent layer of the atmosphere near the ground) lead to use in electro-optical systems expensive optical axes stabilizing devices of initial information transmitters; • target load vibrations increase because of bending vibrations of the nose part of the fuselage.

With that the quality of the image worsens, and that can’t be compensated by optical axes stabilizing devices (this conclusion is also confirmed by the experience of the Stroi-P complex with Pchela-1T, in which the target load was also placed in the nose part of the fuselage). Using the complex for imagery intelligence in visible and infrared bands in East Europe (where low ceiling in spring and autumn is frequent – the clouds usually stay at the height of 200-300m) makes it impossible to perform serious missions since the radio horizon does not allow to transmit signals further than 60km. This fact considerably reduces the potential action radius of 200km declared by the manufacturer. In theory, this can only be achieved in a desert. In the conditions of Europe the Sperwer’s a high acoustic signature will only worsen the situation. If in Afghanistan it worked at a 1.000-2.000m height, here its regime will “lower” to 200-300m  – and it will be simply detected. According to Panchuk, the Danish government’s decision to withdraw these complexes from operational use, taken in 2006, and to sell them abroad at a loss (the purchase cost was $73 mln, and they were sold for $7 mln) only confirms the low combat capabilities of the Sperwer. Danish Minister of Defence Soren Geid said that the real possibilities of the Sperwer “turned to be worse than the French part promised”. To add, today the Canadian government also has intensions to refuse from the Sperwer. In August, 2009, three years after the “Danish collapse”, the Sperwer was shown in Moscow. Will it cause interest in the Russian Ministry of Defence? Vladimir Ilyin


56 • MAKS 2009 • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

Vostochny

Space center

on Pacific Coast

D

espite the world-wide economic downturn, Russia will continue implementing the program on construction of a new space rocket launch center in Priamurie region bordering Northern China and Korea. The new center will be named “Vostochny”, the Russian for “Eastern”. Speaking at a conference in October this year, Victor Remishevsky, deputy head of Roscosmos, Russia’s state space agency, said the first launch will take place from Vostochny in 2015. The project is now in research and development phase, with construction documentation being prepared on the money of the Russian government. He estimated construction costs at Ruble 400 billion (US dollar 13.86 billion). The need for the new launch center arises from shortage of such facilities inside Russia, in the view of

gradual withdrawal from Baikonur in Kazakhstan, which continues to serve the primary launch center. Russia pays Kazakhstan US dollar 115 million annually for the use of Baikonur since the only launch center of her own, Plesetsk, has a limited capacity and serves a restricted number of launch vehicle types. Besides, Plesetsk’s location does not allow effective use of rocket power from the viewpoint of rocket engine energy. Meantime, Russia plans to increase number of launches starting in 2015, after development of next-generation of launch vehicles and spacecraft projects is complete. This new generation is meant to fly primarily from Russia’s national territory. Importantly, most of the first-stage rocket engines of the next-generation launch vehicles will run on purified sorts of kerosene, liquid oxygen and hydrogen

thus ensuring a higher degree of friendliness to the natural environment. Launches from Vostochny will prove more cost-efficient than Plesetsk, taking account of its geographic location. The Soviet Union had plans for erecting a launch center in Priamurie region in the 1980s, but the work did not go further than selection of a suitable land site. Vostochny will have a few phases, and be executed as a large investment project. Governor of Amur region (includes Priamurie) Oleg Kozhemyako said investors and companies from China, Japan and Republic of Korea indicated their interest. The Russian government is meant to provide a large portion of the required funding, but independent investors are expected to participate as well. The federal program for space development shall have necessary funding allocated. The project is expected to create more than 20 thousand job places in the region. More than 250 different objects of infrastructure will be erected. The Russian government gave its go-ahead for initial work on shaping a new launch center on the Russian pacific coast in 2008. At MAKS’2009 Roscosmos presented a scaled model of Vostochny and released some relevant figures. The new space center will occupy 551.5 square km of land. Logistics will be provided with the help of Chita-Khabarovsk highway and Trans-Siberian Railway. The space center will also have its own aerodrome with runway measuring 4,500m versus 75m, to handle Antonov An-124 Ruslan and An-225 Mria heavy lifters. Vostochny will have several launch pads. One of those launch pads is that for the Rus launch vehicle. A scaled model of the Rus was on display at MAKS’2009. The rocket is allocated to nextgeneration of space hardware. It has a liftoff weight of 673 tons and a payload of 23.8 tons. These figures make the Rus a biggest space rocket conceived in Russia after demise of the Soviet Union. The Rus is meant to be a part of the next-generation manned spaceflight system. The latter will also use the PTK-NP or New Generation Crew Transport Vehicle. This reusable spacecraft weighing 12 tons provides space for six astronauts. A mockup of it was also available on display at MAKS’2009. Another type of space vehicle that may fly from Vostochny is the Angara-7 with a 35-ton payload capability. This rocket is being developed by Khrunichev Space Center. The Angara family, that has lightweight, medium and heavy rockets using unified rocket modules, has long been in development. Members of the family were many times on display at various international exhibitions. The Angara-7 is a new family member, revealed at MAKS’2009. Other types of rockets that may fly from Vostochny might use an oxygen-hydrogen engine for rocket booster block (an upper stage of space rocket) that was on display at MAKS’2009. This engine is being


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • MAKS 2009 • 57

developed using the cryogenic technologies of the Russian-developed KVD-1 engines now powering the Indian GSLV rocket (acronym for Geo-Stationary Launch Vehicle). The Strela lightweight rocket is likely to be the first rocket to fly from Vostochny. The rocket is devel-

oped by NPO Mashinostroyenia (Scientific Industrial Association of Machinery). Effectively, it is a conversion of a redundant ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) of the UR-100N UTTKh type, but the company says it may launch it into production as a dedicated launch vehicle if the market demand is high enough to support this. The Strela is being marketed as an ideal vehicle to place into orbit NPO Mash-developed spacecraft, such as the Kondor-E radar reconnaissance satellite. At MAKS’2009 the company revealed pictures

of the satellite’s radar antenna – seemingly a full scale copy for testing. The Kondor-E has long been offered to India, as part of the reconnaissance-andstrike system using the satellites for target detection and BrahMos missiles for kinetic action. At MAKS’2009 the company said it holds a contract on fielding of the first satellite, but did not name customers. Russian space forces were said to have been funding development of the Soyuz-1 light rocket. Revealed in 2008, it has payload capability of 3 tons. First flight is set for 2011. What is interesting about it is that the LV uses NK-33 rocket engines developed in the 1970s for the USSR’s Moon exploration program (which had been curtailed prematurely). A number of NK-33s were exported to the US, firetested and used in US launch vehicles. Official comments from Roscosmos say that the agency is putting together its strategy of using Vostochny in the interests of both automatic spacecraft (starting in 2015) and manned space programs (2018). The latter shall involve near space and interplanetary missions, including flights of manned spacecraft to the Moon and Mars. Roscosmos says Vostochny is at heart of Russia’s long-term space exploration plans aimed at maintaining Russia’s leading position in the world’s space industry. Vladimir Karnozov


58 • MAKS 2009 • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

New contracts for Russian jetliners

T

he Tu-204, An-148 and Superjet won important orders and commitments during MAKS’2009 air show held 18-23 August. These types continue to draw attention in September, October and November, with new facts emerging on new deliveries and commitments. Atlant-Soyuz awarded Ilyushin Finance (IFC) lessor contract for 15 Tu-204SM and 30 An-148s by firming up LoI (letter of intent) the two companies signed at Le Bourget. These thirty cover three different versions: 15 An-148-100E passenger jets with extended range, 10 An-148-200 stretches and 5 Antonov Business Jets (the corporate version, – two aircraft will be in the Elite and three in the Corporate Shuttle variants). IFC, which acts main sales vehicle for Russia’s United Aircraft (UAC) also won commitment from Saratov Airlines on An-148-100B/Es, for delivery in 2011-2012 and firm order from Vladivostok Avia on 4 An-148-100/200, due in 20122014. ATu Airline operating five Tu-204s awarded IFC contract on 15-year financial lease of two Tu-204C freighters rejected by Volga-Dnepr. These will deliver this year, upon completion at Aviastar. Polet, the first operator of the Il-96-400T freighter, said it takes delivery of three aircraft and is firming up option for three more, expecting a fourth airframe to join its fleet by the year-end. Polet opened Il-96-400T commercial operations in late September. At MAKS Volga-Dnepr, Antonov and UAC signed specification for An-124M Ruslan to be produced at Aviastar-SP when the production resumes, calling for maximum load of 150t and range of 4,000km. Volga-Dnepr also signed LoI with Antonov on the An-70T civilian version of next-generation with intent to take first such airplane in 2013. Polet said it will also embark on the An-70T, following the decision of the Russian MoD

to resume funding for the An-70 airlifter development, – the respective agreement with the Ukrainian MoD was signed on 18 August. IFC announced preliminary agreement with Latin American airlines. Clean Air of Brazil for two Il-96300s (previously operated by AirUnion, now being refurbished) and four new Tu-204SM passenger jets plus two Tu-204CE freighters. Icaro of Ecuador wants two Tu-204SM freighters and two An-148-100B passenger jets, with options for one more of each type. The government of Bolivia has applied to Moscow with request for six An-148s including two in VIP version for transportation of state officials. The move follows news from the Russian government  – the Kremlin has indicated that it is formalizing order for two An-148VIP jets and two more Il-96-300s to add

to four wide-bodies already operated by Special Air Detachment. The government-serving airline wants these airplanes in 2011-12. The Axis of Evil has been long-standing customers for Russian equipment. At MAKS’2009 IFC said it is putting together financial package for one Tu204-100 for Air Koryo of North Korea which already operates a Tu-204-300. IFC is in talks with Syrian Air on two Tu-204 freighters, possible second-hand. Iran’s delegation headed by minister for transportation confirmed government funding for Iran Airtour’s firm order on five Tu-204SM airliners, – if executed on time (deliveries 2011), it will enforce the option for 25 more. While at MAKS’2009, the Iranian minister received an official offer of the Sukhoi Superjet 100 (SSJ100) from Sukhoi via Russian minister of


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • MAKS 2009 • 59

One more agreement on production of Tu-204 airliners is reached between Alexander Roubtsov (IFC) and Alexey Fedorov (UAC)

transport Igor Levitin. This offer came as a surprise, since many of the SSJ100 items and technologies are imported from US and EU which applies embargo to high-tech trade with Iran. Superjet International did not generate new sales at MAKS’2009. But it had some news during the show. The Russo-Italian company signed agreement with Aeroplex of Hungary on inclusion of the Budapest, Hungary-based maintenance specialist in the SSJ100 support system. Other agreements were signed with Aeroflot and ArmAvia on that Superjet International – not Sukhoi Civil Aircraft – will render “Super Care” services to the SSJ100 launch customers. Sukhoi Civil Aircraft signed agreement with VEB and VTB banks on funding packages for ten Aeroflot SSJ100s due for delivery by 2011. Two SSJ100 are

due to enter Aeroflot service in November and December this year, and one airframe is promised to ArmAvia in December. Three SSJ100 operable prototypes had logged 800 hours in 300 flights by the show opening. Fourth operable prototype, fully corresponding to specification, shall fly in November, which makes it questionable whether the maker would actually manage any deliveries to airlines this year. Meantime, Russian airlines continue importing western jets. Boieng’s vice-president for sales Aldo Basile said at MAKS’2009 that over two hundred Boeing airplanes are in the Russian fleet. AirVolga (that operates 2 Tu-134As and 3 Yak-42Ds) exhibited one of its two CRJ200 just acquired via VTB-Leasing Europe in 7-year financial lease. Eight more are being acquired through Export Development Canada and GECAS. These will be supported by Airline Support

Sweden. Region-Avia, which started EMB-120 services in March 2009, exhibited its fourth such aircraft, saying that up to four more will be added by the yearend. Some of them will fly on routes of GTK Rossiya. The new head of the latter, Roman Pakhomov, said he is “anxious to see” An-148-100B flying regular services from Pulkovo airport of St. Petersburg. GTK Rossiya expects six An-148s in 2009-2010 and six more in 2011. The side RA-61701, exhibited at MAKS’2009, was delivered to the launch customer on the first day of October. Second An-148-100B is due in early December, third in late December and fourth in early 2010. Polet and Moskovia, each with order for ten An-148-100Bs, expect deliveries in 2010-12. These deals are secured following signing, at MAKS’2009, the financial agreement between VEB (VneshEconomBank) and IFC on funding 70 An-148 financial lease packages for airline customers. IFC hopes to sell 400 An-148s, half of which outside the former Soviet Union. This gives VASO plant, which produces An-148 jets, a good workload. This year VASO promises to deliver three aircraft, seven in 2010, 14 in 2011, 20 in 2012 and then 36 annually. Speaking of his company’s achievements at MAKS’2009, IFC general director Alexander Roubtsov said: “We are satisfied with the MAKS’2009, since we won new orders and commitments from the airline customers. Also, we signed some more letters of intents (LoIs) which, hopefully, will soon turn into firm orders. In October we start deliveries of the new generation regional jetliner, the Antonov An-148. This will be a worthy addition to the continuing deliveries of the Tupolev Tu-204 narrow body mainline airliners: in the time being we continue deliveries of the Tu-204-100 version and are preparing to moving onto more advanced SM version. Our customers continue taking from us the Ilyushin Il-96 wide body aircraft, in the -300


60 • MAKS 2009 • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

and – 400T versions. All of those aircraft types are present in the new pack of agreements signed during MAKS’2009”. At MAKS’2009 Finance-Leasing (FLC) handed over rights for two SSJ100s out of ten it ordered at MAKS’2007, to Yakutia airline. Yakutia operates two 48-seat An-140 turboprops (delivered in 2006 and 2007) on financial lease from that lessor. Third such aircraft in Yakutia colors, the RA-41252, just completed by Aviacor, was on display at MAKS’2009. Ilyushin Finance Co. General director Alexander Roubtsov

