Go Back   Alternate History Discussion Board > Discussion > Alternate History Discussion: After 1900

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 13th, 2010, 08:00 PM
Riain Riain is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1000 or more
Could the Soviets have built a Phantom-esque fighter?

The 60s Soviet fighters were woefully underarmed and short on range. Is it possible for the Soviets to build something like the Phantom to enter service in about 1965? I'm thinking it should have AA3 and AA2 missiles, possibly a gun, possibly 2 crew, definitely plenty of range and definintely a comprehensive electronics suite. I'm thinking that it would need to take advantage of tricks like conformal and wingtip missile carriage to make up for Soviet deficiences in engine, aerodynamic and electronic performance.

I am aware that the Soviet operate their fighters differently, hence why they built the planes they did. I also know the Mig 23 is their Phantom type plane, but it didn't enter mass prodction until 1972. So please don't tell me these things, I'm interested to see if the Soviets could do it, not why they didn't or did.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old November 13th, 2010, 08:14 PM
CalBear CalBear is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a house on Sol-3
Posts: 1000 or more
There is no technical reason that the Soviets couldn't have built a multi-mission aircraft like the F4. They had lots of non-technical reasons not to build one, starting with no need for the mission envelope.

The USSR produced the MiG-21, the MiG-25 & the Tu-22M Backfire. Any country that could build them could build a Phantomski.
__________________
Eddie would go!

They thought that was an alien? Really? Jesus tap-dancing christ the standards for "alien" have dropped dramatically - Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old November 13th, 2010, 08:31 PM
AmericanCataphract AmericanCataphract is offline
Evil Underlord
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Old Dominion/Keystone State
Posts: 912
Make the Soviets focus their tactical doctrine less on tactical attack craft and more on deep interdiction into enemy airspace, attacking NATO supply dumps and transport facilities in West Germany behind their defense lines. Do this and the need for a Phantom equivalent arises shortly after the Cuban Missile Crisis. It may be until 1968 or 1970 before it enters service, but the idea will be fleshed out as soon as the realization that a strategic thermonuclear exchange is undesirable sinks into the heads of Soviet politicians and military leaders (which will naturally lead to them thinking more about tactical doctrine).

If they develop a facsimile of the "strike package" concept, then you'll have a need for a large, long-range, well-armed plane to escort the strike package and fight for air superiority over a wide front, using the best radar and electronics to grant all-weather capability. Basically, that's what the role of the Phantom became at some point during Operation Rolling Thunder, as it largely deserted its patrolling naval interceptor roots. Once the Su-24 comes along, it'll further validate the strike package and make it a focal point of Soviet doctrine, much as the Panavia Tornado did for NATO air forces.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asnys View Post
If reading mythology has taught me anything, it's to apply a minimax strategy to any interactions with deities.

Last edited by AmericanCataphract; November 13th, 2010 at 08:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old November 13th, 2010, 09:28 PM
Riain Riain is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1000 or more
I get the feeling that one reason the Soviets didn't build anything like the Phantom until the the 1972 Mig 23 is that they couldn't. I think that the mixture of fuel and weapon load needed for long range/combat persistence plus the thrust to wieght ratio and wing loading needed close combat when it got there may have been beyond the Soviets in the mid 60s.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old November 13th, 2010, 09:51 PM
AmericanCataphract AmericanCataphract is offline
Evil Underlord
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Old Dominion/Keystone State
Posts: 912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riain View Post
I get the feeling that one reason the Soviets didn't build anything like the Phantom until the the 1972 Mig 23 is that they couldn't. I think that the mixture of fuel and weapon load needed for long range/combat persistence plus the thrust to wieght ratio and wing loading needed close combat when it got there may have been beyond the Soviets in the mid 60s.
Well, we know for sure that they could build big, as with the MiG-25 that first flew in 1964 and the Tu-28 Fiddler which did so in 1959. This could theoretically give enough fuel for long range and a big weapons load, as well as space for the best avionics and radar. As for the issue of wing loading - all they have to do is implement a large delta wing, and accept a slightly lower top speed (as that will mean they can use lighter materials, which will lower the top speed but also reduce wing loading. I'm thinking Mach 1.8 or so.). While the delta isn't ideal for maneuverability, that's slightly less of an issue for the sort of aircraft we're imagining. Keep in mind the Phantom was expected, in a full-scale shooting war, to be making full use of BVR radar and missiles, and was never intended for knife-fighting ranges. Skillful pilots were able to make it work in the ROE-dominated airspace above Vietnam, as were the Israelis with their Mirages. Get better Soviet pilot training and it can certainly work.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asnys View Post
If reading mythology has taught me anything, it's to apply a minimax strategy to any interactions with deities.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old November 14th, 2010, 01:43 AM
NothingNow NothingNow is offline
Bringer of Bad Ideas.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Greater Ybor City, FL
Posts: 1000 or more
The Su-15 was almost there. Make it a bit more maneuverable, and give it a second seat and a better radar, like the Smerch, and you've got a Phantomski.
That said, as mentioned before, there needs to be a doctrinal reason for it, or else it isn't going to happen.
__________________
The Nothing Zone is offline.
The schedule and thread.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old November 14th, 2010, 01:48 AM
tallwingedgoat tallwingedgoat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by NothingNow View Post
The Su-15 was almost there. Make it a bit more maneuverable, and give it a second seat and a better radar, like the Smerch, and you've got a Phantomski.
That said, as mentioned before, there needs to be a doctrinal reason for it, or else it isn't going to happen.
If the Soviets wanted to, they could probably build the Su-19 earlier. This was the Su-15 with a new wing for extended range and greater manueverability.

