Mig 15 / Mig 17 upgrade

I gotta say it'd be a lot easier to design and build an Air Superiority Fighter from scratch than modify an Interceptor to do that job as some have suggested.

Coincidentally, this is what the Soviets did.
 
During the late 1950's Canada and Australia constructed a refined Sabre for their respective air forces. Both versions were considered the ultimate derivative of the Sabre. Is there any possibility for this to occur behind the Iron Curtin, i.e. the Czech or Poles refine the Mig 15 / 17? Additionally if this was done, what should be modified on both airframes?

You mean, like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL-Mielec_Lim-6
 
There was an effort to turn the MiG17 into a ground attack aircraft, as the MiG17AS, with two extra pylons, and it made for an excelent CAS aircraft, apart from a limited payload. The heavy guns were very usefull for straffing, and the mix of 37mm and 23mm gave a pilot more options in that role.

Why would they mix different calibres?

AFAIK it was commonly found inefficient, as due to different muzzle-velocity, trajectory etc the 37mm will be missing the target when the 23 mm can hit and the other way around.

IIRC especially with the A6M the difference between the two kinds of armament was huge.
 
Why would they mix different calibres?

AFAIK it was commonly found inefficient, as due to different muzzle-velocity, trajectory etc the 37mm will be missing the target when the 23 mm can hit and the other way around.

IIRC especially with the A6M the difference between the two kinds of armament was huge.

While there are Zero aces with very high numbers of combat victories, there is also a list of combat aces from the Soviet Union who participated in the Korean conflict. Col. Yevgeni Pelelyayov earned 19 victories. The MiG-15 performed in Soviet hands as an accomplished heavy bomber destroyer against B-29s, day and night, and as an air superiority fighter against F-86s. The truth of history was denied for decades, but that truth is now available for perusal. The MiG armament was very effective against B-29s, and .50 cal was deemed poor and was doomed to succumb to replacement by 20 mm from that point on.
 
Mixing and matching calibers

Why would they mix different calibres?

AFAIK it was commonly found inefficient, as due to different muzzle-velocity, trajectory etc the 37mm will be missing the target when the 23 mm can hit and the other way around.

IIRC especially with the A6M the difference between the two kinds of armament was huge.

For the Air to Air role the mix was intended to add the bomber killing capability of the 37mm shell with the rate of fire of the 23mm. As soon as the russians had the NR30 ready, they went for a uniform 30mm for the MiG19 and Su7. For sabre killing over korea The MiG would probably have been better off with 4x23mm, ie, the same weapons as the La9. For ground attack the 37mm gives you a much more destructive shell, while the twin 23mm gives you density of fire.
In WW2 most countries had mixed calibers on fighters. The early Fw190s had two MG and two pairs of 20mm guns of different models.
 
The armaments of the Spitfire differed by model, the early ones had 8 .303" Brownings, which was soon changed to 4 .303"s and 2 20mm Hispano cannons, then to 2 20mm cannons and 2 .50" Brownings. There was a brief return to .303"s, but it soon went back to .50"s and in the final stages, the machine-guns were pulled altogether in favour of 4 20mm cannons.
 
Last edited:
The only reason to favor machine guns over cannons was the latter started out with a limited drum magazine, typically with only 60 rounds. They also jammed in high G due to the limitations of spring technology then. Once cannons were belt fed machine guns were history.
 
Machine guns are great in WW2, but for jets they don't perform well.... 20 / 23 / 30mm guns are the way to go in and after the Korea War - for fighters/interceptors.
 
For the Air to Air role the mix was intended to add the bomber killing capability of the 37mm shell with the rate of fire of the 23mm. As soon as the russians had the NR30 ready, they went for a uniform 30mm for the MiG19 and Su7. For sabre killing over korea The MiG would probably have been better off with 4x23mm, ie, the same weapons as the La9. For ground attack the 37mm gives you a much more destructive shell, while the twin 23mm gives you density of fire.
In WW2 most countries had mixed calibers on fighters. The early Fw190s had two MG and two pairs of 20mm guns of different models.

The bold is my point exactly.

Most planes with a mixed armament would have been better off with an armament with a similar trajectory/muzzle velocity etc.
 
Given that the USSR as a rule tended to export lower quality versions to the Eastern European states and third party customers I doubt you could get this without some changes in the Soviet leadership and removing a lot of the paranoia.

Warsaw Pact alllies received Soviet-standard military equipment. It was only third world allies of convenience who got real shit biscuits (which, combined with facing western tech a generation or more newer than them, has given the world a substandard image of Russian arms.)
 
The bold is my point exactly.

Most planes with a mixed armament would have been better off with an armament with a similar trajectory/muzzle velocity etc.

Different targets require different weapons. Versatility sometimes requires varied armament. Limited space/weight limitations may also govern weapons fitment. In cases of varied trajectory, a selective fire switch to suit the need is fitted.

As noted, for Sabre-killing, the 23mm would be better. What about B-29s? Limiting the aircraft to dog-fighting defeats a larger purpose.
 
Top