Which western aircraft designs would you copy ?
- Thread starter Monk78
- Start date
The Frightening didn't rely on missiles alone. An SR-71 could still be intercepted and destroyed with guns. Interceptions with missiles were tried where, when?
marathag
Banned
So why didn't that happen, when even missile salvos failed?
Lock doesn't mean the missile teleports into the target, it still has to reach it.
Guns?
Soviet 23mm travels at 1600mph, the SR-71 is 2190 mph.
See the problem?
Last edited:
McPherson
Banned
Answered. But here's a physics problem. Human thought travels at about 200 m/s. Merge speed between a Lightning and Blackbird is in excess of 1400 m/s in a head on pass. An Aden cannon's muzzle velocity is 790 m/s and the effective reach is 1 second travel (optimistic, more like 1/2 second.)
Chances of a gun kill? ZERO.
The pilot does not have enough time in a supersonic, nay hypersonic merge to even track much less aim, even with gunsight cueing at less than 500 meters . That is why the switch to missiles and chase logics.
Tell that to the several US Navy aircraft that shot themselves down with their own guns. The Frightening's guns would gain velocity from the aircraft and add it to their own.
I'm not sure, F-16A was inferior to mig-29 in A2A combat .So it will be like a superlative version of mig21bis but with far greater range and lot of A2G capacity
Last edited:
To my knowledge only one of the aircraft type mentioned was actually ever shot down.
The other two are long retired (as are the aircraft discussed being possible of downing them).
Meaning to be frank we'll never really know if it was possible or not. No offense intended but this conversation more then most seems to be one of those "How many angels can fit on the head of a pin" type things.
But then again such discussions are half the fun of AH.com
marathag
Banned
if you didn't mind a 1000mph limit, sure, that's 'working' while an F-106 could do well over 1500 with tanks attached
Interesting thread with many fascinating suggestions. How many of the aircraft suggested could actually be copied successfully by the Soviets is another matter of course. Especially where avionics are concerned, probably the engines too.
Taking those criteria also I would suggest the Mirage III is certaintly worth a punt for the Soviets. The Canberra also, PR and B(I) versions especially.
What about the Buccaneer for low level strike and anti-shipping roles? "Rugged" and hard to intercept, plus can be modified for tanker duties to accompany the anti-shipping strikes. With the right pilots ECM and missikes they could be a serious threat to a CVBG.
Would the Swedish J-35 Draken and AJ-37 Viggen fit into Soviet doctrine? Especially their ability to operate in harsh climates and from short outstrips.
Taking those criteria also I would suggest the Mirage III is certaintly worth a punt for the Soviets. The Canberra also, PR and B(I) versions especially.
What about the Buccaneer for low level strike and anti-shipping roles? "Rugged" and hard to intercept, plus can be modified for tanker duties to accompany the anti-shipping strikes. With the right pilots ECM and missikes they could be a serious threat to a CVBG.
Would the Swedish J-35 Draken and AJ-37 Viggen fit into Soviet doctrine? Especially their ability to operate in harsh climates and from short outstrips.
At the start of the Afghan war the Afghans only had heavy machine guns for Anti-aircraft weapons
The AC-130 would make an impact
Plus the speed of the firing aircraft when it leaves the barrel until air friction slows it down.
Good, if not excellent suggestions.
Draken instead of MiG-21, early MiG-23, Yaks and Su-7, the Viggen instead later MiG-23 versions, MiG-27, MiG-29, and Su 17 line. Both Swedish aircraft have had far better fuel vs. thrust ratio than MiG-21 and MiG-29, thus far better range/radius. Weapon carrying capacity was also excellent for the Swedish fighters.
they can used the AN-12 as a bomber esp night bomber like the Sudanese did and also the indians
It is more like "barrel " bombing but effective against insurgencies
The AC-130 has advanced sensors which allow it to find its Target. Very useful in hunting insurgents particularly in the countryside at night.
the Hinds would patrol a day the AC-130s would patrol at night.
If you are trying to carpet bomb a village the Soviets had a multitpul aircraft capable of doing it.
Seeing the proliferation of small COIN wars the Russians are already actually developing a version of the AN-12 for that role. I think it's main gun armament is two repurposed 57mm AA guns.
Forgive me Father for I have used your post to 'spring-board' off of
Can I say that professionally this argument over the ability to "intercept" is more than a bit painful? Could the Lightning "intercept" an SR-71? Sure, if we're honest a Cessna 270 with a good radar set could "intercept" an SR-71 in the context that it could maybe get a radar lock on the target and therefore generate an 'intercept'. But if we're honest what does that prove actually?
I, myself, personally have a record 16 "intercepts" in one day of F-16 fighters with an AGM-65B mounted on a Munitions Handling Trailer at Hill AFB in 1985, Anyone care to guess what my odds of actually engaging any of those fighters was?
The 'problem' is not the intercept which even the Soviets managed on more than one occasion, it was whether or not they could actually deploy a missile (and yes it pretty much has to be a missile since you have to be within visual range to even have a ghost of a chance with a gun) and have the missile successfully track and 'kill' the target. When people usually talk about an 'intercept' it is simply the ability to successfully track a potential target but as it is meant to be used in the full context you don't have a successful "intercept" unless you also have the means and method to destroy the target if required and for the SR-71 that was arguably not the case.
As is consistently noted in any of the descriptions cited the 'intercepting' aircraft was always operating at the very edge of its capability while the SR-71 obviously still had margin to play with, so the actual chances of a realistic engagement are slim to none and that context matters. The entire reason that over-flights of the SR were discontinued was because it COULD be intercepted (and destroyed) with enough effort and the US was not willing to risk the USSR being willing to put out that effort.
The idea that the SR-71 was unable to be intercepted never made any sense to me (or anyone who understood munitions and aircraft that I know of) simply because there was no such thing possible given sufficient 'requirement' to do so. That no one every managed to generate up such a "requirement" in real world operations should give a clue how much of an operational problem that might be but please have NO doubt that it could be done if needed.
reverting to lurking mode...
Randy