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catmo View Post
The Bible is full of ass-riders. Balaam rode an invisible angel detecting talking ass. David rode an ass. Mary rode an ass. And Jesus rode asess too.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old November 14th, 2010, 02:33 AM
Just Leo Just Leo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1000 or more
I don't think TsAGI would approve of the aerodynamics of the Phantom. And they had no reason to do so.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old November 14th, 2010, 07:12 AM
Riain Riain is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1000 or more
The SU15 could possibly be a Phantomski, it entered service in 1966 which is the right time. But it took until 1971 to get the version with 4 AAMs, and by then the F14 was 3 years from sqn service and the F15 4 years from sqn service. If the Su15 started out with the cranked wing, 4 AAMs (6 would be better) and an internal gun in 1966 then it could be the Phantomski.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old November 14th, 2010, 04:07 PM
Mote Mote is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Leo View Post
I don't think TsAGI would approve of the aerodynamics of the Phantom. And they had no reason to do so.
The Phantom proved, however, that aerodynamics are meaningless with sufficient thrust.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old May 31st, 2011, 09:15 AM
AdA AdA is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Portugal
Posts: 1000 or more
Yak28 ?

The Yak28 comes to mind. It was built as a long range precision strike aircraft (Yak28I), Reccon (Yak28R) Interceptor (Yak28PM) and EW (Yak28PM). It did this from 61, and required 4 variants to do all jobs, Vs the 3 variants of the F4 (RF, G; and the regular fighter bomber versions.)
It's difficult to say if the Yak28PM was a worse fighter than the F4C, since both rellied on missiles and we lack data for the effectivness of the AA3 on combat conditions. But you could replace a force of F4 with Yaks, provided you used a mix of fighter and bomber/recce/EW types. The F4C/D/E where dual role, but the URSS didn't believe in dual role units, trainning their regiments for single missions and building their aircraft accordingly.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old May 31st, 2011, 10:23 AM
Riain Riain is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1000 or more
I can't imagine a Yak 28 turning and burning with F8s, F4s, Mirages and Lightnings.
__________________
"The role of the Cavalry is to add colour, dash and daring, to what would otherwise be a mindless shitfight amongst grunts".
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old May 31st, 2011, 11:18 AM
AdA AdA is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Portugal
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riain View Post
I can't imagine a Yak 28 turning and burning with F8s, F4s, Mirages and Lightnings.
Yak28s did play turn/dive/climb games with German F4F late in their careers. Go to airvectors site for a report. A Phantom dogfighting a Lightning? The British fighter was to give some F16 and F15 pilots a few nasty surprises in it's goldem years, so imagine how a 1964 Lightning F6 would kick a 1964, no gun, no slats, F4C...
(The Yak28P is a 61 design, and the PM came in 64, so it's comparable to the early model F4B and C.)
The original concept for the Phamtom was to engage BVR targets with AIM7 missiles and to finish off bombers with AIM9. Ditto for the Yak28PM, but with half the missile load and more fuel.
If the Yaks had operated over Vietnam they would have circled, got a clue from a ground station, poped up just enought to fire a couple of AA3 and run away at low altittude.

Last edited by AdA; May 31st, 2011 at 11:23 AM.. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old May 31st, 2011, 08:22 PM
Riain Riain is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1000 or more
A popup GCI is the opposite of Phantom-esque, a Phantom-esque fighter would be operating over enemy territory or the far edge of friendly territory, away from tight ground control.
__________________
"The role of the Cavalry is to add colour, dash and daring, to what would otherwise be a mindless shitfight amongst grunts".
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old June 1st, 2011, 09:06 AM
AdA AdA is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Portugal
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riain View Post
A popup GCI is the opposite of Phantom-esque, a Phantom-esque fighter would be operating over enemy territory or the far edge of friendly territory, away from tight ground control.
Given an offensive scenario. The vietnamese AirForce was outnumbered and on the defensive, ence the tactics I mentioned. The reason F4 would not need GCI was the presence of AWACS aircraft, not any merit on the Aircraft. . IRIAF F4 used defensive tactics and cooperated with their integrated Air Defence network during the Iran Iraq war whenever they lacked the strengh to go on the offensive.
In the 60s the USAF tested the F4 against the F106 and the F4 came out a looser in the air to air role. It was the F4 capability as a IDS aircraft that made it worth to improve it as a fighter. Is it a much better aircraft than the Yak28? Sure. It's a great multirole machine, maybe the greatest ever, but what makes multirole attractive is cost saving, not pure performance. A Lightning is a better fighter, a Delta Dart a better interceptor and a Buccaneer a better strike aircraft. But a phantom can do all those jobs decently and save hugely on long term fleet cost. The russians just built cheaper planes in large numbers.

