LevshaWhat has happened to the 2000 or so L-39 Albatros jet trainers left over from the Soviet Union. Surely it can’t be a priority to replace them. They are still been produced by Aero and they are still a fairly contemporary trainer. Granted you will still need a larger advanced trainer for final conversion to the MiG-29 and Su-27 as there is something of a gap in size and flying qualities between the L-39 and the much larger fighter jets. I believe the RuAF are using the MiG-23UB for this role and I can imagine the Russians wanting to replace these aircraft with something cheaper to run, but otherwise I can’t see how replacing all of the L-39s can be such a priority for the cash strapped Russian Air Force, what with the very slow pace of modernization of the combat aircraft in service, and new aircraft being delivered in such a slow trickle.
I think it’s just another Russian official making more statements on military procurements without to much substance to them. I’d be very surprised to see 250+ Yak-130/MiG-ATs rolling of the production lines in the near future.
LevshaSens
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to imply that the turbofans on the F-14/F-15 were a mistake and that pure turbojets would have been a better choice just to allow for better mach 2.5+ performance. I’m well aware that the Americans had concluded during the Vietnam War that most future aerial combat would take place at transonic speeds, aircraft almost never exceeding Mach1.6 in combat and that consequently it was decided that low bypass turbofans such as the TF30 and F100 provide the best compromise solution in providing the new 4th generation fighters with the necessary endurance to carry out meaningful CAPs and long range escort duties while at the same time providing a contingency ability to fly at up to Mach 2.3+ when the need occurs. I don’t disagree with this.
However, throughout the Seventies both Israel and pre- revolutionary Iran had a problem with reconnaissance MiG-25s and while the Tomcat and the Eagle both have a proven ability to shoot down MiG-25s, it appears none of these MiGs were flying at the higher speeds that they could have been flying at. There are reports of other Foxbats flying at speeds which proved to too elusive for the American turbofan flyers during the 1991 Gulf war. Mach 2.8+ aircraft existed in the Soviet Union in the 1970s and the Americans had at that time, no reason to believe that they wouldn’t become more prevalent. It might have been in the Americans interest to develop a classic interceptor from either the F-14/F-15 which would, from the moment of brakes off till the moment of contact with the target several hundred miles away, have been operating in full afterburner. In such a flight regime the most efficient choice of powerplant would be a turbojet (in the 1970s at least) as you yourself stated above
Sens
Compared to early TFs the TJs offered a lower sfc in AB.
I just wanted to know if any one else thinks such an aircraft would be technically, economically and operationally feasible.
If the J75-P-6 could make the F8U-3 Crusader III fly at up to Mach 2.9, I don’t see why 2 such engines could do the same for the F-14/F-15. It would be a alternative variant of the original turbofan versions and only produced in small quantities for those who needed it and the most important issue is that it could be developed quiet cheaply – both airframe and powerplants already existing, the main development work perhaps being the development of the necessary variable geometry inlets, But who knows, perhaps this technology could anyway easily be borrowed from the F8U-3 Crusader III.
Sens
The Viggen was limited to Mach 2 through fixed inlets at all similar to F-16s if with F100 or J79 did not matter.
I never said the Viggen could fly at Foxbat speeds but then again with more sophisticated variable inlets who knows what could have been possible. Mach 2.5 perhaps??
sferrin
J-93, J58 (as used in the Blackbird), and the Foxbat’s engines should probaThe bly be in a class of their own. Not better or worse necessarily, just different.
You said it yourself. A very separate category of powerplant for a very separate category of aircraft The SR-71 in particular is literally designed around the J58. These engines can only be used to propel aircraft which were designed from the outset for Mach 3 flight. I dont think these aeroengines lend themselves well for transplanting from one airframe type to another.
LevshaInteresting thread on jet engines.
Another engine which could be directly compared to the R-35 is the Volvo RM8B of the SAAB JA 37 Viggen, which is basically a licence built PW JT8D airliner engine and which produced over 28,000lbs of thrust in full afterburner. Mind you, this engine is in fact a low bypass ratio turbofan and I can’t be too sure what its high altitude performance is like. Presumably better than that of the PW F100 or the GE F110.
