Avimimus
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 December 2007
- Messages
- 2,395
- Reaction score
- 852
The fundamental assumption here is that Russians will want to build their own 6th generation fighter: This is partly due to a desire for national defence capability (Russia having experienced multiple invasions in the past century values defence more highly than, for example, the United States). However, national pride may be a more significant factor.
The question is how could they feasibly move forward by the mid-2040s?
It is an interesting puzzle, and I see three options:
(1) Incremental development of the PAK-FA systems, with a redesigned airframe, and first generation variable-cycle engines (potentially with some assistance from China). This would lead to a stealthier and slightly more efficient successor to the PAK-FA, without a significant change in role (except perhaps trading manoeuvrability for improved stealth).
(2) The PAK-DP, serving as a 'PVO-class' interceptor and regional bomber. This possibility is based on the surprisingly successful performance of the Mig-31BM and the need to replace the Su-34 eventually. This would be a clean sheet design made feasible through replacing multiple types of aircraft with a smaller number of airframes. It would require a doctrinal shift towards air-defence and deterrence, away from air-superiority. The design would replace the Su-57, Su-35, Su-34, and Mig-31 (as well as the aircraft that were replaced by them, such as the Mig-29, Su-24MR and Tu-22M). The resulting force would be composed entirely of this long ranged supersonic interceptor/strike aircraft and the PAK-DA.
(3) A more radical option would be to contest forward airspace using drones. This would allow simpler designs integrated with more complex sensor networks, be more attritable, and increase the kinematic efficiency of air-defences and artillery through having a fully reusable jet-powered 'first stage' for the air-to-air or air-to-ground munitions. It would also allow distributing more airborne sensors and expand the range of air defence battalions (plugging gaps between S-400 systems). Something like an unpiloted Su-75 controlled from ground-based integrated air-defence or integrated artillery allocation systems, flying relatively fixed patterns. It would lose flexibility, but it would return much of the 'battlefield fighter' concept's ability to contest airspace, and massively expand the capability of air-defences.
In this analysis, it is interesting that only the first option retains the VVS... both of the others are essentially PVO-centric concepts... so the integration of the PVO into the VVS might end up being the opposite (i.e. absorption of the VVS into the PVO).
The question is how could they feasibly move forward by the mid-2040s?
It is an interesting puzzle, and I see three options:
(1) Incremental development of the PAK-FA systems, with a redesigned airframe, and first generation variable-cycle engines (potentially with some assistance from China). This would lead to a stealthier and slightly more efficient successor to the PAK-FA, without a significant change in role (except perhaps trading manoeuvrability for improved stealth).
(2) The PAK-DP, serving as a 'PVO-class' interceptor and regional bomber. This possibility is based on the surprisingly successful performance of the Mig-31BM and the need to replace the Su-34 eventually. This would be a clean sheet design made feasible through replacing multiple types of aircraft with a smaller number of airframes. It would require a doctrinal shift towards air-defence and deterrence, away from air-superiority. The design would replace the Su-57, Su-35, Su-34, and Mig-31 (as well as the aircraft that were replaced by them, such as the Mig-29, Su-24MR and Tu-22M). The resulting force would be composed entirely of this long ranged supersonic interceptor/strike aircraft and the PAK-DA.
(3) A more radical option would be to contest forward airspace using drones. This would allow simpler designs integrated with more complex sensor networks, be more attritable, and increase the kinematic efficiency of air-defences and artillery through having a fully reusable jet-powered 'first stage' for the air-to-air or air-to-ground munitions. It would also allow distributing more airborne sensors and expand the range of air defence battalions (plugging gaps between S-400 systems). Something like an unpiloted Su-75 controlled from ground-based integrated air-defence or integrated artillery allocation systems, flying relatively fixed patterns. It would lose flexibility, but it would return much of the 'battlefield fighter' concept's ability to contest airspace, and massively expand the capability of air-defences.
In this analysis, it is interesting that only the first option retains the VVS... both of the others are essentially PVO-centric concepts... so the integration of the PVO into the VVS might end up being the opposite (i.e. absorption of the VVS into the PVO).
