WI: No U-2 Incident

Mig 25 [...] A-5 Vigilante
Totally dissimilar, and I've never understood the argument that a Mach 2.8+ high altitude interceptor is a copy of a Mach 2.2 low-medium altitude light bomber on the grounds of a vaguely similar planform. There are only so many ways to arrange two crew and two engines, high wings are a common enough feature, and twin fins make sense if you don't want a tail fin like the Tornado.

If anything, the Soviets during the early and middle parts of the Cold War were insistent that their designs were ideologically pure to demonstrate the superiority of the Communist economic system. Not only were they not copies of Western equipment, in some cases they actively avoided coming up with the same design as the West so that they couldn't be accused of copying!
 
Totally dissimilar, and I've never understood the argument that a Mach 2.8+ high altitude interceptor is a copy of a Mach 2.2 low-medium altitude light bomber on the grounds of a vaguely similar planform. There are only so many ways to arrange two crew and two engines, high wings are a common enough feature, and twin fins make sense if you don't want a tail fin like the Tornado.

If anything, the Soviets during the early and middle parts of the Cold War were insistent that their designs were ideologically pure to demonstrate the superiority of the Communist economic system. Not only were they not copies of Western equipment, in some cases they actively avoided coming up with the same design as the West so that they couldn't be accused of copying!

At high speeds where aerodynamically sound design options are limited. Unless you go out of your way to design something completely weird and different, all such planes wind up similar to each other, especially to untrained eye.
A similar story was also with Concorde / Tu144, where the Soviets insisted on rushing the tupolev into service a month or two BEFORE the Concorde to prove it is not stolen - this rush job has had massive reliability loss as consequence and in the end cost about 500 people their lives as the half-cooked Tupolev design was prone to accidents.
 
Totally dissimilar, and I've never understood the argument that a Mach 2.8+ high altitude interceptor is a copy of a Mach 2.2 low-medium altitude light bomber on the grounds of a vaguely similar planform. There are only so many ways to arrange two crew and two engines, high wings are a common enough feature, and twin fins make sense if you don't want a tail fin like the Tornado.

If anything, the Soviets during the early and middle parts of the Cold War were insistent that their designs were ideologically pure to demonstrate the superiority of the Communist economic system. Not only were they not copies of Western equipment, in some cases they actively avoided coming up with the same design as the West so that they couldn't be accused of copying!


Indeed, much of the supposed soviet "copying" of aircraft designs can just as easily be explained by convergent evolution. There is also the matter of Soviet designs for which there was no western equivalent to "copy" from.
 
Last edited:
Mig 25
640px-MiG-25.svg.png


A-5 Vigilante
a-3j-line.gif


They might look similar at first, but a more detailed examination ultimately reveals more differences than similarities (like the leading edge flaps on the A-5).
 
What about the F15, Mig29, SU27, F18 etc....... I can think of plenty of others that have similar basic 'plan' it probably just that its the best option for a fast jet.
(pre totally unstable FBW when you get the European canard deltas and then stealth comes in... and F22 isn't that different as a plan is it)
 
At high speeds where aerodynamically sound design options are limited. Unless you go out of your way to design something completely weird and different, all such planes wind up similar to each other, especially to untrained eye.
A similar story was also with Concorde / Tu144, where the Soviets insisted on rushing the tupolev into service a month or two BEFORE the Concorde to prove it is not stolen - this rush job has had massive reliability loss as consequence and in the end cost about 500 people their lives as the half-cooked Tupolev design was prone to accidents.
First Tupolev flew 1 year earlier then Concorde.
 
Agreed.

The Soviets were more than capable of developing their own designs. That said, the Soviet/Russian obsession with stealing Western designs for themselves have well earned them such contempt. Frex, look at some designs employed by the Red/Russian Frontal Aviation or Air Defense Forces and you will find that they look suspiciously like Western designs that were rejected in favor of another design. Like the Mig-29 compared to the XF-17. And can anyone forget the "Concordesky"?:rolleyes: I vaguely recall a rejected American cargo aircraft design that has wound up in Russian service. A virtual copy. This seems to have been going on since the air pirated B-29/Tu-4, at the very least.

