Short weapon overview.
Direct modernization of the now somewhat problematic Mig-23 has failed as Mikoyan has reported that the airframe itself cannot handle the necessary changes to move to a fly by wire model alongside improving engine power. The plane itself is still being fitted with the D-30 turbofan but its long-term modernization potential is unlikely to result in any further gains in performance. Increasing standards of American fighters have already overcome the design with current attempts considered aerodynamically suboptimal for digital system integration. Plans for the Mig-23M have also been cut short due to severe deficiencies in material sciences compared to lightweight American fighters. A related modernization package with the Mysl-M HMD, improved radar, ECM, and countermeasures will still be mounted to provide weapons compatibility but work has shifted towards an entirely new airframe with derivative hardware.
MiG-23 reached effective end of it's modernisation potential. Planed upgrades are interestingand what was deemed to be possible to fit is also not insignificant.
General improvements to avionics and provisions for next generation weapons will keep the plane usable for some time until we can produce next generation plane in number and will keep them viable for export for even longer time. Of note is HMD (Helmet Mounted Display) as it greatly increase capability in close range engagement while decreasing pilot work load though it's real value depend on available weapons and what that system truly entail (Helmet Mounted Sight is just equivalent to gun sight that will point sensors of plane/weapon in direction while full HMD is partial/full HUD repeater for helmet). We also seem to be embracing fly by wire much earlier.
Taking the functional concepts remaining from the Mig-23M and redeveloping it for a high-capability fighter capable of overmatching American developments has begun. The new Mig-27 design program has shifted previous ideas for the fighter, somewhat incorporating lessons learned from the Mig-23B, M, and K. A new composite airframe has significantly reduced empty weight while a fully solid state flight computer directs a fully traversable active canard and rear wing surface to radically improve agility. The delta wing itself has been somewhat expanded to improve carry weight with the intakes moved to a more conventional position so as to provide four additional stations for ordinance. Outside of an entirely reworked electronics suite the new design is somewhat iterative, but represents significant gains in tactical capabilities. A ground attack tracking capable pod is being integrated from the start though the capability remains an option only in situations of mixed or better air superiority.
Seems our transitional fighter (it's new airframe with greatly improved capability but not as ambitious as other projects) is going full multirole with numerous weapon stores. A modern if conventional airframe made to fit modern avionics, incorporate next generation weapons and some modernisation space. the only question is whether optical targeting pod will be integrated into airframe or in container like IRL NATO pods are.
Modernizations to the Mig-25 airframe have somewhat been taken better as the aircraft was as a baseline more modern and non-dependant on Mig-21-derived components. Some lightning with a new skin has been achieved alongside improved air resistance performance. Conversion to a computerized control system has achieved mild improvements in agility but nothing radical or comparable to more advanced designs. Integration of the Mysl onto the platform with a degree of radar slaving is expected to be key for the mid-range dogfight, enabling the radar to be targeted by sight. Air-to-ground capability integration has been achieved with the integration of Kh-15/25/29s as possible hardware, if only contrast guided variants. Upgrades in capabilities have featured a new high-precision RWR system to improve SEAD performance alongside strong jamming pods capable of screening other assets for use in a tactical support role.
It seems like our MiG-25 have much more potential than it's real equivalent. Should be reasonably capable plane for short to mid term. Expansion of multirole capability is also worth noting.
Finalized production versions of the Su-15bis have started being issued to PVO units with twin R25 engines ensuring that the fighter can achieve high-speed interceptions. High power mode for both engines is only sustainable for five minutes but enables a terminal intercept acceleration to Mach 2.4, taking advantage of a more reinforced airframe. A new wing form has been incorporated into the design to reduce air resistance and provide for improved takeoff capabilities in a rapid interception profile. The layout of either three drop tanks and two each of R40A and R60M is expected to be standard for most duties with the option to double missile armament or to replace missiles with R40T's when necessary. Frontline fighter conversions to the use of R13M double mounts have been proposed for export but so far not authorized for lack of reliable customers.
The low end of our interceptor fleet, a necessity given our geographical situation but looks to be good workforce plane with decent weapon integration. It's not as exciting as some planes talked about here but no less important as it fullfil critical role.
With modern developments in airpower alongside the rapidly improving scale of electronics, avionics, and ordinance the program for a multirole light frontline fighter has started. A single airframe capable of replacing the Su-7, Su-17, Su-24, Mig-23, Mig-27, and Il-42 is technically ambitious but necessary to meet prospective military-tactical missions. Radar capability to sustain four missile datalinks has been a core demand of the program alongside flexible tracking and compound data-sharing between squadmates and downlink from rear echelon radar craft. A single engine capable of delivering 180kN at reheat has already started development with a larger turbofan expected to offer significant efficiency benefits to the airframe. Ordinance compatibility with all next-generation systems has been demanded alongside a maximum number of stores for use in a close support strike role. Prototypes are not expected for a few years as the technical challenges involved are still significant.