But here’s a question. The proposed J79 turbojet version of the F-16 is alleged to have superior high altitude performance than the PW F100 turbofan equipped version, even though the thrust of the J79 is much less than that of the F100 at ground level. The F-15 is said to be a very inefficient aircraft at high altitudes, with poor endurance in full afterburner, the F-15’s powerplants been optimized more for endurance than out and out performance at high altitude. So how about versions of the F-14 and F-15 developed with pure turbojets such as, for example, the J75 or the JT8D, which should help top end performance dramatically.
While we’re still dreaming, Imagine if America had brought back an old tradition and had taken out a production licence for the Rolls Royce Olympus and then fitting it to either the Tomcat or the Eagle to produce an aircraft, which for all I know, with a performance as good as, if not better than the MiG-31. Just imagine the Olympus on the variable sweep F-14. Were talking about an aircraft which could have easily caught up and overtaken a MiG-25 at any altitude and speed.
Not only might the Americans have had use for such an aircraft but also the British, instead of trying to convert a bomber design into an interceptor (Tornado ADV) could have had the F-14 airframe licenced produced in Britain but fitted with the Olympus and the Foxhunter radar along with space for 6 Skyflash missiles (keeping the native production content high).
It wouldn’t have cost more than the development of the Tornado ADV, while it might have produced a more flexible and capable aircraft. Certainly it’s a transplant operation that would have made better sense than the previous F-4 Phantom/RR Spey combo.
Mind you, I’m sure the USAF/USN considered all of this before finalizing the designs of the F-14 and F-15, but it just goes to show how the Americans have gained an appreciation for greater range and endurance for their combat aircraft at the expense of outright high speed and high altitude performance.
LevshaLooking for information on the Tu-126 on various websites I kept finding the same article on various different website but I’ll credit it to the “Ugolok Neba” (Sky Corner) Aviation encyclopedia on airwar.ru
«http://www.airwar.ru/enc/spy/tu126.html».
Some good information on the development process of this aircraft but the most interesting reading concerned some of the negative attributes of the on-board electronics, especially the “Liana” main search radar.
“Flying on the Tu-126 was no easy walk in the park. According to recollections from former crew members, the aircraft gained a reputation as a very uncomfortable “steel box” with poor sound isolation and extreme noise in all the cabin compartments, the source of which was not only the propellers, but also the radar equipment… which emitted a loud humming noise. Most of the internal aircraft structure was made of metal, much of it un-insulated and exposed. During sorties the build up of static electricity was such that, 3 hours after the end of the flight, it was still impossible to touch by hand much of the metal structure. On the ground, with the engines switched off, no heating was provided to the inside of the aircraft, meaning that, during the winter, the crew occupied their stations sitting in frozen seats. The pilots were especially blessed, being required to sit in what amounted to seat shaped, leatherette covered armour plate. They were lucky to survive with permanent backache.
Otherwise for the pilots things were not too bad. They enjoyed the benefits of an autopilot, while the level of noise was much less when sitting in the cockpit. But for the operators, sitting in the propeller zone among all the humming and sparking electronic equipment while at the same time trying to concentrate on their work, for them – life was a lot more difficult. In such conditions the operators could only work productively for about 3-4 hours at the most. For resting, there was special quarters provided with padded yellow leatherette armchairs for sleeping, unfortunately this part of the aircraft was located immediately behind the wing were the noisy control valves for cabin pressurization was located. Sleeping there was impossible. After extended missions, especially those missions that required mid-air refueling, the radar and electronics operators would leave the airplane looking almost half dead.”
It would be interesting to know if the USAF had similar problems on the Lockheed EC-121.
Anyway it gets better-
“But the main danger to the crew lay in the in the intense radiation emitted from the antenna of main radar. In the opinion of many, protection from this radiation was practically nonexistent, the copper nets on the pilots’ side windows, along with lead glass in some of the porthole-windows simply wasn’t enough. One should point out that the emissions from the main radar were directional and the zone of greatest intensity of the radar beam was located above the inhabited parts of the aircraft. However a proportion of this harmful radiation was reflected from various parts of the aircraft structure (such as the tail-fin, wing panels, etc) and one way or another reached the crewed parts of the aircraft. Along with this there was also the large amount of microwave equipment located within the aircraft compartments themselves, which also created a considerable electromagnetic field. The absence of effective biological protection led not only to a reduction in crew working-effectiveness, but also to more serious effects. Some crew members complained about serious hair loss, a few going completely bald altogether. Some of the ground crew specialists were found to suffer from partial paralysis of the cerebellum, even though the activation of the “Liana” radar system on the ground was only permitted within certain areas of the airfield and with the observation of numerous safety measures…”
This reminds me of the oft repeated tale, true or not, of the Smerch-A radar on the MiG-25 which could, at certain ranges, kill a rabbit with its beam. But seriously, the radar on the EC-121 and the E-3A AWACS must be equally or more powerful than the “Liana” on the Tu-126. Has any crew member on the AWACS ever gone bald prematurely or lost their chance at parenthood due to excessive doses of radiation? Does the E-3A carry any radiation proofing or is excessive radar emissions just not a problem on the E-3A?
