crobatoIt was not ordered but it does not mean it was not complete. Read clearly the ultimate prototypes.
Bull. Answer the question. Where is your MiG-29M at the Soviet era?
MIG-29M of 1986 not the MIG-29K/35 of 2006. and still MIG-29M has such a good range with new enginesan and aerodynamics. the newer version like K goes much beyond even without TVC and much more fuel.
More bull from you. You don’t even have the MiG-29M of 1986, and that’s certainly not the MiG-29M of 2011. The engine may have been improved, but not the aerodynamics.
So MIG recommend full fuel? in the absence of self defence suites, external centre line fuel tank. Sukhoi can simply win by making MIG run out of fuel and can even chase it to airbase. untill u can prove that it was group action. and clearly early MIG-29A was as less developed fighter than Flanker and still only one kill it just shows poorly on Flanker.
You are just a hypocrite. Somehow, 4700kg of internal fuel is not enough for the Rafale, but 4600kg of fuel is enough for the MiG-29, despite having more weight on the MiG-29 and have less efficient engines.
why sukhoi people are making false statements. and why would they do that for export fighter.
I honestly don’t think Sukhoi is honest. Figure out why they would hang a Sunburn in an Su-33 on display when the Su-33 does not have the radar for it, or hang mockups of Kh-59MK on the Su-30 in 2001 when the missile hasn’t finished development for at least five more years.
U need much more flight hrs for civillian plane and it can be done. Military plane takes more time because of internal system integration.
Bull. This has nothing to do with civil or military aircraft. You don’t do structural composites on aircraft that is not designed from the bottom up on it. Legacy designed planes that had structural composites added are so internally modified, they can be considered as new designs, like the Super Hornet and the Japanese F-2. And despite this, both still suffered from weight problems.
so how long do u think a company like MIG/Sukhoi needs to certify a legacy fighter from ground up. less than a year at most. it is the internal subsystems integration, testing of radar, optoronics, EW suite that takes time. and they already developed the material for 5th generation. Making legacy fighter composite is not time issue.
Wrong. You just don’t have any common sense. Even MiG/Sukhoi has much better sense than you.
Trying to structurally composite a legacy aircraft just to trim some weight is not the same as the other things you mentioned. Those things you mention are EASY and CHEAP to do relatively, than completely overhauling the design of the airframe in order to accomodate structural composite of dubious benefit. You will have to go through a lot of stress testing once again, and in the end will cost you time by years, and a project by the billions. Not to mention retooling your production line, and retraining your workers. Its not worth the time and effort, when you can simply improve the thrust to weight ratio by increasing engine output.
With legacy jets, you can improve the weight so much, replacing metal with composites on the SKIN.
And its more difficult on Russian jets, because their airframe uses more titanium than anyone else, and titanium is pretty light and strong, and Russian mastery of titanium metallurgy is on a pretty good level, and the advantage of replacing titanium with composite substitute is simply dubious for the effort and R/D expended.
crobatocrobato, it makes me sad that you seem to flat out ignore the things I spend the time to type.
You’re judging the Harrier sheerly on the fact that it is not the perfect fighter when it was never supposed to be in the first place. The Sea Harrier itself was only born out of a decision to get rid of the U.K.’s CTOL carriers and thus the lose of the Phantom FG.1 for fleet air defense…..
I countered everything you just now said, (i.e. maintenance, etc.) and you still stated it as if I had forgotten to think about that aspect of the Harrier. We all know the Harrier isn’t a perfect design and yes it does offer compromises, but it was born in the 1960’s! Technology was much more limited then than it is today. The concept though was proven sound, and as such you’ve seen the Russians try to duplicate it and of course we now have the F-35B which will be just as good a fighter as many conventional types.
You’re writing off the Harrier for certain reasons that are….to put it bluntly…..unfair.
Let me retierate again….it was not designed as a fighter so stop judging it solely on those merits. You have to look at the big picture, and in this case I’m sad to say you’re ignoring it……which is a shame because you usually put out such well thought out arguments……..
In that sense it sounds more like an operational technology demonstrator. The Russians tried to duplicate it and abandoned their efforts. As for the F-35B, the jury is still out whether it is a viable plane. IMO, I am not optimistic about that phase of the project and I think it should be cancelled. IMO the JSF project should be focused and keep the KISS philosophy in mind that made the original tech demonstrator so successful, not distracted and compromised to every demand from every corner of the planet.