Its almost like there are a bunch of frustrated Western design engineers who, seeing their prized works tossed aside, want to "prove" that their governments made a mistake by not choosing to contract with them.:rolleyes:
As to other cargo. Probably you mean Antonov An-72 which has basically same engine placement as YC-14. Was it stolen? Both planes are using unique effect to provide STOL capabilities. Here American plane flew year earlier. Is it virtual copy? Looks similar, but then it means Soviets had access to Boeing designs from early start.

As to MiG-29 being build on stolen design of XF-17. Never heard of that. In my opinion planes just don't even look similar.

Funny thing is that just copying B-29 was probably bigger technical challenge then just stealing the plans. :D
 
Last edited:

jahenders

Banned
Never heard any mention of that. The Soviets had JUST barely installed new radar and SAMs along his route. An S-75 was able to bring him down. They also had some (unarmed) SU-9s in the are that got high enough and tried to ram him, but that required a zoom climb and gave them little control. They didn't happen to appear on the right trajectory and couldn't correct without losing all their extra altitude.

My understanding is that the US just "went back to the well" one too many times. They knew from the start that there was only a limited window in which we could reasonably overfly the USSR. We knew a bit about the new radar, new SAMS, etc and probably shouldn't have tried that one last time.

This is all off the top of my head but isnt it

A: Understood that the pilot (Powers?) fell asleep and the aircraft decended to an altitude where it could be engaged by the then current stock of SAMs

B: The above was not appreciated at the time and this drove the need for the SR-71 Blackbird

So if the U2 is not shot down (and if the above is correct) then we might not be seeing an SR71 Blackbird brought into service.
 

jahenders

Banned
There was significant optimism for the Paris Summit and some hope for further thawing with the Soviets. The U-2 shoot down made the summit far more of a confrontation than a useful dialogue.

It's highly debatable whether we could have made real progress regardless, but whatever chance we had for an earlier change to the armament vector was lost.
 
There was significant optimism for the Paris Summit and some hope for further thawing with the Soviets. The U-2 shoot down made the summit far more of a confrontation than a useful dialogue.

It's highly debatable whether we could have made real progress regardless, but whatever chance we had for an earlier change to the armament vector was lost.

Potential detente could have had a serious impact on the 1960 election, as well.
 
The prototype YC-14 & YC-15. Both were prototype cargo planes flown by the U.S. that had a number of special high lift features with the engine placement.

I think it was their version of the YC-15 that the Soviets put in service for its obvious dirt strip capability.

Reportedly the Soviets when the Cold War began developed a very real sense of technological inferiority to the west and thus believed that copies of western designs, even inferior copies would be better (and quicker to deploy) than anything they designed on their own.

AIUI, the Tupolev Design Bureau director cried out that with all the resources poured into reverse-engineering their air-pirated B-29 (right down to the bullet holes! They were THAT scared of Stalin and his orders to copy it down to the last detail (1)) that he could have designed two Soviet bombers capable of the same mission.:p:rolleyes:

1) Nonetheless, the Tupolev designers DID manage to put in the Tu-4 some nifty ideas that the B-29 lacked.

Mig 25
640px-MiG-25.svg.png


A-5 Vigilante
a-3j-line.gif

Comparing an ultra-high/ultra-fast interceptor to a light strike aircraft make zero sense. It's like comparing a Spitfire with a Fairey Battle.

<snip>
If anything, the Soviets during the early and middle parts of the Cold War were insistent that their designs were ideologically pure to demonstrate the superiority of the Communist economic system. Not only were they not copies of Western equipment, in some cases they actively avoided coming up with the same design as the West so that they couldn't be accused of copying!

The GRU and KGB would like a word with you. What they said to the outside world was hardly what they practiced in the dark. If nothing else, to confirm where the safe pathways were, and what to avoid. Though I freely admit that their space program was/is definitely home-grown.

At high speeds where aerodynamically sound design options are limited. Unless you go out of your way to design something completely weird and different, all such planes wind up similar to each other, especially to untrained eye.

