My contention is that evolution ie. incremental increases in fighter capacity never works- and decisive battlefield results are obtained only when revolutionary changes come about. I then wonder why firms and countries around the world even bother to invest in evolutionary designs instead of just upgrading existing designs till truly revolutionary new designs come about. Cases in point:
US: The F-4 marked a revolutionary jump in capability from say the F-86 or the F-100, and upgrades more than served the purpose till the whole new generation of F-14/15/16/18 came about which gave a quantum leap in performance, avionics and weapons. From this generation, upgrades worked till the F-22 came about – again a revol;utionary change. On this count, the US has been very strong and disciplined- not investing in new designs till it is truly breakthrough.
France: Mirage III was a quantun leap in capability from the Mystere/Ouragan. But I think the French wasted their time with the Mirage 2000/F-1. Today, an upgraded Mirage III with RDI/Grifo radar and Super 530 capability is fully the equal of either later design. It is only witht he Rafale that the French have had a quantum leap.
Russia: MiG-21 was a great leap forward, giving Mach 2 capability and some radar capability. But the Mig-23 was a dud= they could have just put the High Lark ion the Mig-21 and equipped it to fire AA-7s= the MiG-23 was an unqualified failure. Again the real revolution came only with the MiG-29/Su-27.
Sign In
July 16, 2001 at 7:23 pm