My point was just that for every mission the F4 performed, there was a Yak28 version for the same job, at a earlier or contemporary date. The Russians had the Phamthom requirement covered...
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old June 1st, 2011, 02:56 PM
BlairWitch749 BlairWitch749 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 1000 or more
Send a message via MSN to BlairWitch749
I would have a hard time doing that by the date requested... maybe not a phantom par say

but maybe Iran dumps the shah somewhat earlier; and turns over an f-14 or two for the right price to the Russians and they just copy the damn thing

and f-14 would certainly fit the bill for a multi role aircraft, and if copying they could probably get it into service earlier than the mig 29 in otl
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old June 2nd, 2011, 08:12 AM
Riain Riain is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1000 or more
I wouldn't put the Yak 28 in the same league as the Phantom at all, and since the Soviets built 1180 of them compared to for example 11500 Mig 21s or 5000 Mig 23s I don't think the Soviets thought too much of them either. For starters it was barely supersonic, it's bombload was only 3000lb, its missile load was 2 AA3s. This is hardly Phantom-esqe.
__________________
"The role of the Cavalry is to add colour, dash and daring, to what would otherwise be a mindless shitfight amongst grunts".
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old June 2nd, 2011, 08:35 AM
AdA AdA is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Portugal
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riain View Post
I wouldn't put the Yak 28 in the same league as the Phantom at all, and since the Soviets built 1180 of them compared to for example 11500 Mig 21s or 5000 Mig 23s I don't think the Soviets thought too much of them either. For starters it was barely supersonic, it's bombload was only 3000lb, its missile load was 2 AA3s. This is hardly Phantom-esqe.
This is from airvectors site: Go to Yefim Gordom's or Bill Gunston books if you find the source suspect.

YAKOVLEV YAK-28P "FIREBAR":
_____________________ _________________ _______________________

spec metric english
_____________________ _________________ _______________________

wingspan 11.6 meters 38 feet 2 inches
wing area 35.25 sq_meters 379.03 sq_feet
length 20.6 meters 67 feet 9 inches
height 4.3 meters 14 feet 1 inch

loaded weight 16,400 kilograms 36,155 pounds

max speed (clean) 1,840 KPH 1,145 MPH / 995 NT
service ceiling 16,000 meters 52,500 feet
range 2,150 kilometers 1,335 MI / 1,160 NMI
_____________________ _________________ _______________________

For the Yak28I
Typical weapons loads included a 1,200 kilogram tactical nuclear weapon; a single 3,000 kilogram (6,600 pound) or 1,500 kilogram (3,300 pound) general purpose (GP) high explosive bomb; two 500 kilogram (1,100 pound) GP, incendiary, or cluster bombs; four 250 kilogram (550 pound) HE or cluster bombs; or eight 120 kilogram (265 pound) GP bombs.

The 28I coul carry an internal load up to 3000Kg. By 64 upgraded 28PM carried two AA3 plus two AA2. 1840 km/h is not "barely supersonic".
The 28 was replaced by a number of superior, specialised aircraft. The Su15 was a better inteceptor, the Su17 and Mig27 better strike aircraft and the su24 a better longe range strike aircraft. It was a option for single vs multirole. Currently multirole is the fashion, but is that a economic or a tactical advantage?

The USAF could have gone "russian style" and instead of phamtoms bought a mix of:
F5 frontal fighters
F104G Strike aircraft
RF104G Recce aircraft
F106C/D improved interceptors
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old June 2nd, 2011, 10:30 AM
Riain Riain is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1000 or more
Yes I read that, 1145mph is optimistic and even then isn't the 1450mph of the Phantom or Lightning, nor is 1200kg the 7000kg of the Phantom, nor is 2 AAMs the 8 AAMs of the Phantom, it isn't even the 3 AAMs and guns of the Mirage III or the 2 AAMs and guns of the Lightning.

And yes the USAF could have gone the FA route, easily in fact, but the question is could the Soviets have gone the Western route and built a long range offensive fighter by about 1965. I'm not convinced that they had the ability even if they wanted to.
__________________
"The role of the Cavalry is to add colour, dash and daring, to what would otherwise be a mindless shitfight amongst grunts".
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.