“In order to be able to detect potential aerial targets with its radar the Tu-126 had to be located at a lower altitude to them. Specialized training of the crew allowed them to reduce the altitude to around 600m (2000ft). At this altitude the detection range of the “Liana” radar along with the flight range of the aircraft itself were considerably reduced.”
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/spy/tu126.html
Seems a bit pointless developing an airborne radar post and been obliged to operate it at a lower altitude than many terrestrial radar stations located in any remotely mountainous area. According to the article at this reduced altitude icing became big problem. Was the ability of the EC-121 to locate low altitude targets any better? (Over sea, over land?)
LevshaVery broad selection of aircraft mentioned in thread title, divided between strike/attack aircraft and those aircraft designed to intercept them with some airframe types serving as both. One aircraft you haven’t included in the title is the MiG-31, the ultimate interceptor aircraft, and which is, along with the F-14, really is the aircraft most comparable with the Tornado ADV. All three of these aircraft where originally optimized for the interception of strategic bombers such as the Tu-22M/Tu-160/Tu-95, B-52/B-1Bs along with any of the munitions such as ALCMs already launched by such attacking aircraft. All three aircraft are necessarily quite large aircraft, both in order to be able to carry a respectable weapon load at a better than normal range along with the associated powerful radar system and a two man crew. This is of course a specification clearly at odds with creating an aircraft with good WVR ability. But this is was a compromise that the USN, the RAF and the Soviet PVO, three of the most important air arms in the cold war, located on opposite sides of the Iron curtain, were willing to make. All 3 very different air forces where happy to employ relatively unmaneuverable ‘missile trucks’ because of course in the area of planned deployment such aircraft are unlikely to run into smaller and nimbler air superiority types. No Tornado ADV is going to run into a MiG-29 in the North Atlantic, no MiG-31 is ever going to encounter an F-15 in the northern reaches of Soviet Siberia. All 3 aircraft should be judged solely on their abilities as bomber interceptors only.
The Su24 was never planned to be anything other then a ground pounder, because the Soviets had the likes of the Mig29, Mig31 and Su27 for AA work.
Pretty much every plane that seriously tried to be multi-role succeeded in being so. The fact that the Tornado has managed it by no means marks it out as special.
Incidentally, I would never call the Tornado ADV a fast aircraft, but why is the MiG-31 so fast (Mach 2.83), when one considers the subsonic cruising speeds of the B-52 and B-1B as they entered Soviet airspace? Did the Soviets ever consider adapting the Su-24 Fencer as a PVO bomber interceptor instead of starting with the MiG-25. Much in the same way as the F-111A strike aircraft was converted into the F-111B Navy fighter (which had the potential to become a capable bomber interceptor, if it wasn’t so useless as a carrier borne aircraft). Converting the Su-24 into an interceptor should have been straightforward as regards changes to the airframe; replacing the fixed inlets with variable inlets to allow a Mach 2+ capability (remember the Su-24 was already equipped with real fighter aircraft engines – in shape of the Lyulka AL-21 of the MiG-23, or even the AL-31 of the Su-27 at a later stage) and of course, fitting the appropriate avionics and weapons systems (Zaslon and AA-9 etc.). The cost of development should have been cheaper than that of the MiG-31 and with cheaper operating costs (and with a lot more commonality of airframes and powerplants with the rest of the Soviet airforces) while providing an aircraft with potentially greater range/endurance.
