No large military contracts, though promised, were concluded or even announced at the MAKS-2011 international air show. The reason, experts believe, is the open conflict between buyers and sellers. The reluctance of manufacturers and the military to seek a compromise is the big story in combat aviation, even if the incident with the 5th generation fighter at the air show on Sunday steals the spotlight for a time. (http://.rian.ru/russia/20110821/166002069.html).
If at first you don't succeed...
The last day of the show was marred by the aborted takeoff of the prototype of the Sukhoi T-50 5th generation fighter, the showpiece of MAKS-2011.
According to eyewitness reports, as the jet sped down the runway, with afterburners switched on, two torch-like flames erupted from the starboard engine. Test pilot Sergei Bogdan deployed the drag parachute and rolled to the end of the runway (Zhukovsky Air Base has one of the world's longest). No casualties or damage were reported. It was later determined that the right engine's automated system had malfunctioned. (http://ria.ru/incidents/20110821/421155669.html)
The T-50 is actually a rather crude prototype. Not all the kinks have been worked out in the new technologies used in the aircraft. Also, the T-50 is powered by an interim engine mode; an engine that will meet required parameters is still in the development phase.
The incident, however, may overshadow the far more serious issues facing combat aviation.
Where are the contracts?
The fact that no large contracts were signed at MAKS-2011 with the Russian armed forces and foreign militaries underscores the seriousness of the situation. The media had reported that the Russian military would sign contracts at the show for the purchase of 60 of the latest Yak-130 combat trainer aircraft and 24 deck-based MiG-29K/KUB fighters, worth a total of $3 billion, but this did not come to pass.
Experts do not believe that the military backed out over concerns about technical defects.
Technical problems in a modern warplane are inevitable, according to Konstantin Makienko, deputy director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies. They can be easily resolved during additional negotiations between the customer and the developer. Makienko believes that any bugs in the MiG-29K have already been worked through. "India buys it actively, because the Indian military has experience using deck-based aviation comparable with that of the Russian navy," Makienko said, noting the demand for the Russian fighter plane on the global market, which underscores the aircraft's quality.
"The quality of Russian aviation is not in question; it has always been high," says Igor Korotchenko, editor-in-chief of Natsionalnaya Oborona (National Defense) magazine. He told RIA Novosti that he believes the situation reflects how difficult it has been for the industry and the Defense Ministry to agree on price. "This is the current trend with the ministry," Korotchenko believes. He noted that in his view the process will soon be complete.
The Defense Ministry's penny pinching has been in evidence for a long time now, and some observers believe that this, along with the inflexible stand taken by some companies, contributed to the disruptions in the state defense order in 2010 and 2011.
"The Defense Ministry is acting like a bookkeeper, or rather a publican," Makienko told RIA Novosti. "Its objective is to reduce the price of a contract by all means. Hence this situation."
MiG-35: Likely prospects
The Russian aircraft corporation MiG showed its MiG-35 multirole fighter at the MAKS-2011. The Russian military, despite the setback suffered by the 35 at a recent Indian tender, still regards it as a candidate for the intermediate upgrading of aging MiG-29 fighters.
Time marches on, but no information is yet available on even scheduled purchases of MiG-35s. While earlier this situation could be explained away by "general shortages", now this argument does not work: the air force is beginning to purchase the equipment it needs.
Commenting on the future of the MiG-29/MiG-35 family in Russia's air force, Igor Korotchenko noted that MiG-29 fighters in service with the air force are unlikely to be upgraded. But, in Korotchenko's opinion, the Defense Ministry might purchase some MiG-35s in addition to the T-50s. "This should be done if only to support the plane's export prospects," he explained to RIA Novosti.
Initially, the MiG-35 project grew out of the experimental-design work to upgrade the MiG-29K carrier-based multirole fighter (NATO reporting name Fulcrum-D). These two fighters are unified to a large degree. But the MiG-35 boasts a number of improvements, especially its on-board electronic equipment and avionics.
In Konstantin Makienko's view, the best alternative for the MiG-35 is to return to its roots, so to say. "The idea is to make the most of scientific, technical and technological solutions found for the MiG-35 in the production and further development of the MiG-29K," the expert explained to RIA Novosti. "So that it could stay ahead of France's Dassault Rafale deck modification and the future carrier-based Eurofighter Typhoon for another 10 to 15 years."
Difficult road ahead for light fighters
MAKS-2011 also failed to clarify whether Russian aircraft builders and the military see a niche for a second, light 5th generation fighter. Recall that the 4th generation fighters were traditionally divided into two groups.
The United States' F-15 Eagle twin-engine heavy fighters were followed by the world's only operational F-22 Raptor 5th generation fighter, while in the case of Russia's Su-27s, it is the T-50 prototype.
But in the niche created for light tactical fighters, the situation is far more muddled. In the next ten years, the U.S. F-16 Fighting Falcon will be replaced by the F-35 Lightning II, currently undergoing tests. But it is anybody's guess if Russia's MiG-29 light fighter will have a 5th generation cousin. Any observer has the right to ask: now that the MiG-29/MiG-35s are being adopted in the air force with such difficulties, will the new project have better prospects?
Asked if a 5th generation light fighter could be really developed, Igor Korotchenko told RIA Novosti that he believes the T-50, showcased at the MAKS-2011, would completely fill the niche both for a heavy and a light aircraft. "It might also provide a commercial platform for a multirole tactical fighter," Korotchenko suggested, commenting on the export outlook for Russian 5G models.
According to Konstantin Makienko, however, two factors will be central to the development of a 5th generation light fighter.
One is the workload on research and technical specialists at the Sukhoi Company. "A factor in favor of the light fighter project is the fact that when Sukhoi engineers put the finishing touches to the T-50, which is likely to occur in 2015-2017, another goal will have to be set for them; otherwise their potential will be wasted," Makienko speculated, warning against a repeat of the typical 1990s situation in the defense sector.
The second factor may be the development of a powerful and reliable next-generation jet engine. "A light fighter requires an engine with a thrust of 18 or, better still, 20 tons," Makienko says. "If we have such an engine, we will have good prospects for a light aircraft."
At the moment, no such engine is produced by the Russian aircraft industry. But, following the logic of unification (which the Americans used when developing the twin-engine F-15 and the single-engine F-16), one can presume that the "second-phase engine" (also known as "Item 129") may play this role in the future. It is currently being developed for the T-50.
Same and the show
MAKS-2011 provided further evidence that the state defense order is in trouble.
Russia's military-industrial sector - composed of rusty remnants of the Soviet defense industry no longer able to supply large quantities of modern weapons and run by military managers not always capable of formulating a clear defense strategy - is getting off the ground slowly and painfully.
Many issues concerning Russia's tactical aviation in the medium and long term still remain unresolved (apart from the more or less clear prospects for the T-50).
As for current defense projects, they are becoming ever more difficult to handle, reflecting the Defense Ministry stubborn insistence of measuring quality in terms of cost savings and defense industry executives' determination to stand up for profit as a factor determining the strategic growth of science-based industry.
This is the natural result of businesses and government departments looking after their own interests. But the price is lost contracts worth billions and delays in the development of principles to govern the transformation of the armed forces.
The views expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