I don’t consider the whole Harrier concept that viable at all in the long run. It sacrifices too much in terms of performance, initial costs, operating costs, mission relability and availability vs. types who don’t need the VTOL capability. Even as an attacker its not also the best nor the most cost effective nor the most mission available. Its a concept that is stuck between the performance of traditional aircraft in one side, and against true helicopters in the other. The pilots have to be specially trained, obtained not from traditional pilot ranks, but from helicopter pilots, and then you have to train them both in traditional plane flying while keeping their helicopter flying skills. This adds another cost layer to the aircraft—quite a lot of training invested on a pilot that is thrown against an aircraft that generally performs sub par to traditional fighters and even attackers. If you really like to see a maximum return of investment on your pilot training dollars, where do you really want it go?
If the RN abandoned CTOL carriers, that’s their problem. The French hasn’t abandoned their CTOL carriers, and you can bet whatever they have flying off their carriers now, are far more viable in modern air combat than a Harrier. The Russians have abandoned their VTOL carriers which is the Kiev class and guess what they preferred to retain. Two of the Kiev class are now museums in Chinese waters, and the Chinese isn’t even pursuing that concept. The one remaining former Kiev class is being converted to a STOL (short takeoff) carrier for the Indian Navy, as a replacement for their old carriers and MiG-29Ks are replacing Sea Harriers. So what is the overall trend is saying?
You really should not make your plane around your carrier, but your carrier around your plane.
Unlike you, I am not afraid to follow unconventional ideas or break from mainstream thinking. I think freely and I don’t think within a box.
crobatoCrobato
Did you read the paper? they clearly say depending in the canard position with respect the wing they get better high AoA handling, the coplanar arrangement at high AOA has less lift and more drag, they indeed say the low canard offset position at high AoA does not improve the wing lift in fact it has more drag and less lift, this is because the wing is above the canard plane and the canard low preassure vortices at times get underneath the wing and thus reduce the wing`s lift .
I’ve been asking you this again and again, and you keep pointing to the same article that does not claim that the canards affect main wing lift.
This is not an issue about coplanar or biplanar. This is an issue where is your proof that the biplanar arrangement of canards affect the lift of the main wing of the aircraft, which does not say any of that. Your article even goes to say coplanar canards has benefit of leading edge vortices over the main wing, so I really question you.
crobatowhat kind of nonsense is this. they didnot allow it for export in the beginning and later it was too expensive to build. and that every thing was down graded. U should undertand during Soviet times MIG was on higher grade than others and MIG-29M was among the advanced aircraft at that time.
Bull. Where is your MiG-29M at the Soviet era?
it has 1900KM range on 4600KG fuel. and 600KM combat radius with full weopon load of 4.5 tons. Full HOTAS concept. Now the new MIG-35 has 23tons Maximum takeoff weight.
Oh so it actually has less fuel than the Rafale eh?
under what context.? u cannot compare a fighter having 3.5tons fuel with another on with 10 tons fuel when both hardly has any self defense suites. One can just wait for the shot untill the other one runs out of fuel. It is not Group fighting.
Bull. You can read the account where the Su-27 owns the MiG-29. Please remember, Sukhoi does not recommend fully fuel tanking the aircraft if you don’t need it.
this again nonsense. MIG-29M achieves 2/3 range with less than half fuel of Flanker and that with 80s era engines.
Oh really?
Take Su-35 weight issue with Sukhoi. they said Su-35 is lighter than F-18E. longer airframe times? Just look at Sukhoi radar size, the larger wing. no aircraft can be made with composites?. Russians are converting there previous Tu-204 into composites one in less than year. I think u are living in past.
Prove it. Give me some real data. Not more of your bull****.
I think you have no idea that difference of using composites in the skin as opposed to using composites in the structure.
how long does it take to desing a legacy fighter for firms like Sukhoi since they use supercomputers now? the delay is in software and system integration not in structure.
surely i dont have idea. u dont understand digitally creating aircraft.
All factories of Sukhoi has done it for commercial jet and PAK-FA. Simply give them MIG-29 project. they will do it in months.
More BS from you. You don’t know enough of aircraft structural engineering, even with computers that you cannot simply do major replacement of structural components on an aircraft using composites on a legacy aircraft not designed for it.
