Douglas Barrie/LONDON
THE VPK MAPO OBJECT 1.42 fifth-generation heavy fighter has yet to get airborne, but it has already been dubbed as the next "flying restaurant" by some of its detractors, a nickname last given to the 42t behemoth, the MiG-31 Foxhound.
Unlike the Foxhound, however, the 35t Object 1.42 - designed by Mikoyan, now integrated into VPKMAPO (Flight International, 5-11 June) - may never enter service with Russia's armed forces to meet the multi-role frontal fighter (MFI) requirement for which it is designed. Two prototypes of the 1.42 (which were dubbed the 1.44s) have been built, with taxi trials carried out as long ago as late 1994. A first flight has yet to be made.
FIFTH-GENERATION ASPIRATIONS
The MFI was intended to fly in 1990-1, with the aircraft expected to enter service with the air force after the turn of the century. The MFI was intended to replace the Sukhoi Su-27/Su-27M in the air-superiority role. Delays in the programme have, in part, been the result of developmental problems with the Lyulka/Saturn AL-41F engines, although this does not account for the overall slowness of the project. Despite protestations by Gen Pyotr Deynekin, head of the air force, that a fifth-generation fighter remains central to its requirements, the future of the 1.42 appears increasingly bleak.
Mikhail Waldenberg, general designer with VPK MAPO, is intimately associated with the MiG-29 and, after an apparent period in the wilderness has re-emerged at the heart of one of Russia's two fighter houses.
"My personal thoughts [on the MFI] are that it all depends on how you'd like to develop a fifth-generation fighter, especially with regard to exports," he says.
Exports have become the focus of attention for both MAPO-MiG and Sukhoi after the collapse of production orders from the air force. Factories which, in the 1980s, counted annual production runs in the hundreds are confronted by single-figure orders now. Garnering hard currency through exports, such as the MiG-29N Fulcrum deal with Malaysia, or Su-27 Flanker sales, has provided money to "drip feed" projects at home.
"Do we have a fifth-generation fighter only for the Russian air force? For me the answer is obvious. No, the fifth- generation fighter should be exportable," says Waldenberg.
With the air force now facing "genuine costs" for procuring combat aircraft, rather than having an old, Soviet-era, wish list, which disregarded capital concerns, the 1.42 may prove to be just too expensive. Anatoliy Belosvet, deputy general director at MAPO-MiG, has already suggested that the air force cannot procure the 1.42 in meaningful numbers.
There are also suggestions that, within the air force hierarchy, there are those who now believe that the 1.42 no longer meets its needs, and that an alternative fifth-generation-fighter design should be pursued.
Using the analogy of the Grumman F-14 and the Lockheed Martin F-16, Waldenberg flags up the relative weakness of the F-14 from a commercial viewpoint. He asks: "Why buy the more expensive aircraft?" The same appears to be increasingly true, of the 1.42 both for the air force and for export customers.
TOO HEAVY
While unwilling to discuss the configuration of "existing prototypes" in detail, Waldenberg's observations shed light on the differences of opinion within the design bureau about the fifth-generation requirement.
"If it were me," he says, "I would do the fifth-generation fighter another way. I have always believed that a 30t-class aircraft was too heavy. Look at the Tupolev Tu-128, for instance."
Within VPK MAPO it remains a matter of speculation as to exactly how much, if any, funding is now being allocated to the 1.42. It appears, now, to be no more than a trickle. A gap of 18 months between fast-taxi trials and a first flight does not reflect a fully funded programme. There are signs that continued development of MiG-29 variants, are receiving priority over the 1.42, partly because they offer a better opportunity for exports. The MiG-29M programme has been shelved in favour of the MiG-35, a MiG-29 follow-on, which draws upon the avionics and radar of the M programme, coupled with Klimov thrust-vectoring engines. The design is also expected to have a greater wing area and increased internal fuel capacity.