The RA-64010 was among aircraft making debut at MAKS’2009. The aircraft was converted at Aviastar-SP from a Tu-204-100 passenger jet into Tu-204-300A VIP-jet with shrunk fuselage and additional fuel tanks – now it can make Moscow-New York non-stop. The airplane was acquired by VneshTorgBank (VTB) for use as corporate transport. At MAKS’2009 the Bank of St. Petersburg signed agreement with KAPO plant and Vega concern on loan of Ruble 1 billion for completion of a second Tu-214ON

aircraft in 2011. First such airplane, Vega-made carrying special equipment, shall be delivered in late 2009. The aircraft carries land-surveillance radar with resolution of 15m and photo camera with resolution of 3m, for the Open Skies program. KAPO take advantage of the event to claim that the plant is loaded with firm orders for the Tu-214 series aircraft until 2013. Most of these orders come from Russian government structures, and are for special mission Tu-214. In August KAPO completed third Tu-214 for Transaero, but the delivery took place a month later. Transaero now operates three Tu214s and expects to see five aircraft in its fleet by 2012. Meanwhile, the airline, together with S7 (Sibir) is negotiating with UAC and ILC on joining Atlant-Soyuz and Iran Airtour so as to form a critical mass of orders for the Tu204SM. UAC president Alexey Fedorov sees market for 120 Tu-204SM aircraft by 2020, when similarly sized MS-21-400 becomes available. Two months after MAKS’2009 the Tu-204 program reached another major milestone. On 17 October the test-bed registration RA-64048, based on a series airframe, took to the air for the first time after one of its Perm PS-90A engines was replaced by an experimental PS-90A2. Various checks at different thrust settings were carried out. After one hour 25 minutes in the air, the test-bed landed safely. The engine demonstrated stable operation at all stages of the flight. The PS-90A2 is a unified twin-spool turbofan engine with high bypass ratio, mixing of inner and outer flows, thrust reverser in the outer contour and extensive noise-suppression system. It is a further evolution of the PS-90A series with further improved performance to match the world’s highest standards. The PS-90A2 and PS-90A are interchangeable. Compared to the current production version, the PS-90A2 has lifecycle cost decreased by 35% with simultaneous increase in reliability by 50 to 100%. Ecological parameters of the newer version, including noise and emission levels, meet stringent


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • MAKS 2009 • 61

standards that ICAO and other international organizations are planning to impose in future. The PS-90A2 will enable airlines to operate Tu-204 aircraft under ETOPS, including 180-minute stretches of long-haul flights over sea surface. The PS-90A2 requires twice less man-hours in operation than the PS-90A. The improved engine is less inclined to fire, after replacement of a few older fuel system elements with newer ones operated pneumatically. The PS-90A2 will pass certification to the AP-33 aviation standards, harmonized with FAR Part 33 and JAR33. The PS-90A2 is selected for the Tu-204SM narrow body medium haul airliner. The aircraft is being developed by United Aircraft Corporation under the state-funded program entitled “Improvement of the Tu-204-300, deep modernization of the Tu-204 (Tu-204SM), increase in reliability and operational performance, use of achievements in upgrading Tu204/214 fleet, improvement of systems and subassemblies of Tu-204/214 family aircraft”. This effort is being made in accordance with the Federal program “Development of Russian civil aviation in 2002-2010 and up to 2015”. UAC was awarded respective contract in December 2008 by the Ministry of industry and trade. Sergei Galperin, deputy general director at UAC – Civil Airplanes, and deputy general designer at Tupolev design house, leads the Tu-204SM effort. The work is now focusing on improving aircraft design and manufacturing technologies so as to improve reliability of aircraft systems and their safe-fault features, to cut manufacturing and direct operational costs. Tu-204SM ground and flight tests shall be completed in November 2010. Certification is due in December 2010. Deliveries shall start in June 2011. Backlog is 20 airframes, including five ordered by launch customer Iran Airtour via Ilyushin Finance Co. (a member in UAC). At MAKS’2009 the leasing company and AntantSoyuz, the airline of the Moscow City Government,

signed contract for 15 Tu-204SM aircraft with deliveries in 2011-2012. The theme of Il-96-400T came back to the headlines of the Russian newspapers on 25 September. That day International airport Moscow – Domodedovo housed press briefing devoted to first revenue flight of the type. The aircraft registration number RA-96101 was ferried from Ulianovsk to Domodedovo for loading and was available for inspection. On 27 September this aircraft performed its first flight with commercial cargo onboard, taking off from Domodedovo and landing in Yakutsk. This is first leg in the closed route that also involves landings in Shanghai, Novosibirsk and Munich. Such a route shall insure sufficient load factor on inbound and outbound flights. Speaking at the briefing, Alexey Fedorov, President of the United Aircraft Corporation, said that the beginning of revenue flights on the new type is very important for the Russian aviation industry. In particular, he said: “Keeping our competences in wide body aircraft is very important for the United Aircraft Corporation. We are well aware of the difficulties that the baseline passenger version, the Il-96-300, experiences when competing with newer western designs. Therefore, we have developed the freighter version with a stretched fuselage and improved PS90A1 turbofans. In its segment of the global market, this new version is very much competitive with best designs available elsewhere.” However, the process of market entry for the Il96-400T was not smooth. The first airframe changed intended airline customers several times before it was finally accepted by Polet (Flight) Airline. Wellknown difficulties that the global market for cargo transportation experienced recently were the primary cause for that. Fedorov further said: “We are happy with the fact that, finally, the airplane went into service and started revenue operations. This makes UAC able to demonstrate performance of the type on a real network of air routes, and help us draw attention

of potential customers. I believe that first months of revenue flights will prove profitable for Polet. And that will be the most effective, most convincing advertising for the new aircraft”. “We have preserved manufacturing capacities for production of commercial wide body aircraft in the view of would-be orders from domestic and international airlines. We hope that Polet would turn the option for three more Il-96-400T aircraft into a firm order. We further hope that successful beginning of revenue flights will ensure good future for the Il-96-400T”. Polet has to this day accepted two airframes and in the process of accepting the third. All the three are named after distinguished persons. The RA96101 carries the name of Vyacheslav Salikov. The RA-96102 is named after Valery Menitsky and RA96103 after Stanislav Bliznyuk. Interest in the Il-96 family aircraft in VIP, passenger and freighter versions is being expressed by a number of airlines from Russia, Asia-Pacific and Latin America. The most recent news on the An-148 came as we went to press. The government of Myanmar signed for two An-148s to be employed on transportation of government officials. The contract is signed with the United Aircraft Corporation. Delivery is set for as early as 2010, which may necessitate revision of certain contracts with Russian airlines. Earlier Myanmar considered buying or leasing Tu-204 aircraft, and even inspected some of those in service with Red Wings and other Russian carriers. In the end, this country opted for the An-148. It is believed that this choice was influenced by that of the Russian government. In the middle of this year senior government officials indicated that they want at least two An-148s for the special air detachment serving the Russian president as early as practically possible – preferably in late 2010. Those would replace some aged Tu-134 twin jets. Vladimir Karnozov


62 • INDUSTRY • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

First

Russian-made An-148 delivery

O

n the first day of October 2009 Ilyushin Finance Co. (IFC) and VASO plant (in Voronezh), both members in the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), handed over two new aircraft to airline customers. Voronezh-based Polet (Flight) took delivery of its second Ilyushin Il-96-400T freighter (registration RA-96102, “Valery Menitsky”). In its turn, GTK Rossiya (State Transport Company “Russia”) accepted the first deliverable example of the Antonov An-148-100B regional jetliner (registration RA-61701). Sergei Ivanov, deputy chairman of the Russian government; Aleksey Gordeyev, governor of Voronezh Region and Alexey Fedorov, UAC

president, attended the ceremony. Vitaly Zubarev, VASO general director, Aleksandr Roubtsov, Ilyushin Finance Co. general director, Roman Pakhomov, GTK Rossiya general director and Aleksandr Karpov, Polet deputy general director, signed respective delivery documents. The Il-96-400T freighter is the newest member in the Il-96 quad wide body airliner family. It features extended fuselage, improved Perm PS-90A1 turbofans and most advanced set of Russian-made avionics. These new features make the Il-96-400T fully compliant to most stringent international requirements to aviation safety, navigation and ecology. Polet serves the launch cus-

tomer for the Il-96-400T freighter, with firm order for three airframes (due for delivery in 2009) and option for three more. The An-148 is the first indigenous civil aircraft design developed from scratch on computer screen using “paperless” technologies, and the first such to go into series production in Russia. The baseline An-148-100B model features passenger cabin for comfortable seating of eight business and sixty economy class passengers. The maximum takeoff weight of this model is 41,550kg (91,600 lb), practice range with all seats occupied 3,500km (1,892 nm). Mastering An148 series production at VASO and handing over first deliverable example to airline customer mark transition of the Russian aviation industry to a new technological level in civil aviation. Upon the delivery ceremony Sergei Ivanov spoke to the members of the mass media invited to witness the event. He said: Today we are here for a very important event. It is a new milestone in the history of the Russian aviation industry. Because, when we speak of short to medium haul jetliners – and the An-148 behind me is exactly this kind of aircraft – we must bear in mind that this day the Russian industry delivers its first operable airplane in the given class for the first time in the past fifteen years. Just think on it: we did not produce jetliners for short and medium haul air routes for a whole of fifteen years. And, now, we are back on that market. Furthermore, this first Russian-made An-148 goes into service with a large and prominent domestic carrier, the state transport company “Russia” (Russian abbreviation and trademark GTK Rossiya). There is something more to add to that. The An-148 sets a good example of mutually beneficial project for Russia and Ukraine, acting main partners on this project. Developed in the


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • INDUSTRY • 63

Ukraine by Antonov design house, the An-148 went into production in both Russia and Ukraine, at the plants in Voronezh and Kiev respectively. The airframes we see here today in this workshop are assembled in Russia, but some of their components, such as engines and wing boxes, come from Ukrainian suppliers. This project provides some evidence to the fact that, despite well known turbulences on the level of interstate relations, business projects in the sector of the real economy continue to work well. The business goes on. It does go because these projects are mutually beneficial, and on a strong economic footing. The case with the An-148 is just that kind of thing. The bird has flown, the first bird of ours. By the year-end, GTK Rossiya will take two more An-148s. The production output will gradually increase year by year. Besides, in parallel with the An-148, the Voronezh plant continues production of Il-96-400T freighters. The same day today the Polet (Flight in English) airline takes delivery of its second Il-96-400T. We expect additional orders for this wide body freighter, so as to justify further production of this type of aircraft. Starting in 2011, the Voronezh plant commences series production of the Il-112 for the Russian ministry of defense. This airplane is a lightweight tactical airlifter. Let me remind you that late last year, when the worldwide economic crisis broke out, some alarming voices were heard in the Parliament about uncertain future of the Voronezh plant. Some people had said the plant would not have lived long, its personnel would have been dismissed… The time has proved them wrong. There is a lot of work to do for the Voronezh plant. What is of concern to me today is not the amount of work for this enterprise (the United Aircraft Corporation has provided sufficient workload for the plant for many years to come).

There are some other things that concern me. I am worried whether the plant could manage to deliver its obligations before customers on time, exactly as in the contracts. To be on time with deliveries, the plant must work hard on implementation of its plans on expansion of the existing manufacturing capacity, on mastering new technologies and manufacturing equipment. Our airlines and passengers, the whole of our country, are longing for modern, comfortable and affordable jetliners. The An-148 is just that kind of thing. It is a very modern design meeting world’s highest standards to fuel efficiency, transportation capability (range-payload)… As per the range, the An148 can, with all seats occupied, cover distance of up to 4,000km. So, that kind of aircraft fits well into the market of Russia taking account of the vast territory of our country. There is no surprise that, at the time of first delivery, the number of orders placed by airline customers for this type exceeds one hundred units. Of those, contracts for about sixty aircraft are firm orders with exact delivery dates and payment schedule. Those contracts set very rigid terms for both buyer and manufacturer. I do not worry much about sufficient order book for the type (it is already substantial). But I do worry whether the plant would manage timely delivery of its obligations. To manage this and other projects, the manufacturing plant must carry on with technical modernization. Thanks God, the An-148 is “paperless” design, developed from scratch on computer screen. All of the drawings have been made using computer aided design software. All of those drawings are available in digital format. This is a tremendous achievement for our designers, and a good news for our suppliers and airline customers. In addi-

tion, the An-148 crew station is very modern, built on multifunctional displays. The avionics set is primarily of Russian origin, including the satellite navigation system. I have spoken to our Ukrainian partners on the issue of English language version of the crew station and its certification. We need this to export the airplane worldwide. Question: what airplanes will the Voronezh plant manufacture ten years from now? Sergei Ivanov: I would not dare to make forecast for such a distant future. You asked me for what the market-driven economy shall determine. The plant will produce those aircraft designs whose projects are economically justified, and able to generate a positive cash-flow. This is only possible when a certain aircraft design is popular and in demand with airline customers. If the airlines do not want a certain type, there is no reason for the industry to keep manufacturing it. Today, only five countries in the world possess modern aviation industries and produce airplanes in large numbers. Series production of commercial and military airplanes is a very complex, high-tech industry. That is why the government of the Russian Federation pays so much attention to the national aviation industry, and provides substantial financial aid to it. Russia is no exception: other great nations also render support to aviation industries of their own. Examples are the United States, the European Union and, most of all, China. Development of the aviation industry requires huge investments into high technologies, including IT and nano. The industries that interact with aircraft manufacturing shall also develop fast, otherwise the competition for the global market will be lost to other manufacturing nations. Vladimir Karnozov


64 • INDUSTRY • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

Beriev is 75!

T

he history of the Beriev Aircraft Company (Beriev) traces back to October 1, 1934. It is this day, when the Taganrog Central Design Bureau of Seaplane Manufacturing was organized in the city of Taganrog at the facilities of Aircraft Plant No.31 in line with Decree No.44/260 of the Main Aircraft Industry Department. The young engineer Georgy M. Beriev was appointed the Chief Designer of the Bureau by this very decree. Throughout the 75 years of its history Beriev has demonstrated exceptional creativity and has contributed immensely to the development of the Russian science and technology, first and foremost in the field of amphibian aircraft construction. Despite amphibian aviation is justly called a difficult sphere, Beriev has created over 30 types of various aircraft, of which 15 were manufactured in series, including MBR-2, Be-6, Be-10 and Be-12 seaplanes. The MBR-2 short-range reconnaissance aircraft, KOR-1 (Be-2) and KOR-2 (Be-4) ship-borne seaplanes designed in prewar years were used to advantage by the Navy during World War II.