F-111Bs below
LevshaTo GarryB
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to denigrate The Tu-95 at all. There’s no reason to believe it’s any worse as a combat aircraft than the B-52, but I just can’t accept that it’s possible to create a practical efficient airliner from a strategic bomber and I especially believe it’s impossible to create one from the Tu-95 airframe. 4 turboshafts, 8 contra-rotating propellers and 32 blades is a recipe for a costly, maintenance high, low utilization rate airliner. I’m sure it was a useful aircraft which fulfilled an airline route and propaganda niche requirement at that time, but don’t try to tell me it could fly a fraction of the 3,500hrs or 1000 cycles a year a typical long range airliner is expected to do. Also, I would imagine air stewardesses are not so attentive to their passengers when they’re wearing ear plugs…
I dunno – probably about as much as the Nazi DNA in a Saturn 5… :diablo:
Or German swept/delta-wing DNA in most post-war western aircraft.
Ken
I believe the Tu-95 has a considerable amount of Nazi DNA of its own in the guise of its Kuznetsov NK-12 engines. Kuznetsov might have been in charge of the OKB but most of the real development work was carried out by a team of German engine designers captured as war booty and taken back to the USSR. This was the case for many Soviet cutting edge aerospace projects at this time. If someone could provide me with a link to fill me in further on this subject I’d really appreciate it.
Pondering on the above fact has made me realize just how much foreign DNA there was in Soviet airpower throughout the critical and tense cold war period of the 1950s right up to about 1960.
Tu-95 Engine German? Airframe B-29 cross section?
Tu-4 Engine ASh-73TK Airframe 100% B-29 (Double rowed Wright Cyclone)
MiG-9 Engine RD-20(Junkers Jumo 003) Airframe Me-262???
MiG-15 Engine VK-1(RR Nene) Aerodynamics German
MiG-17 Engine VK-1F(RR Nene) Aerodynamics German
Yak-9 Engine ASh-82(Wright R-2600)
Il-28 Beagle Engine VK-1(RR Nene)
Li-2 Engine ASh-62(Wright Cyclone) Airframe 100% Douglas DC-3
Il-14 Engine ASh-82(Wright R-2600
An-2 Engine ASh-62(Wright Cyclone)
Mil Mi-4 Engine ASh-82V(Wright R-2600)
You could safely say that the majority of Soviet air power in this period of the Cold war was propelled through the air courtesy of Rolls Royce and Wright with a bit of help from the Germans.
Most of the Soviet piston engines of WW2 were derived either from the Wright Cyclone or the French Hispano Suiza 12Y (Klimov M-105/VK105)…while to cap it all the legendary T-34 tank’s V-2 diesel engine was derived from, if memory serves me correctly (I could be wrong), a French dirigible airship propulsion unit from the 1920s.(I believe most subsequent tank engines in the Soviet Army were derived from the V-2)
Does anyone know of other aero engines developed by Germans in the Soviet Union in the post war period?
i do not get that every time the Tu-126 Moss is mentiond, propeller interfearence is always mentioned…what did the RAF and the USAF use before the E-3 AWACS, what AWACS platform do the US navy, French navy use, the Hawkeye, they have turboprops dont they… [U]Sea Vixen[B]
The Hawkeye doesn’t have 32 propeller blades…
LevshaPerhaps you should google the Tu-114 variant of the Bear?
…the first 747… with turboprops…
Note the Tu-126 AEW is a modification of the Tu-114 airliner, which is a low wing modification of the Tu-95.
Not to mention the Tu-116…
…only way to get from the Soviet Union to Cuba in one hop.
Can’t see how the fact that the Soviets decided to develop an airliner from the basic Tu-95 design can be said to be in itself any positive indicator of the Tu-95’s basic design. A feature of Soviet aviation was always their desire to extract the maximum potential out of out both individual aircraft designs and also from actual aircraft airframes. The best example of this been the Tu-16 Badger design been further developed into the Tu-104/124 jet airliners while the actual Tu-16 airframe itself been later adapted for such roles as reconnaissance, Elint and ECM among others. Can you really develop an efficient jet airliner from a strategic jet bomber design?? Surely one could only now see it as a folly if Boeing had decided to base the 707 airliner on the B-52 design instead of developing what was to become the prototype for all of today’s large jet airliners. Only 30 or soTu-114s were built and they were all out of service by the mid 1970s. Doesn’t sound like a successful airliner design. Concorde did better than that!! I don’t believe the airframe was regarded as very successful as an AEW either. All those propeller blades spinning around must have created some interference.
