Which western aircraft designs would you copy ?
- Thread starter Monk78
- Start date
I'm not sure I follow ...but I do like the idea of F1 being copied just before the mid-70s
F-16 w/o the "fly by wire " controls ? F-5E will do the same job right ?
I feel maybe the soviets should copy the western AAMs might be more cost effective
marathag
Banned
Without fly-by-wire, the Soviet example would be slightly heavier, tiny bit less responsive, but also won't have the nickname 'Yard-Dart' either like when the A Block Falcons were frequently crashing from early bugs
You've asked simple question; what 3 aircraft from the West Soviets will be well advised to copy, so people gave their opinions. How many Soviets can make, at what cost - nobody knows.
What Soviet don't make? F-4 can 'kill' all Sukhoi fighter jet production between Su-7 (not much of a fighter) and Su-27, ditto Tu 28/128. There is no great need for MiG-25, though the bomber/recon versions are still interesting. F-14 removes the need for MiG-25 completely, MiG-31, and good deal of Su-27, if not completely.
F-16 removes MiG-29, Mirage F-1 same for MiG-23.
A 'really successful' fighter is a type that is commercially at least as successful as the predecessor, with a deal of success in combat. MiG-23 was neither.
Last edited:
I am aware of the difference between radius and range, which is why I took pains to exactly quote Wikipedia's verbiage. If they incorrectly list the F-4's combat radius as its combat range, take it up with them, not me.
I have zero obligation to you to go digging around for something which is most definitely going to be hard to find (the primary sources are both in Russian and probably classified...no helpful people going around and scanning Tupolev or PVO documents and uploading them...) when you started this by aggressively attacking my statements based on a misinterpretation of what Wikipedia says. If you don't think that Wikipedia's numbers are good enough, why did you use them to claim that the F-4 has a combat range comparable to the Tu-128 to begin with?
I've indeed went in without respect, and I apologize for that.
On the other hand - Russian language Wikipedia does list the range of Tu-128 as having a tad shorter range than what English-language Wikipedia states for the F-4 version. Like another few billion people, I've went 1st to Wikipedia, and then tried to find better data to cross-check.
The Canadair CF-116 Freedom Fighter, the Saunders-Roe SR.A/1, and the Grumman F-11 Tiger. Having sabotaged the Soviet Air Force I defect to the west with the blueprints for the T-64.
Last edited:
Commercial success is not necessarily the mark of a great fighter nor is success in roles it was not designed for otherwise F-14 is lousy by the 1st parameter and Mig-21 is phenomenal.
But what are you trying to prove by " I rest my case" I said it repeatedly that mirage f1 is a great option as you suggested
I would assume that you would take into consideration cost , tactical needs of soviets and the capability of their designers/state of electronics .Otherwise we move this to ASB.
Last edited:
But the soviets got a better plane in Mig-29 9.12 for it ,so not sure how it enhances their capability, they are better off with F-4.Unless you are suggesting they get hold of F-16A in mid 70s then it would have been fielded in numbers atleast 5 yrs earlier than fulcrum was in OTL
Last edited:
The Soviets obtained some F-5As from Vietnam after the fall of Saigon and were most impressed with it's capabilities. Indeed, the "Top Gun" use of the F-5 in the movie isn't really all that removed. They seriously considered copying it themselves. Seems it was a lot easier to work with than the MiG21.
A single-engine fighter with a pure focus on A2A combat would be significantly cheaper than the Mig-29.
And I don't see any reason the Soviets couldn't copy the F-16s fly-by-wire design.
I wish people wouldn't use terms like "goofy". It simply demonstrates their naivity. The overwing tanks like overwing missiles on the Jaguar were adopted for a reason. There wasn't any room underwing for them. They worked. Which was all that was required of them.
Speaking of the Frightening, it was the only western fighter apart from the Swedish Viggen that was capable of intercepting the SR-71. the Frightening did it from overhead, as well. The SR-71's "invincibility" was only in the imagination of it's pilots.
The AC-130 is like most "gun ship" variants of a transport aircraft not terribly useful in any environment where the enemy can shoot back. The aircraft is required to fly a circular pattern, usually well within AAA range. Anywhere other than Afghanistan and even there, it is dead meat. Which is why the latest versions now rely on missiles, rather than guns to achieve their hits.
lightening was quite capable of operating at 100,000 ft. It was quite capable of operating at Mach 2.5. It succeessfully intercepted SR-71s. The SR-71 was an amazing design, without a doubt but it was intercepterable. Americans have a bizarre idea that they are only ones who can design a plane that good for some unfathomable reason.
The MiG25 was designed expressly to intercept aircraft flying that fast and that high. It is just a shame it was never tried. It would wreck the engines if it was.
McPherson
Banned
It, the Lightning, could zoom to 33,000 meters in a pop up head on pass. It could not stay and fight there. Also, it tops out at Mach 2.25 at ~ 12,000 meters. Its missiles were CRAP with no ability to turn with manned aircraft above 25,000 meters.
Americans designed the SR-71 for sustained Mach 3.2 at 24,000+ meters. SUSTAINED. That means a superiority of endurance at cruise of .7 Mach over the Lightning. And the Russians did try with Mig 25 and 31. They failed in their actual combat attempts. Their missiles were CRAP, too.
Radar paints do not = successful intercepts. Let me write that again, radar paints do not = successful intercepts.
The only "success" is a splash and that has never happened to an SR 71. Mission aborts have been mechanicals.
Because they did. Even stole the means from the Russians, who could not figure out they had the sole means in their hands.
Americans designed the SR-71 for sustained Mach 3.2 at 24,000+ meters. SUSTAINED. That means a superiority of endurance at cruise of .7 Mach over the Lightning. And the Russians did try with Mig 25 and 31. They failed in their actual combat attempts. Their missiles were CRAP, too.
Radar paints do not = successful intercepts. Let me write that again, radar paints do not = successful intercepts.
The only "success" is a splash and that has never happened to an SR 71. Mission aborts have been mechanicals.
Because they did. Even stole the means from the Russians, who could not figure out they had the sole means in their hands.