The hint is in the name… interceptor. You find targets and fly to a point in front of them called interception points and you you try to get your air to air missiles to hit them and then you land and refuel and rearm and do it again… speed it rather more important than manouverability, and weapon range and sensor range certainly help a lot too.

Of course, teh Su-27 airframe could’ve satisfied this requirement, not as well as the Mig-31, but if USSR was smarter on the way it spent it’s money, they wouldnt have gone so bankrupt.

That is like saying the US was not smart enough to build F-22s to fight the Indians…

I agreed, and matching the twice as larger American economy was not smart either, while US spent like 5-6% of their GDP on military, USSR spent 15-20%. If they were smarter, they would’ve spent less, and in a much smarter manner.

If anything, if they spent as much money as US, they should’ve built large aircraft carriers and such to be able to project power throughout the world and protect their own interests, not be so damn peaceful unlike the US. While USSR attacked only 1 country throughout the Cold War, US went on a rampage and attacked like a dozen. if they looked out more for their interests around teh World, they probably wouldn’t have gone down economically.

Perhaps the problem is that you don’t understand the structure of what the west would call the Soviet Airforce. Just like the USMC and the USN have their own special needs and wants the Frontal Aviation, PVO, and other Soviet air forces had their own special needs… and these needs were met. Whining that they could have gotten away with fewer aircraft types is just rediculous.

For US, maybe building so many different planes for different missions and requirements was not so bad because they could afford it easily, but for USSR I highly doubt this was a good decision, because they just couldnt afford to actually waste money AS WELL as US could.

[quote]
Except that the Mig-31 was in service first so if any aircraft was to be made the standard it would’ve been the Mig-31.
[/quote
True, and they could’ve waited to develop the Su-27 first.

BTW, the Mig-31 was in service before Mig-29, why was it given a designated number higher than that of the -29?

A point defence fighter needs acceleration, some manouverability, and not much else. The original Fulcrum would kick the original F-16s a$$ every time with high off boresight missiles and BVR missiles… and did so in tests. And that is 7 hardpoints. Later models add two more and the are plans for wing tip AAMs for 11 hardpoints.

I highly doubt the Fulcrum has evolved more than the F-16s, especially if you look at the F-16E/F.

But the ZASLON was optimised for interception and was very expensive and complicated. It would also completely change the balance of the aircraft… and the Su-27IB has no where near the speed of the Mig-31 when both are fully armed. All its shapely curves and manouverability are wasted in the interception role.

of course, Su-27’s radar was also optimizes for interception and AA work, the difference is smaller than you probably think.

Just in the US they had at the same time the F-20, F-18, F-16, F-15, F-14, and AV-8 fighters. Now they are adding F-22 and F-35… but the former will be made in so few numbers it is likely that the F-15, and F-16 will remain for some time. And that isn’t including the failed fighters like the F-111.

imho, US is getting smarter, they are replacing quite a few types like F-16, F-18, F-15, F-14, A-6, A-10, AV-8s and whatever, with simply F-18E/Fs, F-35s and F-22s. IMHO the F-18E/Fs were not needed. Hopefully, the PAK-FA will probably be able to replace the Flankers, Fulcrums, and Foxhounds, which it probably will, just not 1 by 1

Except that affordability was not a requirement.

imho, thats where USSR made a bad decision. Their economy was going down, and they werent doing much to spend less, as opposed to previously where the requirement for Mig-21s and Mig-23s was affordable, of course capable and easy to build and maintain.

The Tu-160 could have been modified to tackle bombers and cruise missiles too.. the Tu-160P… it could have had a huge radar and dozens of the heaviest AAMs then made and strategic range.

Whats your point?

Not by a big margin. MIG-31 is just evolutionary upgrade of MIG-25

The first Mig-31 prototype was, which then was totally redesigned and it offered little commonality with older Mig-25s.

[quote]

EF and Rafale. Why did Europe need 2 fighters ?? I will never understand.

It was a stupid decision too because they could not agree on the share, the French wanted most of the work and others told them to **** off

Eurocopter Tiger : Why did Europe need another light attack helo, when the A129 Mangusta was already fully developed

I believe because teh Mangusta is Italian, and there is no way the others will settle for something that they didnt have part in making. This is somewhat reasonable, but it was stupid like the EF2000 and Rafale where they could not agree on a single project, instead everyone took of to do their own thing.

I dont think the Hornet was redundant because the F-16 couldnt have filled the carrier requirement aswell as the Hornet, the F-16 would’ve had it’s share of problems operating from Aircraft carriers, ie it’s landing speed was a little too fast for carrier landings, therefore a lot of modifications and strengthening would’ve taken place to fix this problem. Imo the F-15 was definitely useless when the already versatile F-14 was there in place, to fight any sort of MiGs or Sus USSR would’ve put around and also tackle bombers.

Doesnt the J-10 have 5 hardpoints under the fuselage, in the same order the teh EF2000 has it? They can wire these to carry more AAMs. The J-10 has 11 hardpoints, more than the Su-27SK and almost as much as the Su-30MK.

I think Vietnam should really modernize their Su-27SKs to the SKM configuration, the Su-27SK is an old aircraft well by now, it is not multirole, has an old radar, SARH missiles.

With SKM and MK2 they should acquire Alfas, Hermes and many other weapons.

I think another planned weapon for the Russian Long Range Aviation is the SPBE-D, which is the Russian equivelant to the US Sensor Fuzed Weapon/WCMD.

According to one source, the Tu-22M3 can carry 17 RBK-500 dispensers or 33 RBK-250s.(19) If loaded with RBK-250s, each carrying 150 AO-1SCh bomblets, the bomber could drop 4950 bomblets in one run. If loaded with RBK-500s, each carrying 565 ShOAB-0.5 bomblets, the bomber could drop 9,505 bomblets in a each run. Assuming a footprint of 300 x 400m for each RBK-500, such a bomb drop could have a footprint of 2,040,000m2, or 204 hectares.

How much is 204 hectares? I assume, noone is gona survive in that area.

I think the Super Hornet is also stupid, F-14 wouldnt have been needed either, the F-35C could’ve easily and effectively replaced both the F-14s and F-18s with no need of a newer fighter.

Because when the T10 project was launched, there was no need for a striker with the FA. The Su-24 was still perfectly adequate in the doctrine of the day which required a terrain-following aircraft with swing-wings. In fact, the Su-27’s wing makes it less than ideal for low-flying attack missions.

I was talking about Su-27 and Mig-31, nothing about Su-24. The Su-27 could’ve been modified from the beggining to be less reliant on GCI with the ability to escort bombers and also tackle bombers and cruise missiles.

Because it was Grumman, and the USAF didn’t do Grumman.

Exactly, stupid decision

Different roles: the MiG-31 is a dedicated interceptor, the Su-27 is a heavy air superiority fighter. The differences between these tasks is big enough to warrant these two types, especially (again) during the time both were thought out.

The difference is smaller than you think. The Su-27 was dedicated air superiority fighter which could’ve also been modified to tackle bombers and cruise missiles, easily. Not need for a Mig-31 airframe.