All the aircraft that is heavily composite based are designed from the scratch for it, like the HAL Tejas. You have no idea that the difference between PAK FA and the MIG-29 is one is brand new aircraft you can design from scratch and other is already a legacy pre design.
crobatoWhat I dislike about the Harrier is that it is slow, mainly subsonic jet. The VTOL functionality has its toll on the plane’s weight and drag. The large intakes for example, gives it a high RCS value, compared how hard it is to discern small fighters that is not even trying to be intentionally stealthy (F-5E or MiG-21 for examples). With those stubby wings, it has high wing loading, and thus it doesn’t turn as tightly as most fighters with lower wing loading.
For what it does, it is complicated, expensive to buy, and expensive to maintain.
In my view, the concept sacrifices too much plane performance for the VTOL capability and simply to accomodate small ships. Ideally, a carrier fighter should be getting the best out of the aircraft first, then designing the carrier ideally to float them. Not design the aircraft to fit the ship.
For that reason, I view I put the Harrier on the historic and iconic category, but not necessarily a true classic.
I think any carrier fighter at the right place and at the right time would do what the Harrier did in the Falklands.
For the package, the Jaguar outperforms it in low level dashes, and maybe in air to air combat if the Jaguar possess the right radar and missile.
Now talking about attackers, one attacker that is now almost a forgotten classic is the A-6 Intruder. Sturdy, highly survivable, the plane has a very efficient subsonic loiter that makes it perfect for the attack and recon role. This is not like a supersonic fighter being drafted into a multirole ground attacker. Multirole jets bring their own inherent disadvantages into the attack role, since it is after all a jack of all trades concept. It is quite sad really we are taking one basic design and make it fit all sorts of shoes.
The Intruder is built with a lot of space for the radar and avionics.
crobatoThe perfect wing remains one that is nature, a bird’s wing.
Look at what it does.
1. It is capable of low energy, low speed glide flight in low sweep long span profile.
2. Yet in a moment’s instance, transforms itself into a high sweep compound geometry, short span variable wing for high speed flight. I find the concept of an M shaped wing, like that of a falcon in a dive, rather intriguing.
3. Complete VTOL capability, requiring zero landing and takeoff distances.
4. Complete packability for storage.
crobato… no-one, nothing ?????
Maybe China lacking an internet during the heydey of the J-6 has something to do with it.
crobatoCrobato
The greatest of you is you do not concord with NASA and their studies of canards what i have said to you is based unpon aerodynamic studies made by NASA, Canards do create drag when they are deflected, what happens is you do not study the effect the canard vortices have upon the wing, niether you consider what happens when the canards are deflected in pitch and lift, in fact for high canards deflections the center of lift moves outboard and backwards making the whole configuration unstable due to the downwash of the canard upon the wing in few words nose heavy.
The reality is Crobato that the MiG-29SE has a sustained turn rate of 23.5 deg/s and the Gripen only one of 20 deg/s and that is a better proof that canard delta aircraft have regular sustained turn rates and the LERXed wing of the MiG-29 is good for sustained turn rates
__________________
Bull which of these NASA studies showing biplanar canard downdraft flowing underside of the main wing huh?
Oh, and somehow LERXes and deflected elevators don’t create drag huh? Which one creates more drag, a bigger elevator or a smaller canard? Which requires greater deflection to achieve the same authority?
You also seem to conveniently neglect the data you yourself posted, that the canard vortices, even produced from the leading edge, has a positive effect on the plane’s lift.
And less you forget, a canard delta does not need a high deflection on the canard for a tighter turn. It can simultaneously deflect both canard and aileron, creating two simultaneous forces on opposites ends of the plane’s fulcrum, one pulling the nose up, and another pushing the tail down. Add the plane’s relaxed stability.
When did the MiG-29SE has a sustained turn rate of 23.5 deg/s? From the Formin book? How does the number seems creeping up, from the 22 deg/s you mentioned previously? And you seem to conveniently forget that the Gripen has a lower TWR, and continue to neglect that TWR is a major factor in STR.
The Typhoon study showed canard deltas are capable of equal to better sustained turn rates period.
crobatodId they operate MIG-29M version which was virtually complete in Soviet times?
The MiG-29M was nowhere complete in Soviet times.
MIG-29 may have run out of fuel. U cannot judge aircraft from a single clash.
Bull. The plane was shot down, period. Thats a matter of public document. Check ACIG.
very limited for twin engine fighter.
Hypocritical. When the MiG-29M has the same amount of fuel, it is considered enough? Like you said, the engines on the MiG-29 are more powerful, and usually that gulps up a lot more fuel.
how Su-35 becomes lighter than F-18E?. It is simply matter of money. any aircraft can be made of composites. today if Ruaf order new MIG-29. They can simply make it better than any canard delta in physical performance.