Tu-142MR

On February 9, 1946, the design bureau was transformed into State Federal Seaplane Manufacturing Test Plant No.49. Within the time period from the '40s to '60s, a number of worldwide-known seaplanes were designed for sea frontier patrolling, namely the Be-6 flying boat, Be-10 jet seaplane, and Be-12 amphibian aircraft, the largest at that time. These vehicles have been in service for a long time and featured high flight and nautical characteristics proved by dozens of world records. In those years, the specialists of the Bureau were also engaged in designing the P-10 flying bomb for submarine armament. In 1968, Beriev designed the Be-30 (Be-32) short-haul aircraft. In the '70s and '80s, Beriev was chiefly engaged in designing land-based aircraft. In this period, the Tu-142MR radio relay aircraft was put into series production. The A-50 airborne early warning and guidance system was created at that time, too. Beriev also participated in designing the Buran space shuttle.

In 1980, the government decided to develop the A-40 Albatros amphibian jet. In 1986, the A-40 made its maiden flight. The A-40 Albatros became the world-largest amphibian jet with unique flight and seagoing characteristics. Various versions were created on its basis. In 1998, the Be-200 new-generation multifunctional amphibian made its first flight. The Be400ChS was certified in line the AP-25 standard in 2003 and is in service with Russia’s Emergency Ministry. At present, works are underway to move the aircraft production to Taganrog and certify it according to European standards. Also, the Be-200’s land-based version dubbed Be-300 is being developed. The aircraft is being developed in several versions including the transport version designed for passenger/cargo operations at medium distances and executive version. The Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aircraft Plant is manufacturing the Be-103 light amphibian in series. It is certified in line with Russian AP-23 and US FAR-23 as well as Brazilian, Chinese and European standards. Seaplanes and amphibians created by Beriev in various years have set 250 world aviation records registered and acknowledged by the International Aviation Federation. The main direction of Beriev’s development in the short and long run is creating an advanced multifield close-cycle aviation company. Given the wide cooperation, such a company will be able to solve all aircraft development, production, testing, operation, overhaul, modernization and recycling tasks. At present, Beriev is working on new types of aircraft in several directions at once. The first direction is seaplanes, first and foremost the Be-200 multifunctional amphibian and


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • INDUSTRY • 65

Be-103 light multifunctional amphibian. In addition, Be-112 and Be-114 promising short-range multifunctional amphibians as well as the Be-101 light amphibian are being designed. The basic configuration of the Be-200 amphibian is intended for fighting forest fires using water or fire extinguishant fluids from the air. Besides, it can carry out cargo/passenger services, searchand-rescue operations, environmental monitoring, patrolling exclusive economic areas and sea borders. The Be-200 amphibious aircraft is certified according to the Russian AP-25 standard. The Be-200ES version is made on the basis of Be-200 for Russia’s Emergency Ministry. Its equipment allows solving a wide range of tasks on searching emergency areas, search-and-rescue missions in the sea and littoral areas. The Be200ES was certified in 2003 and is in service with the Russian Emergency Ministry. Five series aircraft have been already delivered to the customer. Beriev is designing the Be-210 passenger amphibian basing on the Be-200ES. Also, there are plans to make its cargo/passenger and patrol versions. The Be-200 was demonstrated in France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Malaysia and China. It took part in extinguishing forest fires in Russia, Italia and Portugal. It was flown by French, US and Italian pilots, which highly estimated its technical performance. In 2008, the Be-200ES was delivered to the first foreign consumer – Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Emergency Situations. Now, works are underway to shift its production to Taganrog and certify the amphibian according to EU standards, which will raise its competitiveness on the international market. Beriev closely cooperates with the EADS European airspace concern in the certification process. The Be-103 light amphibian is designed to solve a wide range of tasks including patrolling borders, forests and water areas; ecology monitoring of water areas; search, pursuit and interception of poacher boats; search-and-rescue mission on water areas as well as rendering urgent medical aid. The Be-103 amphibian is certified under Russian AP-23 and US FAR-23 standards as well as Brazilian, Chinese and EU ones. It is manufactured in series at the Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aircraft Plant. The Be-103 features is quite unusual aerodynamical configuration – a low-set displacing planing wing, which allowed avoiding wing and inboard stabilizer devices. Beriev is currently carrying out flights on such aircraft. Beriev is now actively developing the Be-101 four-seat amphibian designed for commercial operation and as a private aircraft. Composition materials are widely employed in its structure. The Be-101 can be used both in the existing infrastructure and out of it basing on small water areas with

Viktor A. Kobzev, Beriev General director – General Designer

a simple coastline. But the main thing is that new technologies and composition materials suitable for long operation in salty water are to be tested on the Be-101. Beriev is developing projects of future giant amphibians with a takeoff weight exceeding 1,000 t. Such aircraft built in metal will be able to become real flying ships competing with conventional aircraft and ships on transoceanic routes using the existing infrastructure of sea ports. It is only natural that radically new aerodynamical configurations are needed to create such aircraft. Some of them are already employed in the Be-103 light amphibious aircraft.

The scope and complexity of this task require that such giant vehicles must be created in international cooperation, which can be joined by all interested research institutes and organizations, aircraft and aircraft equipment makers as well as industrial and financial structures. Priority works include creating AWACS systems as in the end of the 20th century it became clear that AWACS aircraft are vital for air force of any country. At present, Beriev is supporting operation and upgrade of A-50 AWACS aircraft being in service with the Russian Air Force.

A-40 Albatros


66 • INDUSTRY • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

Be-200 ES

Be-103

Works on the improvement of A-50 aircraft are underway. The new A-50U version will have enhanced radar performance with radio facilities considerably lightened by means of employing a new elemental base. As a result, it will be able to take more fuel and carry additional dedicated equipment. In addition, it is planned to significantly increase conditions of crew members. Technical solutions implemented in the A-50U will be later used in promising AWACS systems for the Russian Armed Forces. Also, the development of AWACS systems is an important element of Russia’s military-technical cooperation with foreign states. The AI AWACS system has already been created for a foreign customer. The AI aircraft was made on the A-50’s basis by dismounting Russian radar equipment and upgrading aircraft systems for installing the Israeli radar system. The system is developed by ELTA Electronics Ltd, part of the Israel Aircraft Industries concern. The cooperation with IAI/ELTA on creating AWACS aircraft is going on. A contract between Russia, India and Israel on the creation and shipment of three AWACS aircraft for the Indian Air Force is being fulfilled now. The Il-76TD transport aircraft was chosen as a carrier. It is powered by new Russian PS-90A-76 engines and MSA radiotechnical system of Israeli company ELTA. Beriev has become the main contractor on completing the airframe, equipping it with Russian-made systems, testing and adapting it for the Israeli AWACS system.


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • INDUSTRY • 67

On May 25, 2009, the AI No.1 AWACS aircraft with the MSA system on board passed the tests and made a flight from Israel to India (Bombay). The aircraft was handed over to the Indian Air Force. Thus, according to the contract, India got an opportunity of buying more aircraft like that. Beriev does not confine itself to seaplanes and pays the needed attention to land-based aviation as well, in particular, to the development of the Be32KMD short-haul aircraft based on the Be-32K. At present, preparations are being made for its series manufacturing and certification. The comprehensive modernization of the Be-32K to the Be-32KMD version will allow increasing the loading factor, reduce fuel consumption and enhance flight performance. By its main flight characteristics (range, load and cruise speed), the Be-32KMD meets civil aviation requirements set for aircraft of its size, with its transportation capabilities matching foreign analogues and exceeding those of the currently-operated An-28 and L-410UVP-E. The Be-32KMD’s further modernization allows for the wider employment of composition materials in the airframe. Beriev includes Russia’s only air company operating civilian seaplanes. It was created for carrying passengers, fulfilling excursion flights in the Southern Federal District and preparing the employment of Be-103 amphibians in other Russian regions. It carries out

A-50

maintenance and after-sales support for the sold aircraft and owns an aircraft maintenance base servicing Be-200 and Be-103 amphibians. The enterprise has a division for training flight-technical personnel – the Centre of Training Sea Aviation Specialists. Beriev is paying a large attention to the integrated logistic support including after-sales support of the aircraft it creates. It has a separate unit dealing with this issue with emphasis on employing advanced information technologies. At present, Beriev is led by Viktor A. Kobzev, who has been working at the enterprise for over

40 years with six of them – on the post of General Director – General Designer. One can learn more about our aircraft, achievements and plans for the future at the International Sea Aviation Show and Workshop in Gelenjik – the world’s only air show, where seaplanes can be showed on the ground, water and air. Beriev is one of its organizers. The next, 8th Sea Aviation Show will take place in September 2010. By materials of Beriev Aircraft Company press service


68 • MILITARY AVIATION • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

A 7-TONNE INDIAN BRILLIANT WILL THE INDIAN BRILLIANT APPEAR? The Indian Air Force now has 740 combat aircraft, of which 23% are of the 4th and 4th+ generation (the Su-30MKI, MiG-29 and Mirage 2000), 47% – of the 3rd generation (Jaguar, MiG-23 and MiG-27) and 30% – MiG-21 – of the 2nd generation, half of which is represented by radically upgraded MiG-21UPG (bison) aircraft with their avionics and armament modernized almost up to the 4th generation. The quality of the Indian Air Force can be proved by the fact that in mid-2008, it included 53 Su-30MKIs with their combat performance exceeding any other foreign series fighter excepting the F-22A. And even the US AF pilots, who are by no means bad specialists, prove the high level of their Indian colleagues, who repeatedly won them in international exercises. All the Indian fighters, however, were designed (and partially manufactured) abroad, namely in Russia, France and Great Britain. Despite significant progress the Indian aircraft industry has made during the last decades, they failed to organize the full

cycle of combat aircraft production – from designing the shape to series manufacturing. Despite the lack of funding and repeating failures, however, India has been insistently and steadily trying to reach this goal. The history proves that such persistence is always rewarded… FIRST ‘ALMOST OWN’ AIRCRAFT The HF-24 Marut (Spirit of the Tempest) fighter/ bomber has become the first ‘almost own’ Indian aircraft. It was designed by Kurt Tank, a famous German designer, who created one of the best piston-engine fighters dubbed FW 190 and Ta-152 during WWII. The Marut, which made its first flight in March 1961, was initially designed for the max speed of Mach 2. However, the Rolls-Royse Orfeus Mk.703 licensed British engine the Indian manufacturers had at their disposal featured insufficient power and provided reaching the supersonic speed only in case of pitchdown. India has totally produced 147 Marut aircraft. These fighter/bombers were used during the IndianHF-24 Marut

Pakistani war in 1971. Attempts were made to create a better and faster HF-73 fighter/bomber basing on the HF-24. However, the only experimental aircraft was lost during its testing. At present, one of Marut series aircraft is kept in the technological museum in the city of Bangalor. Also, the Ajeet light fighter designed by India in the 1960-1980’s basing on the Folland Gnat British subsonic fighter can be also partially called an Indian one. In addition, India has created the Kiran trainer jet and a number of piston-engine trainers. In the late 1970’s, the Indian Air Force headquarters issued the AST 201 technical specification, which allowed for the development of the light fighter to replace the MiG-21 and Ajeet aircraft. The primary task of the advanced aircraft was air defense, and the secondary – direct aircraft support of land-based troops and (partially) isolation of the combat area. The aircraft had to combine small dimensions, supersonic speed, high maneuverability and carry advanced armament. This programme was initially dubbed Super Gnat, which demonstrated that the promising fighter was chiefly designed as a successor of the Ajeet Gnat. Such criterions as affordability and cost-effectiveness were very important. According to the Indian Air Force Long-Term Development Programme adopted in 1981, it was planned to re-equip 11.4% fighter squadrons with new-generation aircraft developed in India by 1991 and 40% – by 1994-1995. The total requirement for such aircraft was estimated at 250 items. A BREAKTHROUGH TOWARDS GENERATION FOUR Preliminary works on the 4th-generation fighter began in 1980 when a group of Air Force and industry experts made a report proving such a project


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • MILITARY AVIATION • 69

was feasible. At the same time, the authors thought some components for the new aircraft (some types of avionics equipment, systems and structure materials including the on-board radar, fly-by-wire system) had to be bought abroad. Some time later (by mid1983), the Indian government received such reports with similar conclusion from four European aircraft manufacturers, namely BAE, MBB, Dornier and Dassault-Brege. At the same time, the government took a principal decision to start the programme. At long last, the development of the Indian new-generation fighter commenced! Using previous research data, the Aeronautical Development Authority (ADA), an organization set up in 1984 probably specially for implementing the national fighter programme, presented a detailed report on the prospects of the new aircraft to the Indian government. And a month later, the Air Force elaborated the technical assignment for the fighter, after which a group of experts from the HAL company was established in ADA’s centre in order to design the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) project. Commenting on this event, Indian Defense Minister N.Rao said in the parliament that “the fully Indian aircraft created by Indian specialists with the minimal support from foreign companies…will match foreign analogues by its technical level.” According to the minister, it was planned to make the LCA’s first test flight as early as 1989. Wind tests of various fighter configurations started in the wind tunnel of the national aircraft laboratory. The elaboration of technical requirements for the main systems also began. The preliminary development of the multifunctional on-board radar for the LCA was carried out by the LRDE military radioelectronics laboratory jointly with HAL. The choice of the powerplant for the LCA was very important, too. At the early stages of the programme, it was planned to power the test fighters by the foreign powerplant (in particular, the RB199 turbofan) and series aircraft – the advanced Indian GTX powerplant. LCA second prototype