This is in many ways MiG-29 program but EXTREMELY more ambitious. Extensive multirole capability, integration of next generation medium range active radar homing missile (push for datalink for 4 missile means engaging 4 targets at once and that is most feasible with ARH missile), extensive dataling capability. If delivered in next ten years (and be produced in high number) it should be actually capable of overmatching IRL US aircrafts it'd be expected to fight against.
The next primary fighter-interceptor has significantly shifted in role from the Mig-25 to a dedicated aircraft focused on air-superiority work both outside and inside defensive zones. The new medium frontline interceptor program has thus accompanied work with several techniques developed to improve air-to-air combat capabilities. A phased array radar is the main goal of the program, integrating simultaneous target tracking with squadron networking and frontal coordination across the battlefield. Reductions in aircraft radar returns can be achieved through improved flight geometry while a new generation of high-power turbines, thrust vectoring, and a solid-state control system will provide unparalleled agility to the airframe. Pilot awareness aids and electronic integration are so far the primary focus of the program as true networked defensive systems will fundamentally revolutionize current concepts of air combat.
This one looks to be mix between Su-27 and MiG-31 programs and is actually only somewhat ambitious for it's intended role. We may actually be behind IRL USSR in terms of dataling capability and real MiG-31 had most of proposed capbilities of sharing data for controling airspace and entered service in '77. The two ambitious parts are thrust vectoring engines and reduced visibility features as thrust vectoring engines are kind of complicated while reduced visibility put serious constraints onto airframe. If delivered it should be very capable aircraft and if it can be produced in numbers will be extremely valuable.
This is high end of our interceptors.
Strike aircraft have tended towards heavier airframes for the use of high dive speed ordinance but air defense networks are only improving. This leaves the tactical strike role preferred for a lighter more capable aircraft that can surmount air defenses more so than one capable of carrying the heaviest ordinance. An internal bay with the capability to carry at least three new generation Kh-41 AShM or extended range air-to-air ordinance for over-arctic interception. The agility of the aircraft is not expected or demanded, only that it offers a reduced radar signature from below, as patrol profiles will focus on high-altitude flight more so than low-altitude penetration. The radar system from the MFI has been recommended for the far heavier patrol interceptor when used in the role but systems integration is heavily dependent on technological availability. Practical use cases will see the plane replace the Su-15Bis, Tu-22, and Tu-26 in interception and heavy anti-shipping roles.
Low end interceptor of next generation with some multirole capbility as standoff weapon delivery bus. Of note are internal weapons bays and stealth integration. You know the drill, if it's delivered in numbers will represent significant improvement to our capability.
A true second-generation semi-active missile with improved kinematic performance and tracking systems has failed to materialize in the new R23. Increasing motor size and a move to solid-state electronics has somewhat improved engagement characteristics of the system with better rejection of chaff and ECM but not significantly so. The largest improvement if anything for the new generation of missiles is an improvement in terminal and kinematic performance, allowing for engagements to be conducted further and against targets maneuvering at up to 8g in most profiles. New double mounting brackets have somewhat been standardized and are expected to be used for wing stores, increasing engagement capacity in dense air environments alongside interception missions
This is general capability upgrade over R-13 missile that seems to be analogous to what R-24 to R-23 IRL. Should be broadly equivalent to NATO medium range SARH missile but not perfectly symetric. Dual rails becoming standard is welcome development.
Lacking interception capability of lighter systems alongside the requirements for long range fires from interceptors has led to a series of improvements in missile development. A new generation of missiles derived from the R-40A has been warranted with a low diameter variation entering testing. Miniaturization of the active seeker has only been partially achieved with a next generation seeker made more capable rather than smaller with improved ECM rejection, continuous data-link updates in TWS modes, and enhanced terminal maneuverability at a moderate cost in kinematic performance. Initial testing of the new R33 system has only started on the Mig-25 but cross compatibility with the Mig-27 is expected upon its entry into service. These features have minimized possible mass reductions with the new missile still expected to be 350kg. Significant improvements in performance have in effect canceled the R40A modernization program with a new significantly improved general purpose system.
This is spicy missile, long range, ARH seeker with decent performance and expected compatibility with our next fighters are very promising especially given it's quite modest weight. It should cover any shortfalls R-40A had compared to AIM-54 and it's integration into projected MiG-27 and hopefully all next gen fighters present very real possibility of our planes having significant advantage in reach over most NATO planes for quite some time (if it's produced in numbers and widely available).