A similar story was also with Concorde / Tu144, where the Soviets insisted on rushing the tupolev into service a month or two BEFORE the Concorde to prove it is not stolen - this rush job has had massive reliability loss as consequence and in the end cost about 500 people their lives as the half-cooked Tupolev design was prone to accidents.

IOW, by rushing the Tu-144 they didn't get enough pieces of the Concord design in those little packages sent to Moscow to insure a safe aircraft.

Indeed, much of the supposed soviet "copying" of aircraft designs can just as easily be explained by convergent evolution. There is also the matter of Soviet designs for which there was no western equivalent to "copy" from.

And vice-versa. But that's ignoring the completely unique YC-15, the Tu-4, and the USSR's first plutonium bomb. The last copied down to the thumbtacks and lacking only the fuel to detonate the weapon by the time of Hiroshima.

What about the F15, Mig29, SU27, F18 etc....... I can think of plenty of others that have similar basic 'plan' it probably just that its the best option for a fast jet.
(pre totally unstable FBW when you get the European canard deltas and then stealth comes in... and F22 isn't that different as a plan is it)

The USAF F-106 also had the delta design, though I readily admit that I do not know how that aircraft's performance compares to the European designs.:confused::eek:

Potential detente could have had a serious impact on the 1960 election, as well.

JFK wins Illinois for real?:p
 

Archibald

Banned
There was significant optimism for the Paris Summit and some hope for further thawing with the Soviets. The U-2 shoot down made the summit far more of a confrontation than a useful dialogue.

It's highly debatable whether we could have made real progress regardless, but whatever chance we had for an earlier change to the armament vector was lost.

Interesting. An earlier thawing may have impacted NASA Apollo program around late 1963 - when JFK sought cooperation with the Soviets.
 

jahenders

Banned
Right, and the U-2 (especially that particular plane) was prone to engine flameouts/shutdowns, which require descent to restart.

In fact, one of those Mig-19s was shot down by the Russians shooting at Powers.

The NSA misidentified a descending MiG-19 on radar as Powers' U-2, causing them to believe that he had descended from 65,000 feet to 34,000 feet. It was then politically convenient for the US to promote the belief that the U-2 was only successfully brought down because it was well below its' normal operating altitude.
 

jahenders

Banned
Quite likely. If there's no U-2 incident, that:
- Avoids a HUGE embarrassment for Ike (he was clearly caught lying)
- Greatly improves the chance of SOMETHING positive (or that can be spun as positive) at the Paris Summit
- Keeps the planned Ike tour of Russia on track, which would be a good public interest piece and might help relations further

Altogether, without the incident, Ike finishes with considerably higher approval ratings with some carryover to Republicans.

That might well be enough for Nixon to beat Kennedy. As it was, it was the closest popular vote of the 20th century, fraught with charges of voter fraud (especially in Illinois and Texas, where there were numerous cases of more votes in a district than there were voters).

Potential detente could have had a serious impact on the 1960 election, as well.
 
Well, Nixon beats Kennedy.

Bay of Pigs mess still happens.

But Khrushev doesn't beat up Nixon during the coming summit meeting.

So no Cuban Missile Crisis.

Can't really project further from there.

Who was Nixon's running mate in 1960?
 

jahenders

Banned
You're probably right about no Cuban Missile Crisis. That evolved out of the heightened tensions after U2, failed summit, and lingering missile gap questions.

Assuming Nixon wins:
- Quite probably no LBJ and no "great society"
- His approach to Vietnam might be different from the beginning -- we start Linebacker II-type operations much earlier and don't have McNamara deciding daily targets in the White House
- Nixon probably wins two terms
- Perhaps we get a more seasoned Kennedy in 1968, unless he's derailed by sexual escapades (ala Gary Hart)
- Almost certainly no Watergate
- Nixon is remembered as a very good president
- JFK and/or Bobbie not assassinated, but not remembered nearly as fondly
- Perhaps Teddy doesn't become a lush and get Mary Joe killed in Chapaquidick(?)

Well, Nixon beats Kennedy.

Bay of Pigs mess still happens.

But Khrushev doesn't beat up Nixon during the coming summit meeting.

So no Cuban Missile Crisis.

Can't really project further from there.

Who was Nixon's running mate in 1960?
 
Top