LCA first prototype

According to preliminary studies, the newer aircraft was to feature the tailless configuration with a triangle wing with the leading edge fracture (both the pure tailless configuration and the one with a smallarea canard placed close to the wing was considered), unstable aerodynamical layout and fly-by-wire system. It was planned to widely employ composition materials in the airframe structure. The requirements for the fighter’s characteristics were gradually specified. In line with the preliminary estimates, the empty LCA was to weigh about 6,000 kg and its maximum takeoff weight was to equal 10,500 kg. So, it was to match the MiG-21, which was India’s main combat aircraft at that time by its weight characteristics. The Indian mass media have repeatedly stressed that LCA’s flight performance should exceed that of the US F-16. It was planned to organize LCA’s production in Bangalor. However, it was specified that if it was decided to make its wing from carbic epoxy, their production could be shifted to one of European companies, perhaps British Aerospace. N.Rao estimated the LCA project at $500 million. The ADA aircraft development centre led by the well-know Indian aircraft designer Kota Harina-

rayana started creating the LCA. The HAL (Hindustan Aeronautics Limited) national aircraft-making concern and its R&D division located in the Indian scientific centre of Bangalor became the leading contractor on the programme. The first test aircraft was to be over in 1990 and its maiden flight was to be made a year later. As it was already told, the LCA was planned as an aircraft meeting rather strict speed and agility requirements. It was to possess high stability and controllability performance, relatively short takeoff and landing distance, good reliability and cheap and easy operation. It was planned to employ cuttingedge achievements – reduced static stability configuration, composition materials in key structure elements, digital multi-channel fly-by-wire system, integral ‘board’ including microchips, glass cockpit, advanced on-board radar, automatic brake control system, etc. The French companies took part in designing the fighter’s aerodynamical shape – the tailless configuration well-proven on Dassault-made Mirage aircraft was chosen. Despite the enhanced maneuverability, the employment of the foreplane would have resulted in increasing the body length by 0.76 m as well as increased weight and radar signature. On January 7, 1986, the Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) submitted a detailed program sheet on the project, which later became the basis of the LCA programme to Prime-Minister R.Gandi and the defense minister. Notably, the India government that tried to diversify its military-technical partners cooperated in this sphere both with the Soviet Union and Western countries. The LCA programme was clearly oriented ‘to the West’. Besides Dassault, other foreign companies, particularly Alenia (which helped to make carbon composite wing panels), Martin Marietta (control system), BAE (consultations on the automatic control system development). In March 1986, a delegation of 20 US Defense Ministry experts from military aircraft- and enginemanufacturing as well as radioelectronics R&D orga-


70 • MILITARY AVIATION • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

nizations visited India to discuss the Indian-US cooperation on the LCA project, in particular designing the fuselage and avionics equipment. And in November that year, the Pentagon announced its intentions to help HAL in creating the LCA. Looking ahead, it should be noted that the fighter’s fuselage remained yet Indian, but the US received contracts for delivering engines, advanced alloys from composition materials and development of the fly-by-wire system for the LCA. The process of developing the fly-by-wire system should be specially dwelt on. India gave up the idea of making this critically important element by own means at the early stage of the programme. In 1988, French company Dassault offered its own project of the analog fly-by-wire system. But, due to a number of reasons, India rejected it and in 1993 chose US company General Dynamics (now part of Lockheed-Martin concern), which had gained a large experience in this field designing and improving the F-16 fighter by that time, in order to create a fourchannel digital fly-by-wire system. The fly-by-wire system was tuned up in the US by means of modeling on the NT-33 dedicated aircraft and it was additionally checked on the F-16 fighter. These works finished in 1996. In 1986, India concluded a contract with General Electric for shipping F404-GE-F2J3 engines to power LCA test aircraft. It was planned that it would be just

an interim measure and that both Indian test and series fighters would get Indian powerplants, too. As is known, however, there is nothing more permanent than temporary… The LCA’s preliminary designing began in September 1987 and ended in November 1988. Dassault provided technical support worth $10 million for these works. India was trying to make an aircraft at most adjusted to local war conditions and at most incorporating the national military experience, for example that of the Indian-Pakistani war of 1971. Studies carried out by Indian experts proved that the new multifunctional fighter’s main characteristics should be similar to those of the MiG-21, which proved excellent in dog fights with Pakistani F-86, F-104 and F-6. With that, it was to feature better maneuverability, increased range, larger variety and number of armament as well as new avionics allowing engaging both aerial and ground-based targets with the same effectiveness. The LCA’s concept was close to such fighters as the Swedish JAS39 Grippen, Taiwanese Ching Kuo and Chinese/Pakistani FC-1/Super-7. At that, not only technical, but political factors have influenced the shape of this fighter. India, which was gaining international weight, needed not a mere aircraft, but a kind of symbol of its independence in the high-tech sphere. It should be told that though the Indian fighter was intended for the Air Force, the development of its deck-based version was considered at the early stages of the programme. Since 1961, the Indian Navy had been possessing a small British-made 19,500-t Vikrant carrier that showed its high efficiency in the war of 1973. And in 1996, the more powerful 28,700t Viraat (former Eagle) ship equipped with Sea Harrier fighters was bought in Great Britain. There were plans to further upgrade aircraft carriers and, respectively, the aircraft they had.

On March 31, 1990, the design of the new fighter was approved. In the end of the same year, it was planned to start building the LCA’s test model. Let us remember that the maiden flight of the newer Indian fighter was optimistically slated for 1991, but was deferred to 1992 later. But in 1990, the Defense Ministry declared that due to technical reasons starting the demonstrator’s construction had been delayed till 1993, its rolling out – till 1994 and the first flight – till at least 1995. Thus, it meant that the series production of the 4th-generation Indian fighter was to begin not sooner than in 1997 and the first aircraft would enter service not in 1996 (as it had been planned) but already in the 21st century. Commenting on these decisions, the Indian Air Force Headquarters Chief said that “the delay in the LCA project may inspire the Air Force to consider acquisition of the new type of ‘medium’ fighter to replace the MiG-21 and MiG-23.” With that, possible options included both supersonic fighter (General Dynamics F-16 and Saab JAS 39 Viggen) and subsonic ones (Aeritalia-Aermacchi-Embraer AMX and BAE Hawk 200). Choosing the subsonic aircraft could have allowed considerable cost cutting given a rather high attack performance, while their fighter potential was obviously insufficient for achieving air supremacy, which had been done by the MiG-21 before. Another proposal stipulated ordering additional MiG-27M fighter/bombers for battlefield isolation and 80-90 AJT advanced upgraded combat trainers for the direct air support of the Air Force. Looking ahead, it should be told that while the Indian Air Force rejected acquiring the subsonic fighters rather soon due to their insufficient combat performance, the F-16 and JAS 39 supersonic fighters are considered as a replacement for the LCA under the MMRCA project in 2009, 20 years after the aforementioned events. In truth, unlike constantly hurrying Europeans, two or three decades do not matter for the suc-


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • MILITARY AVIATION • 71

cessors of the ancient Indian civilization even in such a rapidly-developing field as military aircraft industry! In the late 1980’s – early 1990’s, possible changes to the LCA project were considered. In particular, it was proposed to create a simplified version of this fighter lacking a number of planned improvements within short terms and with minimal expenses. And only after putting this simplified version into series production, it was planned to start developing the full-fledged LCA. With that, part of Air Force squadrons that should have received LCA aircraft, were to be reequipped with upgraded MiG-21s. Looking ahead, it should be mentioned that we are now watching this procedure being brought into life. 125 MiG-21UPGs have come into service with the Indian Air Force taking part of places for the LCA, while LCA Mk.1 aircraft that ‘partially meet Air Force requirements’ are being manufactured in series and works on ‘full-fledged’ LCA Mk.2 fighters are underway. Another alternative to the LCA that appeared in 1991 should be mentioned. At that time, during the visit of Commander-in-Chief of the Soviet Air Force E.Shaposhnikov to India, he offered the S-37 advanced attack fighter featuring both high attack potential and good antiaircraft capability. This proposal, however, rapidly became ineffective after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the following breakdown of its aircraft industry. Meanwhile, in 1993, the Indian government at long last decided to make the experimental model of the LCA. In May 1995, India began to construct its body and in December  – the wing made of carbon composite. The LCA TD1 (technological demonstrator No.1) was solemnly rolled out on November 17, 1996 lagging behind the schedule by nine months. Its tuneup, however, was delayed and test pilot Rakesh Sharma (the first Indian astronaut, who made a flight on the Soviet Mir space station) started its ground tests only in April 1997. TEJAS-DIAMOND January 4, 2001 saw the first flight of the LCA fighter that was later dubbed Tejas (the Hindi for ‘diamond’). And on August 1, 2003, this aircraft for the first time exceeded the sonic speed. On August 14,

1998, the second test aircraft dubbed TD2 was rolled out from the assembly shop. Like the TD1, it was powered by the US F404-GE-F2J3 engine. Its flight tests began only in 2002. The first public demonstration of the TD-1 and TD-2 took place at the Air India 2003 international air show held on the air base of Elakhanka near Bangalor on September 5-9 2003. The author of this article attended this event, which is historical for the Indian aviation, too. The LCA’s flight made the Indian proud of their aircraft industry. Many of Bangalor citizens working in this sphere perceived the flights of new fighters as their own achievement. The LCA’s flight programme was similar to that of the MiG-21. With that, the Indian plane demonstrated a rather good climbing ability. Later on, the local press said that the LCA TD “has a higher climbing ability than the MiG-29” (its initial rate of climb is 300-330 m/sec depending on the version). These statements, however, have nothing in common with the truth. Simultaneously with developing the aircraft itself, its on-board radioelectronics system was being gradually designed. In 1991, the creation of the on-board radar for this aircraft began. It was initially planned that the fighter would receive the Indian version of the Swedish Ericsson/GEC-Marconi PS-05/A pulse

Doppler radar designed for the JAS 39 Viggen fighter and based on the BAE Sea Harrier’s Blue Vixen radar. However, some problems emerged relating to the adaptation of the Swedish radar to the Indian plane and in 1997 it was decided that the LCA’s radar similar to the PS-05/A will be created by HAL’s radioelectronics division independently, which also allowed for the foreign technical support. Two flying laboratories based on HS478M aircraft were equipped for the flight tests of the radar. Two matrix coloured LCD MFD-55 displays designed by French company Sextant avionics were used to show flight and tactical information on test aircraft. They featured a rather high resolution and could display a wide range of special signs and symbols. Notably, similar displays of this company are installed on French Mirage-2000-5 and Rafale aircraft as well as on the French-German Tiger helicopter. The LCA TD and pre-production vehicle (PV) foreign composition materials accounting for 30-34% of the frame’s weight were used in order to reduce the total weight and allow flying with g-loads from +8 to -3. A 10-year programme was implemented to start manufacturing such materials by national chemical companies as they had been imported before. According to Indian mass media, R&D works on the LCA programme and the construction of the TD-1 and TD-1 test planes cost 21,880 million rupees ($730 million at the rate of 1992. And the total costs on creating the newer fighter including engine development without series production equaled 50,000 million rupees ($1.4 billion). It is rather interesting to mention what US experts think about the LCA. Having learnt its characteristics, they called it “the next generation of the F-5 aircraft.” It was noted that the fighter’s characteristics are rather high given small size and relatively low cost, which will provide a high demand for it on the world


72 • MILITARY AVIATION • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

Tejas characteristics

Wing span, m

8.90

Length (with airspeed tube), m

13.20

Height, m

4.40

Wing area, sq.m

38.40

Empty weight, kg

5,500

Fuel weight in internal tanks, kg

2,400

Takeoff weight, kg: In fighter version In attack version

9,000 12,500

Maximum combat load, kg

4,000

Maximum speed, Mach

1.6-1.8

Practical ceiling, m

15,200-16,000

Practical range, km

2,000

Ferry range, km

3,000

Maximum operational loads

9.0/-3.5

market. The US experts think, however, the “the fighter has a relatively small assigned service life, which will allow operating it during 14-16 years, while that of advanced Western fighters is much higher.” ADA chiefs explained it by the fact that the LCA’s service life was estimated coming from critical climatic conditions and that it could be extended in countries with a more favourable climate. As the Indians obtained cutting-edge aircraft making technologies rather fast, the LCA’s design characteristics were rather impressive. For example, if at first the design empty weight was estimated at 6,000 kg, it was later reduced down to 5,500 kg, a record-breaking figure for such fighters, by the wider employment of carbic epoxy. It was planned to use composite materials in the wing, fins and control surfaces. The percentage of their employment in the LCA’s frame was almost twice higher than in case of the US F-22A Raptor 5th-generation fighter. For example, the empty weight of the Saab JAS 39 Grippen 4+-generation fighter, which has a similar configuration, engine (Svenska Flugmotor RM12 based on the aforementioned F404) and radar accounted for 6,620 kg – 1,120 kg more. At same time, according to ads, the internal tanks of the Indian aircraft should hold 2,400 kg of fuel against 2,270 kg in case of the Saab-made aircraft. As a result, the fuel efficiency was to reach 0.44 in case of the LCA against 0.34 (JAS 39). The LCA’s predecessor in the Indian Air Force, the MiG-21bis (its empty weight is 5,350 kg) was powered by the 7,100gkf R25-300 turbofan and carried only 1,790 kg of fuel in its internal tanks (its fuel efficiency is 0.34, too). It is not a surprise that the LCA’s practical range of 2,000 km was to match that of heavier foreign 4th-generation fighter (the F-15 and F-16) and much


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • MILITARY AVIATION • 73

exceed not only the MiG-21bis’s 1,250 km, but the Grippen’s 1,700-1,800 km, too. Given the normal takeoff weight, the F404-powered LCA’s thrust/weight ratio was to reach 0.91 against 0.81 (JAS 39) and 0.87 (MiG-21bis), which theoretically provided the Indian aircraft with better acceleration performance and maneuverability against similar foreign aircraft. Though the LCA’s design speed and altitude characteristics were worse than those of the MiG-21 (Mach 2.0 and 17,00019,000 m against Mach 1.7-1.8 and 16,000 m), they were high enough to provide effective engagement of advanced foreign tactical combat aircraft. On the whole, the Indian Air Force was to receive an aircraft matching and even outperforming the best foreign analogues. Building the first two prototype vehicles PV1 and PV2 began in 1998. With that, it was decided to refuse from the traditional full-scale mock-up of the fighter and replace it with the virtual mock-up – a 3D database with full information about the configuration and structure of the vehicle (this approach was first used in the US when creating the Northrop-Grumman B-2 Spirit strategic bomber and was later used in the F-22, F-35 and T-50 fighter project). The PV1 made its first flight on November 25, 2003 and PV2 – December 1, 2005. A year later, on December 2006, the flight tests of the PV3 began. The fourth prototype vehicle, PV4, which was initially constructed as a prototype of the LCA-Navy deckbased fighter was later commissioned as the second series vehicle (LSP2). After that, the construction of the prototype of the PV5 two-seat combat trainer as well as NP1 and NP2 (Navy Prototype) deck-based prototype aircraft began, but their flight tests have not begun yet. It should be told that the takeoff weight of empty loaded LCA TD demonstrator aircraft was far from the extremely small value and reached 6,800 kg, according to the Indian mass media. In the LCA PV1 prototype aircraft, the employment of carbon epoxy has