To provide a contemporary dogfight missile work has had to shift away from previous attempts at the production of shorter range gun replacements. It is currently believed that the new generation of American missiles will radically improve countermeasure resistance and those efforts need to be paralleled alongside improvements in all aspects of flight performance. The use of a higher energy motor alongside gains in weight are one part of the program, but direct vectoring of engine thrust when combined with Mysl based targeting can enable a nearly total frontal cone of engagement. Seeker improvements are in practice directly copied off the Igla with a dual bandwidth seeker optimized to reject countermeasures and theoretical IRCCM systems expected to be seen on American assault aviation. When combined with a significant narrowing of sensor view, a near absolute resistance to conventional countermeasures is expected outside direct front aspect fire. Practical deployment of the new R73 system is unlikely to start at scale before 1982 but it will provide a means to match and exceed enemy platforms.
Moslty this is identical to IRL R-73 (which is not a bad thing, R-73 is still somewhat viable and extremely capable back in mid '80s when it entered service) but early iterations of R-73 didn't have two colour seeker so our missile should have significantly countermeasure resistance.
Development applications for the Su-24 have been delayed due to issues in the AL-21 engine as modernization has failed to produce notable gains in maintenance duration. The airframe itself has also fallen short of the capabilities expected for a ground attack craft, coming ahead in unloaded surface speed but significantly behind expectation in payload alongside presenting significant safety concerns during takeoffs and landings. Compatibility with both the Kh-25/29 system is still expected alongside the ability to fit ECM and detection hardware for use in SEAD but the upgrade is not enough to offer unique advantages compared to Mig-25s with similar hardware. Advancing adversary air defense capabilities are expected to restrict strike missions to low altitude supersonic attacks, limiting what can be done and demanding an entirely new generation of hardware outside of current developments.
Engine problems are serious thing but project looks workable even if it's facing problems it still does provide expansion of valuable capability.
Subsonic attack modes have met significant opposition from the military especially with the results of comparative evaluations. Strike aircraft performing loitering missions over any air defense of significance will have an exceedingly poor survival rate, especially in areas of significant opposition. Improved standoff ordinance is going to somewhat compensate as even subsonic planes can fling missiles from a distance away but that significantly limits operations and raises costs. The Il-42 itself is an adequate plane for the role but the heavy armor incorporated into the fuselage has itself been proven to be part of an obsolete design concept as engagements within AA gun envelopes are deeply unlikely in case of any European confrontation. Work in areas entirely lacking or equipped with obsolete AA can still be conducted but that pigeonholes the aircraft into a series of very limited deployments.
Not unexpected development, while subsonic attack aircrafts provide valuable capability they are very vulnerable when not delivering stand of munitions and are worse at it that faster planes. Very good for power projection but of limited use against peer opponent.
Further development on the Kh-15 system has seen it advanced into a dedicated anti-radar platform capable of long distance attack. High velocity trajectories alongside a terminal inertial stage in case of beam interruption is expected to achieve significant kill rates on hostile SAM and radar systems. Practical limitations of the anti-radar use case has limited the platform to approximately 250 km of range in the attack but even this is expected to be sufficient to counter new and prospective anti-aircraft systems. Minimization of aircraft inside the operational area when breaking into defensive zones is expected to be necessary until the point that sufficient suppression of enemy defenses is achieved. Practical wartime use is expected to take advantage of nuclear warheads to enhance effect, with a co-developed 300 kt warhead made to aid suppression of air defenses. Bomber use as a softening system of Canadian and British air defense networks is expected for the nuclear version, limiting damage to strike formations performing nuclear attacks.
Long range anti radiation missiles that can accept nuclear warhead, useful, valuable but not much to say really. Addition of inertial guidance is nice touch for improving accuracy.
Deriving off initial work in guided ordinance on the Kh-23 platform a new duplex of heavy guided ordinance has been developed for a number of operational tasks. Both the Kh-25/Kh-29 systems share the same practical guidance packages with the former using it on a 300kg system while the latter is a heavier 700kg complex containing a 300 kg warhead. The Kh-25 is expected for lighter front line work alongside anti-tank strikes with options for laser, contrast, and anti-radiation guidance available on the same platform. Range expectations on the lighter missile are in practice at best 15km outside of the anti-radar MP which can cruise for up to forty kilometers alongside having limited inertial guidance for use in a light SEAD role. Kh-29 variants are in practice built with similar seekers but significantly greater more conventional warheads for attacks on hardened targets, significantly expanding strike capabilities on all targeting pod equipped airframes.
Kh-25 and Kh-29 seems to be broadly equivalent to IRL missiles of same name, the only thing of note is that laser guided version seem to benefit from superior seeker giving them extended range (range is still seeker limited). They may have higher aerodynamic range than IRL versions of same age but I'm simply not sure if later version got any significant engine upgrade alongside battery and seeker upgrades.
Don't loot the army if you want it to field modern equipment in next two decades. We are kind of at a delicate spot where many technologies mature enough for use but need to be produced to fuel further advancement and keep out capabilities fully to modern standard.
To help make sure all those things are build we need improved metallurgy (mostly more non ferrous metals), more precision manufacturing capability, more of better electronics (more chips, better ones) and finally we need population that can use computers semi proficiently.