Bull. The Su-35 isn’t lighter than the F-18E, nor is it lighter than the F-15. No aircraft can be made with composites. The F-18E is also really a big aircraft, packign a lot more avionics, and it is a lot more structurally reinforced for carrier use, which the Su-35 is not. Plus much longer airframe life times.
MIG-29 has become lighter than older versions just like Su-35 is lighter than Su-27.
In your dreams. There is never a single existing aircraft by example that can be heavily compositized in structure (other than the skin) if it was not designed in scratch for it.
You simply have no idea that you cannot install composites into an aircraft structure without seriously redesigning the structure from nose to end right down to every inch. You got ZERO idea of the cascading effect when you change one component, that such changes seriously affect the components next to the changed component, and changing these components to compensate means cascading changes down the line to every component connected.
Its not a question of money, its a question of common sense. When you redesign an entire plane’s structure for what, basically the same aerodynamics, you also have retool the production line, retrain the workers, make massive changes to your support and maintenance infrastructure and procedures.
In the final end, you are better off, putting such efforts into a new generation fighter in the first place. There is no common sense to what you are doing.
crobatoAngle of Attack is connected to the STR as well as the L/D and Ps, it is one of the most important flight parameters because L/D depends on Cl and that depends on the AOA, which at the end mean pulled G`s. Of course you have to get the optimum among all those parameters such as lift/drag/AOA and Ps/altitude/engine settings, but the same deals for the speed. Explain why the STR increases and then decreases with speed, see graphs below.
And yet you showed a graph where the tightest turn, which has the highest AoA, being far short of the highest turn rate, does it?
The chart does not figure out whether its telling sustained or instant turn rate. But at the looks of it, it is talking about ITR, not STR.
AoA is related to L/D ratio, but nonetheless, when you’re in excess of 25 degs AoA, the L/D ratio begins to seriously drop off.
crobatoThe MiG-23 is something, like the Starfighter for different reasons, somewhat borderline as a classic. On the plus side, its known to be tough, durable, versatile, packing much wallop in a small package. Its fast down low, with tremendous thrust, ability to land and takeoff in some very tough airstrips. Rugged landing gear.
On the other hand, its not truly maneuverable or agile in the F-5/MiG-21 sense, and its not a plane well complemented by its pilots for its visbility, avionics and ease of use qualities. The maintenance of the VG wing also makes it difficult and expensive to manage in the long run. For that reason, the MiG-23 falls behind the MiG-21 in this index. In many countries using both planes, the MiG-21s were clearly outlasting them.
Reviewing some past planes.
A-4 Skyhawk. Definitely a classic. Strong, simple, and robust. Cheap and easy to maintain. The plane got it right the moment it came off the drawing boards just shortly after the Korean War. And its still in service in a few countries like New Zealand upgraded with the APG-66. That’s one amazing service record. While it is made as an attacker, its freakingly good roll rates, nimbleness and agility gave it fighter like qualities, which can enable it to hand out some nasty surprises against fighters considered more powerful and far more modern, including the F-14 and F-15. At a time when before the teen Fighters era, this was probably the one or two planes that can go toe to toe with MiGs in a close all balls fight.
F-5 series. Classic all over. Again, simple and robust planes with superb agility, easy to maintain, and well complemented by its pilots. Nice clean lines to boot. Very nimble, great roll rates, capable of pulling tighter turns than most aircraft of its generation. For a simple plane it has a tougher than average landing gear that enable it to take off and land in airstrips that would give problems to other USAF aircraft. As a fighter, it is extremely light, though not well powered. Quite capable of handing out a surprise against more modern fighters.
F-104 Starfighter. Somewhat borderline. Another simple and robust plane. Fairly easy to maintain, but that engine is smokey. Very nice clean lines that is good to the eye, and very good provisions for adding radar and stuff. For a small fighter, has some very competent radar capabilities. Pilots seem to have a bang flying it. Great low level interdictor. On the negative side, as a total career, the plane is infamous for its attrition rates, and the plane does bite major once it is pushed to the edge. For that reason, it falls behind the Skyhawk and the Tiger II.
MiG-19/J-6. Incredible maneuverbility, probably the best of the open mouthed MiGs, and its looks belie a well above TWR for a plane of its generation. In the 3 cannon J-6 incarnation, probably one of the most powerfully armed gunfighters. Its combat record seemed to favor well compared to other MiGs. In exercises in the PAF, the J-6s have demonstrated some nasty surprises against F-16As, as well as Iranian F-5s (prior to the Revolution). The USAF is said to have sampled a PAF J-6 and in conclusion, caused to rewrite its threat level, even higher than the MiG-21.