74 • MILITARY AVIATION • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

Share of construction materials (by weight, %) in LCA TD

PV

Aluminum alloys

57.0

45.0

Carbon composite

30.0

43.0

Steel

5.0

4.5

Titan

6.0

5.0

Other materials

2.0

2.5

increased and the weight – reduced down to 6,300 kg. In case of the LCA PV2, the share of composition materials reached its design value of 43%. This fighter, however, has received part of standard equipment and some on-board systems the first vehicles lacked. This increased the weight again. Later on, the extra weight became, perhaps, the most important problem for Tejas designers… On April 2007, the first Tejas Mk.1 series fighter dubbed LSP1 made its first test flight. On June 16, 2008, the LSP2 (former PV4) joined it. Tests of another six series vehicles (LSP3-LSP8) were scheduled by the end of 2008. Unlike fighters of other developing countries powered by engines designed in Russia, the USA, France and Great Britain, India decided to make an own engine able to compete with other 4th-generation turbofans. The development of this engine dubbed Kaveri, which design static thrust in full reheat mode reached 8,500-9,000 kgf (it was estimated even up to 9,200 kgf) was assigned to the GTRE (Gas Turbine Research Establishment) national aircraft engine making institute in the city of Bangalor. The technical assistance to Indian specialists was provided by French company Snecma. The Kaveri turbofan, which bench tests began in 1996, was to be first installed on five pre-production PV1-PV5 aircraft. The development of the engine, however, began to delay. Thus, another 17 General Electric F404-JE-F2J3 engines were bought in the USA to equip demonstration and pre-production aircraft. All these aircraft are now re-equipped with new and more powerful 8,200-kgf General Electric F404GE-IN20 turbofans designed on India’s order with the employment of part of the Swedish RB12 (F404-400) turbofan and the digital control system taken from the F414. Despite the delay, however, the Indian Air Force remained optimistic about the prospects of the national engine. Indian government officials said in 2005 that series LCAs would begin to receive Kaveri turbofans since 2009. In early 2005, such an engine demonstrated 96% of the maximum design thrust during the tests. The turbofan’s flight testing on board of the LCA was scheduled for December 2006-January 2007. However, attempts to remove engine adjustment problems failed. As a result, in February 2006, the ADA concluded a contract with French company Snecma for its assistance in engine development in 20092010. But this objective was not achieved again and, despite the official continuation of the Kaveri project, the idea of powering the Tejas with this engine has been given up for at least the medium term. In the 1990’s, the Indian Air Force planned to buy at least 200 LCA fighters and 20 combat trainers (by the way, optimists called the number of 300 and 500 aircraft) and reach the initial combat readiness in


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • MILITARY AVIATION • 75

2003 and the full one – 2005. One LCA fighter was expected to cost just $21 million given the series of 220 aircraft. After that, this figure increased up to $22.6 million, which is little when compared to other 4+-generation fighters. By the way, unofficial sources prove one plane should cost $35 million given the series of 220 aircraft, which was much more realistic. It was planned that Tejas aircraft would begin to enter service with the Indian Air Force in 2008 replacing the MiG-21FL and MiG-21ML. Notably, the Indian Air Force has now 19 aviation squadrons equipped with MiG-21-family fighters produced under the Soviet license. 125 MiG-21bis aircraft were upgraded to the MiG-21UPG(bison) version and the rest both morally and physically obsolete will need replacement in the nearest future. In 2005, the Indian Air Force concluded a 20-billion-rupee (over $445 million) contract with HAL for delivering the first 20 Tejas Mark 1 series aircraft powered by the General Electric F404-GE-IN20 turbofan including 16 single-seat fighter and 4 two-seat combat trainers. The agreement included an option for additional acquisition of 20 aircraft. HAL placed an order for 24 F404-GE-IN20 engines worth over $100 million at General Electric in early February 2007. LCA IN CALCULATION AND PRACTICE The light single-engine multifunctional fighter has a tailless aerodynamical configuration with a highlyplaced triangle wing with a variable sweep on the front leading edge, single-fin vertical tail unit and one turbofan installed in the rear of the hull. The static stability of the aircraft is reduced. According to experts, the Tejas was to have the following features: • high maneuverability; • multifunctionality; • all-weather and day-and-night capability; • compatibility of cockpit instruments with night vision glasses; • small radar cross section accounting just for 1/3 of that of similar fighters (i.e. about 2.0 sq.m). It is proved that the aircraft’s aerodynamical layout provides minimal wind resistance, low wing loading, high rates of pitch and listing as well as good takeoff and landing performance. About 43% of the series LCA’s airframe is made of composition materials. In particular, 90% of the fighter’s coating is made of composition materials. Large carbon composite panels allowed the significant weight reduction as well as reduction of attach hardware – the number of clenches reduced from 10,000 (as in case of a similar fighter with an all-metal structure) down to 5,000. Composition materials allowed refusing from drilling about 2,000 holes in the airframe, which is inevitable in case of a standard all-metal structure. Composition materials are employed only in the wing (spars, ribs and coating), fuselage coating and air intakes as well as elevons, backbone, rudder, air

brakes and wheel bay panels. The thickness of the carbon composite coating varies from 2.4 to 2.7 mm. Aluminum-lithium as well as titan alloys are widely used in the airframe structure. Due to the employment of new construction materials (chiefly composition ones) and advanced technologies, the time of manufacturing one LCA was to reduce from 11 to 7 months. The fighter’s wing has a reduced wing sweep in the root, which, as it is proved, was made to provide

a good forward and downward view for the pilot. The wing leading edge has a three-section wing slat, while the whole trailing edge is occupied by two-section elevons. Most spars and beams as well as the upper and lower single-section coating panels fixed to spars by bolts are made of composition materials. Slotted vortex-generators are located in the junction point of the wing and fuselage. The aircraft has a semimonocoque fuselage. There are two air intakes from carbon epoxy in its rear


76 • MILITARY AVIATION • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

part and fin sides. There are two uncontrolled semicircular air intakes. Though the Tejas’s dimensions are minimized, which along with composition materials provides it with low optical and radar signature, a number of additional measures were taken to reduce its radar cross section. In particular: • putting air intake channels into distorted Yshape in order to screen compressor blades from direct radar tracking; • relatively wide employment of radar-absorption materials and coatings; • employment of passive detection and tracking means. The TD1 and TD2 test fighters are powered by the 7,300-kgf General Electric F404-GE-F2J3 turbofan. It was planned to install Indian 5,200/8,100-kgf GTRE GTX-35VS Kaveri engines with a dry weight of 1,100 kg and Dowty/Smiths KADECU digital control system. This engine, however, had not passed the tests. As a result, Mk.1 fighters received US 8,200-kgf F404-GEIN20 turbofans specially adjusted for the Indian Air Force (tropical version). The internal tanks of the aircraft can hold 3,000 l of fuel. Five auxiliary 800-l or 1,200-l tanks can be mounted under the wing and fuselage. In prospect, it was planned to replace the belly tank with a conformal outboard tank of same volume but featuring a much lower air resistance and providing a smaller radar cross section. On the right side of the fuselage, a non-retractable L-type aerial refueling receiver is installed.

The aircraft with reduced static stability is equipped with a Martin Marietta digital four-channel fly-by-wire system with increased level of protection from external electromagnetic influence. There are no standby analogue or mechanical systems on board. The on-board radioelectronics equipment is based on the duplicated on-board computer (32 bits and ADA programming language) integrated with other avionics elements and armament by three digital buses of the MIL-STD-1553B standard. The front part of the fuselage has the MMR (Multi Mode Radar) multifunctional coherent pulse Doppler radar based on the Ericsson PS-05/A radar. The radar can track up to 10 aerial targets, select two priority ones and target two air-to-air missiles with active radar homing to one of them. In the air-to-ground mode, the radar provides ground mapping, detection of small-size targets, homing on-board weapons as well as the flight in the terrain and ground obstacles avoidance mode. The slot antenna’s surface has a small weight of less than 5 kg. The station was created by HAL jointly with ERDE (Electronics Radar Development Establishment). In addition to the radar (as the main on-board information system), the aircraft can be equipped by the Lightning suspension multi-channel (TV, IR and laser) unit tested on board of the LCA in 2007. The aircraft has an advanced information control environment in the cockpit meeting 4+-generation requirements. It is based on two 125x125-mm LCD multifunctional full-coloured displays surrounded by buttons as well as a wide-angle indicator with holo-

gram optics on the wind screen. The LCA’s two-seat version has four 125x125-mm multifunctional displays and two multifunctional control units with LCD displays. The aircraft has a helmet position sensor made in Ukraine. The Israeli helmet-mounted sight-indicator was integrated with the aircraft avionics. The Tejas’s control elements are made by the HOTAS principle, which allows piloting the fighter holding only control levels. The radioelectronics and communications equipment is integrated with other avionics elements into the Mayavi (Juggler) united on-board system. The aircraft has both built-in radioelectronics equipment (the radar and laser illumination detection station, pods with shot-off thermal traps and dipole scatterers) and external units with active jamming equipment. The aircraft armament combines both Russian and Western aircraft weapons. It is planned to place the Lightning unit with thermal and high-resolution TV navigation/sighting equipment as well as with the laser range finder (allowing the employment of cluster bombs and other smart weapons without external pods) on the dedicated eighth belly pod. The aircraft is armed with the 23-mm GSh-23L built-in cannon with a load of 220 rounds placed under the fuselage (like in the MiG-21bis). It was initially planned to place various armament with its weight of up to 4,000 kg including small-and medium-range air-to-air missiles (made in Russia, France and the USA) on seven external pods (six under-wing and one ventral). Medium-range missiles with an active homing system include the Russian R-77 (India is to get 1,600 such missiles by 2010) and Indian DRDO ASTRA missile, which flight tests should begin in 2011. The first version of the ASTRA missile should have the maximum range of 45 km, while its more advanced second version is to kill targets on opposite courses at the range of 80 km. Short-range heat-seeking missiles to be installed on the Tejas are represented by the Russian R-73 and French Matra Magic. The air-to-ground weapons include Russian missiles Kh-59ME, Kh-59MK, Kh-35 and Kh-31. The aircraft is to carry corrected air bombs (up to KAB-1500), unguided air-to-surface missiles, free-fall bombs and cluster bombs of all


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • MILITARY AVIATION • 77

types. In case of the Tejas Mk.1, however, the weight and range of armament on external pods are, perhaps, considerably reduced. By the middle of 2008, India had built and delivered for flight tests two demonstrations LCAs, three test aircraft and two aircraft of the Mark 1 series. Another six planes are being built now. Their total flying time exceeded 1,000 hours in December 2008. According to the Indian defense minister, the first series fighter is to be delivered to the Air Force in 2011 and the first squadron of 20 LCA combat fighters is to reach the prime combat readiness in 2012. It seemed that after many years of delays, the LCA had finally reached the homestretch and the Indian Air Force had received its national fighter. It turned out, however, that this optimism was premature. In autumn 2008, the Defense Ministry declared that the series aircraft had external weight. The specific amount of extra weight was not mentioned, but one can suppose that it was quite considerable. As a result, it was revealed that the Tejas Mk.1 had undervalued flight characteristics (against the design ones) and do not meet even “minimal combat load requirements of consumers.” The empty weight of the Tejas Mk.1 was reported to exceed the design one by 1,500 kg, which is over 7,000 kg. It should be told that the increase of the aircraft weight during its designing is a usual thing. For example, from the concept design to the first series fighter, the weight of the MiG-29 increased by 1.13 times – from 9,670 to 10,900 kg, which, however, did not have any noticeable consequences for this programme. Perhaps, the weight of the US F-35 has increased even more, which also was considered as normal. But the increase in such an important characteristic by a factor of 1.27-1.3 made the Indian Air Force refuse from further acquisitions of this heavier fighter. The extra weight of the LCA can be explained that the designers had hoped on the airframe of composition materials too much and overestimated their forces in its employment. Perhaps, this can result from the incorrect design of some systems, too. Thus, the series Tejas weighs much more than its Swedish counterpart Grippen. This inevitable in-

fluenced the correction of other characteristics. For example, its thrust/weight ratio (0.75-0.78 given a normal takeoff weight) became slightly less than that of the MiG-21bison. The maneuverability, acceleration performance and rate of climb decreased, too. It was impossible to reach a combat load of 4,000 kg. Perhaps, at best it now accounts for 1,500-2,000 kg, which is similar to the MiG-21. Probably, these vehicles became comparable by the “range-combat load” factor, too. Various sources said that the LCA’s maximum speed was to be Mach 1.6-1.8. But the tests revealed that this figure did not exceed 1.4. Perhaps, it is the maximum figure for the series Tejas of the current version. All these disappointments resulted in a very difficult decision of the Indian Defense Ministry taken in late 2008 – to refuse from further acquisition of Tejas Mk.1 fighters limiting the number of series vehicles by 20 aircraft, i.e. one squadron. This decision exposed the whole programme to a risk. Perhaps, after such delays and technical failures, any European, US or Russian military aviation programme would have been terminated (one can remember the bad end of US programmes F-111B, A-12 (ATA), RAH-66 or our programme MFI).