Waldenberg readily admits that low-speed manoeuvrability and a lack of endurance have been areas of weakness in previous iterations of the Fulcrum design. The inclusion of thrust vectoring will enhance the aircraft's low-speed manoeuvre envelope, while increasing the internal volume of the aircraft would allow for more tankage.
The MiG-35 may be attractive to MAPO-MiG in the short-to-medium term, but it does not address the air force's fifth-generation requirement, which, despite budgetary shackles, remains a desire.
What the MiG-35 may do for the air force is to provide the complement to the thrust-vectoring Su-27M (Su-35) when it eventually enters service: the former will replace Fulcrum As, while the latter replaces Flanker Bs.
More attractively for VPK MAPO, at least in the near term, is the potential for export of the MiG-35. The aircraft would be available around a decade before the US Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), but, it is claimed, with some of the same capabilities and at a competitive price. Non-aligned F-16 users might be tempted, if VPK MAPO can ensure its through-life support, to trade in their F-16A/Bs for a Mikoyan model.
Waldenberg is aware of the need to continue to improve on export in-service support, having been instrumental within the old Mikoyan design bureau of setting up a department to address this .
VPK MAPO will now need to decide whether to pursue the 1.42, as now configured, in the hope that the air force can eventually afford to buy the aircraft in numbers justifying a production run, or whether to adopt another approach.
Belosvet has already suggested that a more affordable fifth-generation-fighter programme should be pursued, although he is vague as to what the result of this might be.
Given the sensitive nature of the fifth-generation programme, Waldenberg is understandably wary of discussing what the design house and the air force might pursue. Asked about whether an equivalent of the JSF might emerge within Russia, Waldenberg only comments, with a hint of a smile, that speaking about the design bureau "...keeps its effort corresponding to the tendencies of world development".
There can be little doubt that VPK MAPO and Sukhoi are closely watching the JSF project. With their interest in the export market, and the recognition of the F-16's predominance in this, there can be little doubt that both companies are tracking the JSF closely. Sukhoi continues to push its Su-55 light fighter, with the design continuing to evolve. With the JSF viewed by potential US developers as a replacement for the F-16, their Russian design counterparts will also be considering their prospective offerings. A 35t-class fighter, such as the 1.42, is unlikely to usurp the F-16's dominance in the export market.
The most likely future for the 1.42 is that it will suffer a similar fate to that of Mikoyan's Ye-150 and Ye-152 heavy interceptors. These prototype aircraft had a similar planform to that of the MiG-21 Fishbed. While the Ye-152 had a maximum take-off weight of 14t, the first production variant of the MiG-21, the MiG-21F, had a take-off weight of 6.8t.
The Fishbed went on to become the standard fighter of the Warsaw Pact, remaining in production for 28 years. The Ye-150 and Ye-152 progressed no further than the air force museum at Monino.As with the MiG-29 and Su-27, the basic aerodynamic configuration for the 1.42 was determined by the Central Hydrodynamic Institute at Zhukovsky. As the Flanker and the Fulcrum exemplify, there is no essential reason why a plan-form cannot be applied to an aircraft in a lighter class. One option for MAPO would be to "shrink" the 1.42 design to an aircraft in the 22-25t class, the size of the MiG-29M and MiG-35.
MAPO and the air force could also choose to use the 1.42 as a technology testbed for future fifth-generation designs, covering the development and integration of the phased-array radar and weapons-systems suite, along with proving the design of the Lyulka/Saturn AL-41F. Whatever the future of the 1.42, it seems unlikely that it will enter series production in substantial numbers for the air force.
MIKOYAN'S OTHER HEAVYWEIGHT
The same can also to be said of the other heavyweight fighter in the Mikoyan stable, the MiG-31M Foxhound B. The first genuine prototype was flown in 1986, an airframe-only testbed having been flown in 1985.
It was intended as a mid-life upgrade to the Foxhound A, providing the Soviet air-defence forces with an improved interceptor capability until Mikoyan's Object 701 high- altitude interceptor became available. The latter programme was axed in 1992-3, leaving the air-defence force dependent on the MiG-31M to provide a more capable interceptor.