On the negative side, this plane is extremely difficult to fly. Even PLAAF Korean War ace Han De Cai called it difficult. The plane is also horrendous to maintain compared to the single engine MiG-17 and MiG-21, calling for regular replacement of parts, linkages, lines and engines. Thus borderline or lower in the classic status, below the MiG-17 and MiG-21.
F-8 Crusader/A-7 Corsair. I am trying to gather more data here, but this fighter, not so often discussed, may have the makings of another classic, as it fits in many of the criteria. Great firepower, maneuverable, yet simple and rugged, pleasant to fly with not so many vices.
Harrier. More and more I look at this plane, and I am figuring out, overrated. The one outstanding feature is the VTOL quality, and it looks to me, it got lucky facing Argentinian Mirages low on fuel and with only rear aspect AAMs. Speed is below average, and its not the easiest or the most pleasant aircraft to fly. From the anecdotal observations, the plane is also a pig and a pain to maintain. It comes to me more of a machine that was in the right place and in the right moment.
Jaguar. An unrecoganized classic and one that should be spoken more of. Hatched in 1969, its still going strong, quite a remarkable service record and length. Despite being a nonfighter, the Jaguar has offered some major surprises even against F-15s in exercises. It lacks the sophistication of the Tornado, or the VTOL qualities of the Harrier, but I think its a more balanced design than the other two, in terms of simplicity, ruggedness, punch, cost and capability. The plane seems to get better the closer you look at it.
Another plane that I’m looking at pushing more to the classic category is the BAe Hawk, an advanced trainer with fighter like qualities and can dish it out.
crobatoI didn’t say its an instant classic. I am looking at potential classics. Potential is the keyword.
There are quite a number of aircraft that deserved to be recognized, but some very well recognized planes are not classics by any sense. These are planes that for me, are machines of the moment. The SR-71, the MiG-25/31, etc,. A classic is not a machine of the moment. It is a machine for all time.
I am not including all classics, just fighter classics. No need to expand criteria to include bomber aircraft and transports.
Iconic is not necessarily classic. Classic is one that endures. Is Ju-87 classic or iconic? For me, its not classic, its iconic or historic. Is the Wright Brothers machine classic or historic? I bet you won’t want to fly it. How many of you know about a ma
Both Hellcat and Bearcat are classics. Classic is not about one or the other. It simply has to have that quality, period.
Is recognizability that important for you? How many of you know about a plane called the Bucker Jungmeister?
Do you know?
It is a trainer used by the Luftwaffe. I’m pretty sure all the Me-109s, Me-262s, the Ju-87s and Fockewulfs are far more recognizable than the Jungmeister.
Yet many aerobatic pilots consider the Jungmeister the most maneuverable plane ever made. It dominated the world aerobatic scene from the thirties, and even after the war, German companies like Dornier still produced the plane for overseas clients. Even as late as 1971, Jungmeisters continue to perform aerobatic stunts. It is now among the highly prized and expensive of both warbirds and aerobatic flyers. That my friend, is by every means, a classic.
crobatoSu-27 is not clearly the better of the two planes. MIG-29 was built as cheap plane that was rushed ahead of Flanker into service..so it lacked the FBW and better engines. No one got the FBW versions with Single crystal engines like RD-33K so comparion is moot point.
That’s not true from anyone who operated both planes.
And just remember, the Su-27 shot down the MiG-29, not the other way around. In actual combat.
Rafale has very limited fuel capacity and made with expensive light weight materials.
Nearly 4500kg of internal fuel and that’s very limited?
Simply made a MIG-29 with same materials and current engines than come back for comparsions. Comparisions should be withing same time frame and same price range. u cannot compare metal aircraft with composite and not 20 year old. this just show ur limited understanding like 75KN is 8000kg by that logic 81KN is 8700KG and 88KN is 9500KG.
BS. You cannot take a metal aircraft and think you can put composite inside the structure without incurring major stress recalculation and design. In other words, the MiG-29 cannot undergo composite weight reduction other than the surface. Go ahead and ask anyone who knows a bit more about structural engineering. And this has been mentioned in the boards already. heck, you cannot even change the alloy even to a lighter one.
It is impossible for the MiG-29 to be made of the same materials as the Rafale. You either make it with this or you don’t. If you already have a metal aircraft, the most you can do is change the skin, but the structurals cannot be changed.