TEJAS IS NOT A MERE AIRCRAFT But the Tejas seems to be more than a mere aircraft for the Indians. The brilliant is a symbol of their full (or almost full) independence in such an important sphere as military aircraft making. It has not only defense, but a large political importance for such an ancient country as India. That is why, the LCA programme is expected to be continued by all means. Though it was decided to refuse from further series orders for Tejas Mk.1 fighters, the Indian Air Force and HAL are working on its upgraded version dubbed Tejas Mk.2. With that, new contracts with the ADA agency for series production will be concluded only after it becomes clear that this aircraft meets the minimal requirements of the Indian Air Force. It is expected that the Tejas Mk.2 will have a number of improvements aimed at optimizing aerodynamical characteristics and airframe weight. Some structural elements, particularly the chassis are expected to be replaced, which indirectly proves that the weight of the Tejas Mk.2 has considerably increased, too. But powering the fighter with a newer and more powerful engine chosen in an international contest should become the most significant part of modernization. In December 2008, the ADA agency


78 • MILITARY AVIATION • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

planned to submit proposals to US company General Electric and European consortium Eurojet Turbo on taking part in this tender. The 10,000-kgf F414 engine (it powers the F/A18E/F) or 9,200-kgf EJ200 powering the EF2000 is expected to help the LCA meet tactical and flight requirements initially set by the Indian Air Force. The winner of the contest will deliver 99 engines. The agreement will include an option for additional 49 turbofans, which will be enough for manufacturing 125 Tejas Mk.2 fighters. By the way, in autumn 2008, the Ukrainian State Enterprise Ivchenko-Progress presented the first information about the 9,500/10,900-kgf AI9500F turbofan with a dry weight of 1,060 kg at the exhibition in Bangalor clearly aiming at the Tejas. Who knows, perhaps, Ukraine will try to promote this engine as a joint Ukrainian-Indian development under works on the further modernization of the Indian fighter. After the winner of the tender is chosen, the LCA’s fuselage will be adjusted for the chosen engine. At the same time, two-seat combat trainer aircraft will continue to be equipped with F404-GE-IN20 engines (perhaps, considering the available option for 20 turbofans of this type) even in the Tejas Mk.2 version. The new radar system may become another radical difference of the Tejas Mk.2 from Mk.1. In 2004, after many years of delays, two test MMR radars were built. In 2006, however, the designers faced serious problems that could disrupt the programme. Moreover, the radar that met the requirements of the early 1990’s could not be considered modern in the second half of the current decade. In 2007, a contract was made with Israeli company Elta for helping India to finish the radar. At the same time, searches for a newer on-board radar more fully meeting time requirements began. At present, the possibility of equipping the Tejas Mk.2 aircraft with Israeli Elta EL/M-2052 active phased array radar is being considered. Its full-scale mock-up was shown at the Air India 2005 internation-

al exhibition in Bangalor. Notably, very little is known about this radar designed for F-16-family aircraft (its weight is 130-180 kg) and featuring a relatively small orthogonal antenna panel, while information in booklets is rather questionable. In particular, the EL/M-2052’s ability to simultaneously detect 64 targets is false. For comparison, the best US AN/APG-77 radar installed on the F-22A fighter can simultaneously detect 20-28 targets. At the same time, one can suppose that the Israeli radar (which, perhaps, is still to be created) will match the cutting-edge European and US active phased array radars. In particular, the EL/M-2052’s range of detecting light enemy fighters equaling 148 km is quite convincing. In January 2009, the ADA agency concluded a contract with European concern EADS for helping India to improve the Tejas. With that, the main attention will be paid to weight reduction as well as strengthening the chassis. The programme term is 48 months. Thus, the first Tejas Mk.2 series fighter will make its maiden flight no sooner than in 2014, i.e. almost simultaneously with the Indian-Russian 5th-generation fighter. Let us remember that it was initially planned that the LCA would replace MiG-21 and Ajeet fighters first. The Ajeet, however, was scrapped in 1991 before the Tejas prototype made its flight. Later, it was decided that the LCA would replace MiG-23BN fighter/bombers adopted by the Indian Air Force after the failure of upgraded Marut. But these aircraft were removed from service in 2007 without the replacement by the new Indian multifunctional fighter. MiG-21ML and MiG-23MF fighters also should be replaced since 2012 not by Tejas but by the MMRCA multifunctional fighter. 126 such aircraft are to be fielded (the first vehicle should be put into service in 2012) after an international contest attended by such 4+-generation fighters as the MiG35, F-16I, F/A-18E/F (F-18IN), Rafale, EF2000 and JAS 39 Grippen. Constant delays in the LCA project made the Indian Air Force start searching for alternative ways of

upgrading their fighters already in the middle of the 1990’s in order to support the needed quality till the national fighter enters service. In 1996, a Russian-Indian contract for upgrading 125 MiG-21bis to the MiG-21-93 level was signed. Modernized MiGs dubbed MiG-21UPG (sometimes they are called MiG-21bison) began to enter service with the Indian Air Force in 2002 and the programme was almost finished by 2008. The modernization concerned chiefly the fighter’s avionics and armament. The Bison received a new Kopyo-21I pulse Doppler radar with a slot antenna almost matching the MMR radar, which was created for the LCA (it can detect a target with a RCS of 3 sq.m at a range of 57 km and simultaneously track 8 and engage 2 targets), advanced weapons control system allowing engagement of both air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons, inertial navigation system supplemented by the satellite navigation unit as well as armament almost similar to that of the LCA. With that, the upgraded aircraft fully retained high flight performance of the MiG-21bis that are similar to those of the Tejas. After MiG-21UPG fighters that almost meet 4+-generation requirements had appeared in the Indian Air Force, the problem of replacing 2nd-generation fighters became less topical. Perhaps, it allowed the chiefs of the Indian Air Force take the next delay in the LCA project caused by the need to create a new version of this fighter lacking the drawbacks of the first one calmer. Perhaps, the Swedish modernized Grippen NG fighter, which flight tests started in 2008 will become the closest analogue of the Tejas Mk.2. This aircraft is equipped with a new active phased array radar, it has an extended body and fuel tanks with their capacity increased by 40%. The 10,000-kgf F414G engine allows flying with a supersonic cruiser speed of Mach 1.1. Its empty weight increased up to 6,800 kg, maximum takeoff weight equaled 16,000 kg and ferry range with external fuel tanks – 4,070 km. In addition to the base single-seat version of the Tejas, designed for the Air Force, its other versions are being designed. In particular, its two-seat combat trainer version was developed. The prototype of the combat trainer – the two-seat PV5 is under construction. On the whole, the combat trainer is similar the singe-seat version. It carries the same equipment and armament. It differs by the lack of the 410-l fuel tank behind the cabin, which place is occupied by the cockpit of the second crew member. With that, part of fuel is removed to additional tanks located in other places of the airframe. On the whole, given a slight decrease in range, the two-seat version has almost the same performance as the single-seat one. Works on the deck-based version dubbed LCA-Navy are underway. In due time, the construction of two prototypes of this aircraft – the NP1 and NP2 began si-


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • MILITARY AVIATION • 79

multaneously with pre-production LCA vehicles. Their construction was considerably delayed and is reported to be over no sooner than in the end of 2009. It was reported that the unification of the deckbased and ground-based fighters is 99%. At the same time, the LCA-Navy should have a slightly changed control system and reinforced chassis with an increased recoil damper stroke providing its landing on the carrier deck with a large vertical speed and skiramp takeoff. The airframe has corrosion-preventing materials. Unlike other deck-based fighters, the LCA features the fuselage nose with a radio-transparent radar dome inclined downwards at an angle of -4 degrees, which improves the pilot’s visibility on the carrier deck. It is planned to install additional all-moving surfaces working as a foreplane in the root part of the deck-based version’s wing. All these changes resulted in increasing the airframe weight against that of the ground-based fighter. The LCA-Navy’s fuel system was largely altered, too – rapid fuel drain systems are provided for emergency landing on the deck after the takeoff. The takeoff of the deck-based version should be carried out using a ski-ramp, which is usual for Indian naval pilots without the catapult. The carrier landing will be also implemented without a three-barrier arrester and a tail hook. The fighter’s small size allows avoiding the complicate wing folding system available on the most of other advanced deck-based fighters with large dimensions. Its weight is equal about 8,000 kg. The LCA-Navy is to be employed from the Vikrant light carrier (the second one with such a name) laid down in Cochin Shipyard Limited in the city of Kochin on October 7, 2005. This ship was being created Model of LCA-Navy two-setter

since the mid-1990’s under the ADS (Air Defense Ship) programme. Initially planned as a light carrier with a displacement of 25,000 t, the ADS (Project 71) gradually increased almost to the dimensions of the Kiev heavy aircraft carrier. A number of foreign (including Russian) organizations helped to create the carrier and its project was designed with the assistance of Italian company Fincantieri SpA. The 37,500-t ship with a length of 252 m, width (in the flight deck) of 58 m will be powered by four gas turbine engines with a full thrust of 108,000 hp, propelling it to a speed of up to 28 knots. Under the initial plans, the carrier is to enter service in 2012, and almost the same ship is to be launched in 2017. These plans were, however, later corrected and the Vikrant’s launch was delayed till at least 2015. It is planned that the new Indian carrier will have 12 fighters and 12 helicopters. It was initially planned that the fighters would be represented by the LCANavy, but then a combined air fleet of LCA-Navy and MiG-29K aircraft (the first such vehicles were delivered to the Indian Navy in 2008). Considering the numerous delays both in the LCA project and in the carrier construction, one can suppose that the LCANavy will appear on the carrier deck no sooner than in the end of the next decade if at all. At that, changes similar to those in the Tejas fighters will have to be made in the LCA-Navy’s design. Thus, its weight will increase even more, which will inevitably result in the increased wing area. The powerplant will probably have to be changed, too. Even in case of the 10,000-kgf F404 turbofan, the thrust/ weight ration of the heavier deck-based aircraft can be insufficient to safely takeoff from the ski-ramp with full combat load. Perhaps, the Indian designers still have to refute the US experts proving that it is

impossible to make a good deck-based aircraft from its land-based version… The further LCA-related plans concerning will be probably implemented in the Tejas Mk.2 project. In particular, it concerns a considerable reduction of its radar signature by using new and more efficient radar-absorption coatings being secretly developed in India since the 1980’s. Works on the improved and more powerful version of the Kaveri turbofan were carried out, too. It was planned to raise the turbine outlet temperature up to 1,850oC by means of monocrystal blades developed by the Indian Defense Metallurgical Research Laboratory. According to various estimates, the new engine would have allowed the LCA fly with a supersonic cruiser speed. Works on the 3D thrust vectoring system with an axisymmetric nozzle as well as on the full-responsibility digital control system designed for the upgraded turbofan were started. Indian experts think the thrust vectoring system would have allowed creating the LCA without vertical fining, which would have largely reduced its radar signature. It was planned to develop an unaugmented version of the Kaveri engine with increased bypass ration designed for the future combat trainer. But now, after the Kaveri programme has almost failed, these plans seem hard to implement in the foreseeable future. 1996 saw the start of research works on the MCA (Medium Combat Aircraft) multifunctional fighter based on the LCA, which is to replace Jaguar and Mirage 2000 aircraft in the 2010’s as well as supplement Su-30MKI heavy multifunctional fighters. However, the Indian-Russian agreement on joint works on the 5th-generation fighter seems to have made India give up the MCA project. Vladimir Ilyin


80 • Navy • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

THE CHINESE NITKA

I

t is well known that the Chinese Navy has worked out an ambitious programme concerning building of aircraft carriers. Though it is a question of long time, it is interesting what is going on today in terms of the above programme. Ten years ago a small firm from Macao bought in the Ukraine – for trifling sum – the unfinished aircraft carrier Varyag, Project 11436. The vessel was dragged to the new owner, but soon was found on the Chinese territory, in the port Dalian. At first nobody knew what would happen with the aircraft carrier, but some time passed and the building process restarted: China decided to finish the work. If the building is finished, the new aircraft carrier will need new equipment and new aircraft. Recently China bought in the Ukraine an experimental shipborne fighter Su-33 (T10K-7) which remained in the city of Feodosia, Crimea, Kirovskoe aerodrome, after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Ukraine claimed the Su-33 was their property. Having got the fighter at its disposal, China could study and copy it. The task becomes more simple having in mind that they have already copied the Su-27 fighter (on its platform the Su-33 was designed) which they bought in Russia. The clone of Su-27, now called J-11B, despite of protests of the company manufacturer was put into serial production. The Chinese aircraft got new avionics and high-accuracy firing equipment made in China. Chinese authorities had negotiations with Russia about acquisition of a batch of Su-33s but the parties did not reach positive results. Today – having in mind the Su-27 clone – no one believes these negotiations are important for China. What the Chinese Navy really needs for its aircraft carrier are aircraft arresting units which they do not have at all. They say Chinese specialists have some positive results in development of their own arresting units; and as for new aircraft car-


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • Navy • 81

riers – nobody knows how they will look like – they may use cats. China has already formed training teams of aircraft carrier pilots, and though the methods of training are kept in secret it is clear that they will need a training centre like that, for example, functioning in the Crimea, Ukraine, which is called NITKA. In this sense the Varyag – which got Shi Lang name after the great Chinese military leader – can be used at the initial stage as experimental ship. Today the Ukraine can not invite Chinese pilots to NITKA. One more problem is absence of aircraft arresting units on board the vessel. There is only one plant which can ship these products – Proletarsky, St. Petersburg, Russia, who developed and manufactured them for the Varyag (all the arresting units were taken off before the Ukraine sold the aircraft carrier), but it is unlikely the plant will take part in this project. Recently we got information and some photos dealing with building, in China, of an enormous structure which resembles very much the Varyag by dimensions and appearance. The “roof” of the structure is a metallic tube with ski-ramp in the nose part. There is a metallic imitation of island on the “deck”. The object is situated near water. If this complex gets all the necessary equipment it can become multi-profile and give pilots the illusion they work on board a real aircraft carrier. Besides pilots, here could pass training engineers, technicians and naval mariners, every specialist in corresponding conditions. Nobody knows what is going to be built inside the “aircraft carrier” but it is easy to guess there will be a hangar there, to imitate aircraft deployment and maintenance. The deck itself will serve for flight preparations. The “real” dimensions of the structure give the opportunity to install all the necessary equipment, including arresting units and cats.

There are some more interesting facts. The structure is motionless, but we know that to get absolute imitation of flights pilots need to feel how the wind blows. Then, there is a problem with arresting units and, as consequence, risk of aircraft fall from the deck during landing. As for take-off, no problem is seen; the only point is that to take off in motionless position the pilot will need a distance of 190m. As for deployment of helicopters, there is no problem at all. At the pictures, in the rear part of the object, you can see a J-11B fighter and a Z-8 helicopter (the French SA-321 manufactured in China under licence) with folded blades. We also saw on the deck the upto-date Chinese-made fighter J-10: this vehicle, if upgraded, can also turn into aircraft for aircraft carriers. With time we will surely come to know what is the real purpose this enormous structure is being built with. Victor Drushlyakov


82 • land forces • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

MEANS OF EXPLOSION MINE CLEARING AND BLASTING CHARGES

O

ne of the most important tasks during war operations is neutralization of mines and complete mine clearing on tank and infantry fields. During the last years FSUE R & D Engineering Institute (NIII), after experimental works with mines and mine fences has produced the following: • mine neutralization unit URP-01; • mine neutralization unit UR-07M;

• UBRM unit of mine detonation by influence; • blasting charge PZ; • CE charge KFZ; • CE charge KFZ-T; • multi-service demining set OVR-1; • multi-service demining set OVR-2. A part of the above means has been already fielded in the Russian Army, and some others are prepared for fielding very soon.