Either way, the TU-95 forced the US to spend BILLIONS on air defense. It was one of the few weapons that the Russians developed that put the US into a spending spiral. Eisenhower was shocked when U-2 photos discovered that the TU-95 was the main strategic bomber and not the Bison.
Jack E. Hammond
The amount of resources that the Soviets poured into their PVO or air defence system for the defence of the whole of the Soviet Union made America’s and Canada’s comparable efforts for North America look positively amateurish. The Soviets had over 1200 intercepter aircraft, along with thousands of SAMs on force, waiting to repulse any SAC onslaught. If the Americans were somewhat scared about the BEAR, well then we would have to say that the Soviets must have been completely terrified of the BUFF.
LevshaActually very interesting topic. Sad that it will drown in all the Iran- and MiG vs GD Threads.
Your too right there. A lot of the discussion on this forum is devoted to such aircraft as the MiG-29, MiG-31 and Su-27, which despite been in service around the world for the last 20 years or so have little to say for themselves combat record wise. I don’t think any 4th generation Soviet/Russian aircraft has ever carried out an air to ground mission before, or none that I’ve heard of, while their air to air record could be written on the back of a cigarette paper. The F-105 on the other hand, due to its Vietnam record(20,000+ sorties) along with its pivotal role in the development of air defence suppression/wild weasel techniques could lay claim to been possibly the most important strike/attack aircraft in the jet age (after the F-4 Phantom of course). But nobody on this forum ever seems to want to talk about the ‘Leadsled’. Doesn’t catch the imagination like other aircraft it seems.
LevshaAlso, when discussing the F-105’s ‘alleged’ susceptibility to antiaircraft fire one must bear in mind the fact that the USAF’s entire fleet of ‘Thuds’ were produced and delivered throughout the first half of the 1960s, before American airpower began to play a more substantial role in the SE Asia war. It’s as if the RAF and the US Army Air Corps were only allowed to use bomber aircraft produced before 1941 for their strategic bombing campaign against Nazi Germany. There was no opportunity to introduce design changes to the F-105, as a result of lessons learnt during combat experience in Vietnam, in any later production run. It always seemed to me that the f-105’s hydraulics issue could have been rectified/redesigned without incorporating any major airframe redesign or fuss.
Come to think of it; a lot of the aircraft used by the USA in the Vietnam war had their production finished before things got busy in that war in 1964/65: F-100, F-101, F-102, F-104, F-8, A-3 Skywarrior, A-5 Vigilante, not to mention the B-47, B-52, B-57, B-66, etc. This was certainly not a situation found in WW 2, a war with a duration only half as long and fought with aircraft which were always in a continuous process of design, redesign, and production as lessons were been learnt during combat.
LevshaGood morning folks. Very first post on the forum, mind you I’ve been enjoying the many fiery, passionately fought debates raging across my monitor for the last few months. Hope I can help make a positive contribution to some of the discussions. OK, down to business. I’ve developed an interest in the F-105 lately (somebody has to), especially its combat record. I feel the poor “Thud” is a somewhat maligned and under rated aircraft. The 800 or so F-105s built may very well have delivered a greater tonnage of munitions and carried out a greater number of sorties than all the Mirage F1s, MiG-23/27s and SAABs put together, while trying to avoid being shot down by possibly the most lethal air defense system (North Vietnamese AAA, SAMs, MiGs) that has ever been created since WWII. The question one has got to ask the Author of the above Aerospace Power Journal article, Kenneth P. Werrell, is this. If he had a choice of any aircraft from any country, east or west to send over the skies of Hanoi and North Vietnam to carry out the same long range heavy strikes (and Wild Weasel defence suppression missions) that the F-105 had to do, within the same time frame – 1964-1972, what would he choose? The English Electric Canberra? Sud Aviation Vautour? Mirage IV The very earliest Blackburn Buccaneers? IL-28 Beagle OR YaK-28 BREWER perhaps? Bearing in mind the aircraft really should have a payload range capability comparable to the F-105. For these are the only alternatives it seems to me. Would they have survived any better than the F-105 or F-4? How do their navigation attack systems compare to the Yank’s? The F-105 and the F-4 which replaced it in SE Asia were way ahead of most other country’s aviation products.
Sign In