Furthermore, you keep thinking that the future mods of the MiG-29 will have the same weight as the MiG-29A. That’s like cherry picking details between different MiG-29 versions to come up with your fantasy MiG-29 that does not exist. In order to increase the internal fuel, add the avionics, etc,. the plane will only get heavier and heavier, soaking up whatever increase in power, and raising the wing loading.
crobatoCrobato
It seems you do not know that when you deflect the canards the wing losses lift due to canard downwash wake, and only they have a relatively few instants when they are increasing the total lift and that is related to the distance between the canard and the wing and the angular speed of rotation of the canard.
You are the one who don’t know anything. you got this fictional and fantastic concept that canard backwash will affect the underside of the wing on a biplanar layout.
There is no proof of this whatsover.
Even if you deflect the wing, the canard wash still flows over the main wing, and the low pressure areas actually serve to enhance lift.
Canard backwash is something of more concern to the rudder of the aircraft as opposed to the main wing, which is why these rudders are fairly large and well strengthened.
Also you forget a simple fact about LERXed wings, any LERXed wing has two angles of swept for example the MiG-29 has a 73/40 deg 70 for the LERX and 40 for the main wing, this gives them better lift drag ratio than what you claim
BS. LD ratios has nothing to do with compound sweep. The lifting area of LERX is too small to offer significant lift, when compared to canards. The sweep of the LERX do not improve the straightline ability of the aircraft. In fact, for straightline performace, its better to have NO LERX, and a fixed geometry of the main wing.
LERX plus main wing do not make a compound sweep wing. In order to justify the concept of a compound sweep, the inner sweep change should at least be 40% to 50% of the wing span. Otherwise the bigger part of the wing should be considered the main sweep of the wing.
The better position for a canard during high AoA, is the high canard offset position, the low set low canard position down washes the lower surface of the wing with low preassure, consecuently reducing the wing lift, however it does not mean the high set wing when it is deflected does not generates a down wash that reduces the wing lift and total lift, canards when they are deflected they do create drag and reduce the wing`s lift.
That’s BS and you know it. At high AoA, the plane does not travel on the same direction as the nose. It will be seriously angled, so the backwash will travel up over the plane even more.
You don’t get it do you. What does AoA has to do with sustained turn rate?
Look at the F-15 there. It has very good sustained turn rates, but it really lacks true LERX design (the extension on the wing root does not qualify as a true LERX) that is intentionally engineered to create laminar vortices over the body. Its not a plane intended for high AoA, and everyone knows that. But its sustained turn rate is as good or better than planes with higher AoA like the F-18.
AoA is seperate from sustained turn rates. In fact, with every wing, once the AoA reaches 25 degrees, you begin to get more drag from lift, and the ratio of drag rises as lift lessens as you increase AoA. To have optimal turn rate, plane has to be around 20 to 25 degs AoA. That does not disadvantage canard deltas at all or even an unstable tailless delta so long it is not forced to put a high angle on the aileron trim that can cause drag. heck that does not even disadvantage planes without high AoA assist LERX like the F-15 either.
crobatoThe Flanker and Fulcrum. Changed how the US viewed a lot of it’s tactics.
The US changed its tactics not because of the Flanker and the Fulcrum, but because of the MiG-17, and the basic fact that they were already going the wrong way.
In hindsight, the US way in the sixties, wasn’t really the wrong way. There is nothing wrong about the concept of air superiority by bombing the crap of the other guy’s airfields, a point so profoundly illustrated by the Soviet air force against the Hungarians in their uprising in 1956. And Warsaw Pact was ready to do the same on NATO. The idea of classic dogfighting wasn’t with the Warsaw Pact either, both sides of the fence has the same idea they planned to do onto each other, which is to bomb each other’s airfields to kingdom come and accept whatever horrendous losses in those near kamekaze runs would sacrifice.
The fact that the Vietnamese pulled their surprises against the USAF, is based on a series of unusual circumstances aligning and putting themselves together into a series of decisive moments. These circumstances range from politics to the US side, to the fortitious availability of the MiG-17 (the MiG-21PF was a clunker without a cannon with missiles that didn’t work right all the time). Its something fit for a program Like M3 (Man, Moment, and Machine).
Nothing wrong also with the concept of BVR, unless you didn’t get IFF implementation right. But nonetheless, John Boyd pulled calculations that showed that a light fighter is capable of dodging a missile like the Sparrow.
The Flanker and the Fulcrum was more of a response to the US teen fighters.
Sign In