URP-01 The mine neutralization unit URP-01 appeared instead of the one called UR-83P which is used in the Russian Army today. The new one is a special automotive chassis trailer with a platform where launch equipment is installed. The unit is used for doing minefield gaps on antitank minefields by means of explosion during combat operations of land troops. The used

Acting FSUE NIII General director, Ph.D. in Economics, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (RAEN)

Head of department,FSUE NIII chief designer, Ph.D. in Economics, corresponding member of The Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (RAEN)

Depute head of department, FSUE NIII Vladimir Khomutski


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • land forces • 83

ammunition load is the UZP-83 cord mines. With that, there is a possibility for one UZP-83 unit (bifilar) or two single-line units delivery (length:114m, distance: not less than 400m) without further demodulation on a mine field. The URP-01s are launched both from tow equipment - without the necessity for crew to go out - and in autonomous mode, either on terrain or from trench. The URP-01 can be towed by trucks, tanks, armoured carriers and other kinds of armor. The platform with launching equipment can be also carried by helicopters (external load). The unit can cross ditches and trenches up to 1.2m wide. It has a dismountable platform with launching equipment and a unit for platform mounting/dismounting to terrain and back (in field conditions). UR-07M The UR-07M mine neutralization unit was developed instead of the one called UR-77, which is used in the Russian Army now. It will be used for making passages in anti-tank mine fields – via explosions – during war missions. The chassis is steel-made, track laying, floating, with parts and units of the BMP-3. Main tactical and technical characteristics: • weight – 20t (max.); • mine neutralization units’ total weight – 3.350kg; • mine neutralization units – 2, bifilar, with DKRP-4 sections, 156m each;

Mine neutralization device URP-01 in transport version

Mine neutralization device URP-01 in combat version

Mine neutralization device UR-07M in transported version


84 • land forces • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

UBRM, device of non-detonation mine neutralization

Result of UBRM device’s effect against anti-tank mines PTM-3 and TM-62M

• weapons – PKT machine gun, 7.62mm; • crew – 2 men. The UR-07M mine neutralization unit has the following advantages: • simultaneous work of 4 engines; • 312m long load; • possibility of load launches at night; • heating of the ammunition compartment; • life system for the crew; • air conditioner for the crew; • places for mounting electromagnetic protection system; • places for mounting precision weapons protection system; • all parts of launching equipment situated inside the unit. The shell is jet-propelled to the needed place and then falls. The launch can be made both from ground and water. The fully equipped unit can be transported by air, by railway and by water. UBRM The UBRM unit is used for mines and other explosive devices neutralization without detonation. It has shown efficient results against such mines as TM-62, PTM-3, PMN, PMN-2, and MON50, as well as against 76…122mm fragmentation/ high explosive shells. The above list is not complete. To know better what the UBRM can neutralize, we need more investigations and tests. PZ The PZ blasting charge (set) is used for destruction of engineering structures – both on ground and water – at up to 10m depth.


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • land forces • 85

PZ charges

functions separately. The charge can also destroy deeply lying explosive devices (2.0…3.0m in soil) and engineering structures. The multi-service demining set OVR (OVR-1 and OVR-2) is used for total area demining and minefield breaching. It can be also used in humanitarian demining missions.

The PZ consists of: • blasting cartridges in plastic case – 24; • UPD detonation transmitting units – 8; • a set of fixation means (magnet, backpack rubber, LTKkr. band). The PZ is, in fact, the modern version of its analogs, such as SZ-1, SZ-3, and some other. The PZ makes it possible to form concentrated, long-form and shaped charges and fix them on the object. The UPD detonation transmitting unit – which is part of the PZ – makes it possible to form groups of charges for targets with complex shape. With that, it has only one initiation point. KFZ The KFZ CE charge makes holes in brick, concrete, stone and metallic structures, as well as destroys them. The created holes are more than 0.6m in diameter, which gives the opportunity for successful combat missions. The engineering decisions used in the KFZ make it possible to use demolition and cumulative functions separately. KFZ-T The KFZ-T CE charge is used for frozen soil scarifying – to make trenches for tanks – and for destruction of roads and airport runways. As a result, it forms 0.5…0.7m deep craters in frozen soils of the 4th category (frost depth: more than 0.5m). To add, the craters are 2.0…2.5m in diameter. The engineering decisions used in the KFZ-T make it possible to use demolition and cumulative

Cumulative-blasting charge KFZ

OVR-1 The OVR-1 is used for multi-service small units; it has all the needed equipment for mine detection. The OVR-1 consists of: • special safety dogs – 3; • throwers – 2; • safety dogs for mine pickers – 2; • probing rods – 2; • ShKP-120 wires (L=50m) – 2; • warning signs – 8; • flags – 10; • engineer vests – 2; • tape on reels – 2; • MZS mine-hole drilling bags – 16; • ZTPT-50 tubes in welded boxes – 10; • TNT blocks 200 – 8; • knife for welded boxes – 1. The OVR-1 is packed in 3 boxes. The OVR-2 is used by engineer troops (small units) and differs by wider list of equipment and special demining means. The OVR-2 consists of: • special safety dogs – 3; • throwers – 2; • safety dogs for mine pickers – 2; • ShKP-120 wires (L=50m) – 5; • flags – 10; • tape on reels – 2; • barrier tapes “Protekt” LO-75 (L=20m) – 6; • extension stems – 2; • probing rods – 6; • MZS mine-hole drilling bags – 16; • UBRM – 16; • KVP-4/100 instrument – 1; • reel with KKS cable – 1; • lamps – 6; • compass – 2; • “Varan” knives – 6; • extended demining shell UZR-1Sh – 6; • ZTPT-50 tubes in welded boxes (10 items in each) – 2 boxes; • knife for welded boxes – 1; • TNT blocks 200 – 8; • electric detonation unit EDPr – 16; • protection equipment for mine engineers “Ponozhi” – 6 (in 3 boxes); • K8-S head protection equipment – 6 (in 3 boxes);

• engineer vests – 2; • warning signs – 20. OVR-2 The OVR-2 is packed in 13 boxes. The OVR-2 helps in: • preliminary terrain reconnaissance; • minefield breaching (antitank and antipersonnel mines) using special and multipurpose safety dogs and long demining explosion devices shoot by throwers (with the help of a 5.45mm round for submachine gun, distance: up to 50m); • destruction of mines and other explosion devices in soil and on ground; • reconnaissance in buildings with the help of extension stems, IMP-2 mine detector and antimagnetic probing rod; • minefield (explosion device) marking with antimagnetic flags and warning signs. Charge KFZ-T

NIII sees as prospective the following di­ rections: 1. Development of remote mine clearing unit for land and air assault troops, with removable/detachable launch­ ing equipment with extended mine destroying charge, to be installed in armoured vehicles, infantry combat vehicles, and airborne combat vehi­ cles. 2. Upgrade and development of new products which destroy explosive devices without detonation, as well as neutralize the latter remotely and safely. 3. Development of shaped-charge and demolition jet projectiles with big range, to be launched in not less than 100m from the object. Vladimir Khomutsky


86 • history • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

«У России есть только два верных союзника – это ее армия и флот» Император Александр III

ПЕРВАЯ РУССКАЯ ДИЗЕЛЬ-ЭЛЕКТРИЧЕСКАЯ ПОДВОДНАЯ ЛОДКА (К 100-летию вступления в строй подводной лодки «Минога»)

В

январе 1905 г. контр-адмирал Э.Н. Щенсович подал в Морской Генеральный штаб докладную записку, которая называлась «О типах и числе подводных лодок, необходимых для активной защиты наших берегов». В ней оценивалось современное состояние подводного плавания в России и одновременно рассматривался вопрос о том, какие типы и сколько подводных лодок долж-

но быть построено для обороны побережий и боевых действий у портов вероятного противника. В январе 1905 г. контр-адмирал Э.Н. Щенсович подал в Морской Генеральный штаб докладную записку, которая называлась «О типах и числе подводных лодок, необходимых для активной защиты наших берегов». В ней оценивалось современное состояние подводного плавания в России и одновременно рассматривался вопрос о том, какие типы и сколько подводных лодок должно быть построено для обороны побережий и боевых действий у портов вероятного противника. В частности, в записке говорилось: «Нам нужны лодки двух основных типов. Лодки прибрежные - для атаки от той части берега, где сосредоточена станция для лодок. Район действия таких лодок может не превышать 300 миль и водоизмещение возможно меньшее, какое инженеры найдут возможным достигнуть. Другой тип лодок – лодки дальние нужны для действия вдали от опорных пунктов. Район их действий должен измеряться в 1500-2000 милях, а водоизмещение может быть тонн 400 и более. Большие лодки предназначаются для крейсерства и набегов на неприятельские

берега». В записке также говорилось, что подводные лодки – это сравнительно дешевое и могущественное оружие, но «ни одна из имеемых у нас лодок не может служить ни типом, ни образцом при постройке новых лодок». Содержание докладной записки Э.Н. Щенсовича совпадало с планами Морского министерства, так как немногим ранее Морской технический комитет уже рассмотрел проект малой подводной лодки водоизмещением 380 т корабельного инженера И.Г. Бубнова и капитана 2 ранга М.Н. Беклемишева. Этот проект, разработанный в сентябре 1905 г., был одобрен Морским техническим комитетом, а уже в феврале 1906 г. наряд на ее постройку был выдан Балтийскому заводу. По окончании разработки необходимой документации в техническом бюро завода, в сентябре 1906 г. состоялась закладка лодки на стапеле. Она получила название «Минога» и вошла в историю отечественного кораблестроения как первая в России подводная лодка с дизельной энергетической установкой. Одним из самых крупных недостатков подво-

Г.Ю. Илларионов, главный научный сотрудник ИПМТ ДВО РАН, д.т.н., профессор,заслуженный деятель науки РФ, капитан 1 ранга запаса


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • histor • 87

дных лодок начала ХХ века было вынужденное применение бензиновых двигателей для надводного хода, что очень часто приводило к возгораниям и взрывам. Дизель сильно отличался от бензиновых двигателей в лучшую сторону по своей взрыво - и пожаробезопасности, он был более экономичен и превосходил бензиновые двигатели по агрегатной мощности, что заметно улучшало массо-габаритные показатели всей энергетической установки корабля. Дизель-электрическая подводная лодка «Минога» имела следующие тактико-технические данные: длину 32,6 м; ширину 2,75 м; осадку 2,75 м; надводное водоизмещение 123 т; подводное водоизмещение 152 т; скорость надводного хода 10 узлов; скорость подводного хода 5 узлов; дальность плавания под дизелями 900 миль; дальность плавания под электродвигателем 25 миль; глубину погружения 30 м; время погружения 3,5 мин. Конструкция корпуса «Миноги» имела ту же особенность, что и на подводной лодке «Дельфин»: цистерны главного балласта располагались вне прочного корпуса в легких оконечностях носа и кормы. Кроме них, «Минога» имела две палубные балластные цистерны (носовую и кормовую) рядом с рубкой. Внутри прочного корпуса располагались только так называемая средняя и уравнительная цистерны. Дифферентные цистерны, выполненные в виде прочных цилиндров со сферическими днищами, размещались в оконечностях цистерн главного балласта. Концевые цистерны главного балласта заполнялись с помощью центробежных насосов как на подводных лодках типа «Касатка». Палубные цистерны заполнялись самотеком через специальные шпигаты, расположенные побортно в нижней части цистерн. При незаполненных палубных цистернах «Минога» находилась в позиционном положении и могла ходить в этом

Naval constructor I.G. Bubnov

положении при волнении моря до 3–4 баллов. Набор прочного корпуса «Миноги» состоял из кольцевых шпангоутов углового профиля сечением 90×60×8 мм, расположенных со шпацией 330 мм и образующих тело вращения с постепенным уменьшением диаметра от середины к оконечностям. Средняя часть корпуса отделялась от концевых балластных цистерн прочными сферическими переборками толщиной 8 мм. Вся прочная часть корпуса была изготовлена из никелевой стали. Сверху к корпусу была приклепана прочная рубка овальной формы, выполненная из немагнитной стали. Для улучшения мореходных качеств на всем протяжении верхней части прочного корпуса была предусмотрена легкая, стальная, проницаемая надстройка, выполненная из 3-мм стали. При заполнении двух концевых цистерн главного балласта (носовая 9,5 т и кормовая 8 т) и двух палубных (по 4 т), средней и уравнительной цистерн вместимостью около 2 т каждая лодка принимала около 29 т водяного балласта. Две дифферентные цистерны вместимостью около 0,75 т каждая заполнялись водой при погружении по мере надобности для создания небольшого дифферента 1-2 градуса на нос, что улучшало управление лодкой при движении под водой. В уравнительную цистерну принималось такое количество воды, чтобы сохранялась положительная плавучесть в объеме колпака рубки и выступающих частей мостика. После этих мероприятий «Минога» могла быть приведена на нужную глубину с помощью хода и горизонтальных рулей. Ко всем балластным цистернам был подведен воздух высокого давления для их продувания. Энергетическая установка «Миноги» состояла из двух дизелей, гребного электродвигателя и аккумуляторной батареи. Дизели и электродвигатели были установлены в одну линию и работали

Rear-admiral E.N. Schensovich

на один гребной винт. Они соединялись между собой с помощью специальных разобщительных фрикционных муфт. Два дизеля для «Миноги» были построены на заводе Нобеля в Петербурге, который имел к тому времени уже достаточный опыт в постройке тепловых двигателей этого типа. При создании дизелей для подводной лодки инженерно-технический состав завода встретил значительные трудности, особенно при изготовлении реверсивного устройства, которое впервые разрабатывалось в России для дизельного двигателя. Это было причиной задержки изготовления двигателей для «Миноги» и привело к срыву сроков сдачи корабля. Первый дизель предъявили к сдаче только в июле 1908 г., а второй – в октябре того же года. С опозданием сдали также и главный гребной электродвигатель, который изготовлял завод «Вольта» в Ревеле. Первый дизельный двигатель


88 • history • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

Minoga’s grew

для подводной лодки был трехцилиндровым, 4-тактным, с воздушным распылением топлива и имел следующие рабочие характеристики: мощность 88 кВт; частоту вращения 450 об./мин; давление в цилиндрах при сжатии 33 кг/см2; наибольшее давление в цилиндрах при сгорании топлива 60 кг/см2; удельный расход топлива при полной нагрузке 300 г/Вт∙ч; удельная масса составляла 54 кг/кВт. Принятое расположение механизмов обеспечивало следующие режимы работы энергетической установки: • ход в надводном положении под двумя дизелями, при этом все фрикционные муфты включены; • ход под одним дизелем в надводном положении, при этом фрикционная муфта между дизелями разобщена; • ход под электродвигателем в подводном по-