The MiG-31M is externally similar to the Foxhound A, but has an improved radar, the NIIP Zaslon M, and a more-capable long-range air-to-air missile (AAM), the Vympel R-37 (AA-X-13), replacing the R-33 (AA-9 Amos), at the core of its enhanced capabilities. A detection range of around 400km (220nm) against a large target with a 20m2 (215ft2) radar cross-section is claimed for the Zaslon M - over double that of the original Zaslon. Six prototype aircraft were manufactured at the Nizhny Novgorod plant, with at least two, aircraft numbers 055 and 056, delivered to the air force's combat test and evaluation site at Ahktubinsk. The MiG-31M, is believed to have been flown, from Ahktubinsk in 1989-90. In 1994 it was claimed that a test engagement, in which the dual-mode (active/semi-active) R-37 was used, was successfully prosecuted against a target at a range of 300km.
Despite claims to the contrary by MAPO MiG and military personnel, the future of the MiG-31M is also uncertain.
The air-defence force, is struggling to deal with drastic budget cuts with pilot flying hours and aircraft availability known to be seriously affected. Against this background, its ability to procure and support an aircraft in the class of the MiG-31M appears open to question. The air-defence force has also recently received a handful of Sukhoi Su-30s. These offer the "fighter-controller" capability of the MiG-31M, although without the Zaslon M phased-array radar or the R-37 AAM.
It is conceivable that the remaining MiG-31M prototypes (the first aircraft, 051, has already been scrapped at Zhukovsky) will be used as technology testbeds. Foxhound As could eventually be retrofitted with the modified radar and the R-37.
Faced with the increasing likelihood that the MiG-31M programme will come to nothing, MAPO-MiG has been examining options to make the basic Foxhound A more attractive to the few potential export customers. Management at the Nhizhny Novgorod production site claim to have completed an export derivative design of the Foxhound A in 1995.
MAPO-MiG, meanwhile, is understood to have come up with the MiG-31FE. This is intended to provide a "multi-role" capability for the basic Foxhound interceptor. The project may have grown out of a MAPO-MIG attempt to interest the Russian air force in the Foxhound as a replacement for the MiG-25BM Foxbat F defence-suppression aircraft. The air force's preference, however, in replacing the Foxbat F is thought to be the Su-27IB. The MiG-31FE is offered as being capable of carrying the Kh-31P (AS-17 Krypton) anti-radiation missile as well as the Kh-31A active-radar variant.
For strike missions, the Kh-59M (AS-18 Kazoo) or Kh-59 (AS-13 Kingbolt) can be carried. Laser-guided bombs, with an unknown laser designator pod, have also been associated with the MiG-31FE.
END OF THE LINE?
The MiG-31FE may prove to be the end of the line for the Foxhound, barring an export sale, unless the air-defence force can find funding either for the MiG-31M, or at least to retrofit the Foxhound A with the improved systems developed for the M.
The future of the R-37 long-range AAM also remains in doubt. There has been speculation that this missile will also provide the extended-range-engagement capability for the 1.42, although, given the weapon's substantial girth, internal carriage - even on a 35t fighter - would be difficult. What has become clear to MAPO-MiG and the air force since the collapse of the Soviet Union is that MiG's big fighters also come with a big, some would argue unaffordable, price tag.
The MiG-31M may be the last "single-role" design to carry the famous Mikoyan marque, and its service entry must now appear highly unlikely. The air-defence force has already survived one attempt to be absorbed by the air force: it may not survive another.
As for the air force's fifth-generation fighter, if it is not the Object 1.42, then what will it be? Mikhail Simonov, chief designer at Sukhoi, still harbours aspirations with the reputedly more radical Su.32 design.
VPK MAPO, however, having won the fifth-generation competition the first time around, will not easily relinquish the prize - no matter how distant it might appear to be - of producing the air force's next air-superiority fighter.
Source: Flight International