ложении, при этом фрикционная муфта между кормовым дизелем и электродвигателем разобщена; • зарядку аккумуляторной батареи, при этом электродвигатель работал в режиме генератора, фрикционные муфты между дизелями и электродвигателем и гребным валом были разобщены. Поскольку на один гребной вал работали двигатели с различной мощностью (176 кВт под двумя дизелями, 88 кВт под одним дизелем и 51 кВт под электродвигателем), конструкторам пришлось применить винт регулируемого шага (ВРШ). Привод ВРШ размещался внутри пустотелого гребного вала и выводился внутрь лодки, где находилось винтовое устройство изменения угла установки лопастей. Однако данное устройство в условиях ходовой вибрации не могло надежно фиксировать установленное положение лопастей, что осложня-

ло поддержание постоянной скорости лодки. Так как электродвигатель имел мощность 51 кВт, в режиме зарядки аккумуляторной батареи мог работать только один кормовой дизель, что приводило к его повышенному износу и к нарушению центровки с носовым дизелем. Реверс дизелей мог осуществляться только при отсутствии нагрузки (т.е. при разобщении с гребным валом). Такой способ реверса был неудобен при маневрировании и, особенно, при швартовке, поэтому его применили только один раз – при снятии лодки с мели. Аккумуляторная батарея размещалась в носовой части прочного корпуса, в так называемой аккумуляторной яме. Батарея состояла из двух групп по 33 элемента в каждой с коридором между ними для технического обслуживания элементов. Батарея закрывалась съемным настилом, который служил палубой жилого помещения команды. Газы из аккумуляторной ямы отсасывались резиновыми рукавами с помощью вытяжной вентиляции. «Минога» управлялась вертикальным рулем площадью 2 м2 и двумя парами горизонтальных рулей. Площадь носовых рулей составляла 3,75, а кормовых 2 м2, их посты управления находились в носовом и кормовых отделениях, что сильно затрудняло процесс управления. Центральный пост как таковой отсутствовал, а штурвал вертикального руля находился в боевой рубке. Такой же штурвал был установлен на крыше рубки для маневрирования в надводном положении. Пять иллюминаторов в рубке позволяли визуально наблюдать за внешней обстановкой. Здесь же в верхней части находился прочный колпак с четырьмя иллюминаторами, крышка которого служила входным люком. Еще два люка, находившихся в носу и корме, использовались для погрузки различного имущества, элементов аккумуляторной батареи и торпед. Наблюдение в подводном положении велось с помощью перископа и клептоскопа зарубежных конструкций (клептоскоп отличается от перископа тем, что при вращении объектива наблюдатель остается на месте, что в условиях крайней стесненности рубки было немаловажно). Вооружение «Миноги» состояло из двух внутренних трубных торпедных аппаратов производства завода «Г.А. Лесснер» с двумя торпедами образца 1904 г. калибра 450 мм. Стрельба залпом была невозможна из-за отсутствия торпедозаместительной цистерны. В снабжение лодки входили также надводный якорь массой 150 кг и подводный грибовидный якорь массой 50 кг. Экипаж насчитывал 22 человека (из них два офицера). Спуск «Миноги» состоялся 11 октября 1908 г., хотя один дизель еще не был установлен. В конце октября она совершила пробный выход в Морской канал. В начале ноября было проведено пробное


ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009 • histor • 89

aptain M.N. Beklemishev

погружение. В результате швартовных испытаний выявилась необходимость размещения дополнительного твердого балласта в виде свинцовых плит, но разместить их полностью в трюмах лодки не удалось. Решили изготовить свинцовый киль, поэтому в мае 1909 г. «Миногу» пришлось поднять на стапель для его установки. К началу июня на «Миноге» поставили аккумуляторную батарею и опробовали все механизмы. После пробных пробегов в Морском канале лодка в начале июля ушла на ходовые испытания в район пролива Бьерке-Зунд, которые продолжались около двух месяцев. В сентябре лодка провела торпедные стрельбы, в октябре 1909 г. была зачислена в состав Балтийского флота. По сравнению с первыми боевыми подводными лодками русского флота бытовые условия экипажа на «Миноге» были более комфортабельными, так как проблеме обитаемости подводных лодок в это время стало уделяться большее внимание. Так, например, в одном из докладов по Морскому ведомству (1909 г.) указывалось, что из-за плохой обитаемости энергия людей иссякает раньше, чем корабли используют лимит автономности при нахождении в море. На это обращалось особое внимание, «так как степень обитаемости лодки обусловливает район действия ее». В качестве первоочередной выдвигалась задача расширения помещений для экипажа, в которых можно «удобно и комфортабельно отдохнуть после вахты». По свидетельству одного из русских и советских подводников Г.М. Трусова, служившего на «Миноге», офицерам отводились две одноместные каюты площадью примерно по 1,3 м2, в каждой из которых устанавливались диван, узкий шкаф или тумбочка; рядом с каютами – обеденный стол и два шкафчика в носовом отделении на «аккумуляторных рундуках». На основании данных военноморского врача Я.Л. Окуневского (ставшего впоследствии старшим преподавателем Военно-

медицинской академии (кафедра гигиены) и первым в России защитившим диссертационную работу по обитаемости подводных лодок), площадь помещений для команды на «Миноге» не превышала 5,8 м2. Тем не менее, там порой находилось 6–8 человек. Загазованность помещений здесь по сравнению с подводной лодкой «Дельфин» значительно уменьшилась благодаря замене бензинового двигателя дизельными. До вступления в строй в 1911 г. подводной лодки «Акула» «Минога» считалась лучшей в русском флоте. Наряду с лодками других типов она входила в Либавский учебный отряд подводного плавания. Первым командиром подводной лодки «Минога» был лейтенант А.В. Бровцын. Осенью 1912 г. командиром лодки был назначен лейтенант А.Н. Гарсоев, командовавший до этого подводной лодкой «Почтовый». По ходатайству Гарсоева команда «Миноги» была заменена командой подводной лодки «Почтовый», с которой Гарсоев хорошо сработался. Новая подводная лодка в ремонте не нуждалась, и команда больше отдыхала, нежели изучала свой корабль. Кондукторы и унтерофицеры полностью полагались на свой опыт подводного плавания, приобретенный на других подводных лодках. В конце марта 1913 г. «Минога» вышла из Либавы в практическое плавание. При отходе от пирса задним ходом лодка ударилась об угольную баржу и потеряла укрепленного на ахтерштевне золоченого двуглавого орла (подводники посчитали это очень плохой приметой). После обеда и отдыха командир приказал боцману Гордееву передать конвоирующему судну по семафору о намерении погрузиться. Боцман, передав сигнал, свернул семафорные флажки и положил их под настил мостика рубки, причем флажки попали в открытый клапан шахты судовой вентиляции. При подготовке подводной лодки к погружению не обратили внимание на то, что клапан вентиляции не закрылся (мешали флажки), вода начала поступать по трубе вентиляции в машинное отделение и лодка затонула. Она легла на грунт на глубине 30 м. Дать команду на аварийное продувание главного балласта командир опоздал. Он приказал отдать спасательный буй. Буй всплыл, к нему подошла Minoga’s diesel engine

Lieutenant A.N. Garsoev

шлюпка с конвоира, но никто не знал, как пользоваться телефоном, и связь установили только после изучения инструкции. После получения известия, что лодка всплыть не может, конвоир отправился с тревожными гудками в гавань. Борьба за живучесть подводной лодки велась экипажем очень напряженно. Трубу вентиляции разрубили, после чего попытались ее заглушить – пошел в ход китель командира, одежда и белье команды, но полностью прекратить поступление воды не удалось. Хлор, который стал выделяться из затопленной водой аккумуляторной батареи, разъедал глаза и легкие. А.Н. Гарсоев принял решение продуть кормовую балластную цистерну. Облегченная корма поднялась, и на поверхности моря стал виден Андреевский флаг. Под воздействием дифферента на нос вода, поступившая в лодку, перелилась в носовую часть (поперечных переборок на лодке не было) и полностью затопила аккумуляторную батарею, размещенную в носовой части лодки. При этом выделение хлора из аккумуляторов уменьшилось. На место аварии прибыли подъемный кран, килектор и буксиры с водолазами. Особо отличился при спасательных работах мичман К.Ф. Терлецкий. Водолазы завели стропы под корму лодки, далее корма лодки была поднята еще выше, и на поверхности воды оказался кормовой входной люк. Через открытый Терлецким люк люди были эвакуированы и отправлены в госпиталь. Виновник аварии боцман Гордеев оказался в рубке и вышел оттуда около 5 часов утра, когда лодка была поднята выше и можно было открыть рубочный люк. После удаления воды «Минога» была отбуксирована в порт и восстановлена, а личный состав за проявленное мужество был награжден орденами Св. Анны. Извлеченный из этого чрезвычайного происшествия практический урок сослужил хорошую службу – на всех последующих лодках русского флота клапаны вентиляции от-


90 • history • ARSENAL 21st Century, №4, 2009

крывались только внутрь корпуса, а экипажи подводных лодок никогда не менялись. Первая мировая война застала «Миногу» в составе 1-го дивизиона бригады подводных лодок Балтийского флота. Она активно использовалась для несения дозоров на центральной минноартиллерийской позиции в районе Моонзундского архипелага. При очередном ремонте зимой 1914–1915 гг. в кормовой части установили 37мм орудие. 23 мая 1915 г. у побережья Курляндии (ныне республика Латвия) «Минога» под командованием лейтенанта В.Н. Кондрашева обнаружила немецкий пароход и атаковала его торпедой, но промахнулась. Отстреливаясь из пушек, судно сумело оторваться от преследования. 24 мая «Минога» возвратилась на свою базу в г. Аренсбург (ныне г. Курессааре на южном берегу о. Саарема в Эстонии, г. Кингисепп Эстонской ССР в период 1952–1988 гг.). С 14 по 17 июня «Минога» находилась в боевом походе в районе мыса Стейнорт. Рядом, в районе мыса Люзерорт, ею была расстреляна плавающая мина. Лодка пыталась атаковать пароход неизвестной национальной принадлежности, но безуспешно. Утром 15 июня лодка уклонилась погружением от миноносца и идущего по воде гидросамолета. Позже уклонилась от обнаруженного перископа германской подводной лодки. К обеду удалось обнаружить идущий на большой скорости крейсер типа «Аугсбург», но сблизиться с ним на дистанцию менее 10 каб. не удалось и от атаки пришлось отказаться. Ночью 16 июня лодка уклонилась от обнаружения двумя германскими миноносцами. Утром «Минога» вернулась к Стейнорту, затем перешла к мысу Церель. В условиях плохой видимости снова уклонилась от неопознанной лодки погружением. 17 июня «Минога» благополучно пришла в Аренсбург. С 4 по 8 октября «Минога» находилась в боевом походе с целью обнаружения и уничтожения неприятельских подводных лодок в местах их вероятного появления. В.Н. Кондрашев получил от командования специальную инструкцию по выNext projekt: “Akula ”

слеживанию и уничтожению неприятельских подводных лодок. После похода он представил рапорт непосредственному начальнику, где изложил свои взгляды на проблему, пунктуально отвечая на требования, изложенные в инструкции: «…Основываясь на опыте плавания, считаю своим долгом высказать нижеследующие соображения, почему посылка малых подводных лодок со специальной задачей выслеживания и уничтожения неприятельских подводных лодок не является, по моему мнению, осуществимой, а именно: 1. Ввиду частых свежих погод в позднее осеннее время позиционное положение лодки изза малого возвышения мостика приходится отбросить, а погружение из полного надводного положения требует более 3-х минут. 2. Ввиду наличия орудий на неприятельских лодках встреча с ними в надводном положении на рассвете или вечером дает неприятелю лишний шанс па успех. 3. Скорость хода под дизелями не превышает, а вероятно, и меньше скорости неприятельской подводной лодки под водой, что выяснилось из погони неприятеля за «Акулой», которая в помощь дизелям должна была пустить и электромотор, чтобы уйти от преследования. 4. О сравнении подводных скоростей говорить не приходится, тем более что запас электрической энергии на вверенной мне лодке самый малый из всех русских лодок. 5. Стоянка лодки в открытом море долгое время в боевом положении крайне затруднительна, так как люди должны все время находиться на местах, и переход хотя бы одного человека создает нежелательный дифферент; приготовление пищи, а также отправление естественной надобности так портит воздух, количество которого в лодке и без того незначительно, что после 8-ми часов становится трудно дышать, что приходится запрещать пользоваться кухней и WC. 6. Стоянка лодки у Дагерорта при северных ветрах совершенно открыта, и приходится становиться на надводный якорь, для уборки которого необходимо не менее 20 минут,

в течение которых лодка совершенно беспомощна. Стоянка на подводном якоре, или балластине (балластина - металлическая отливка (20-80 кг), использующаяся на судах для балласта, при стоянках па якоре. Ее опускают на тросе на грунт для контроля надежности работы якоря – прим. автора), не имеет этих неудобств, но держащая сила того и другого позволяет ими пользоваться лишь в тихую погоду. 7. Ввиду того, что как наши, так и английские подводные лодки проходят мимо Дагерорта, а иногда и заходят к посту за инструкциями, возможны случаи, в особенности на рассвете или вечером, принятия их за неприятельскую, а также неприятельская лодка может быть принята за свою». 21-23 октября «Минога» в шторм, стоя на якоре у полуострова Дагерорт в ожидании появления германской подводной лодки, едва смогла его выбрать при обнаружении противника. Лодки взаимно уклонились друг от друга погружением. На «Миноге» штормом повредило кормовые горизонтальные рули. Устранить повреждение в море не удалось. Погода и неисправность вынудили лодку вернуться в базу в надводном положении проливом Моонзунд. В итоге, после нескольких лет напряженной боевой деятельности лодку осенью 1917 г. вместе с четырьмя подводными лодками типа «Касатка» направили в Петроград на капитальный ремонт. Однако революционные события отодвинули сроки ремонта на неопределенный период, и все эти корабли в январе 1918 г. сдали на хранение в порт. После революции летом 1918 г. потребовалось срочно усилить Каспийскую флотилию. По распоряжению В.И. Ленина подводные лодки «Минога», «Окунь», «Макрель» и «Касатка» срочно отремонтировали и на железнодорожных транспортерах отправили в Саратов, где спустили на воду. В ноябре их зачислили в состав Астраханско-Каспийской военной флотилии. В мае 1919 г. «Минога» под командованием Ю.В. Пуаре во время боя с английскими корабля-


A21 #4-2009 (eng)  

Russian weapons magazine

A21 #4-2009 (eng)  

Russian weapons magazine

Advertisement