Reason I put this in this section is some fact checking from the esteemed board members.
Just working on a little fiction project, in one scene a protagonist is looking over a NATO comparative testing field report. My sources are good, but I like to get feedback because they're varied, and when you're combining a fictional piece from a single source from multiple references it's good to see if it reads well.
So combined from references including USAF advanced flight training centre, the reformed Luftwaffe, a Fulcrum mechanic in the Czech Republic and bits and pieces, represented in a fictional 1998 NATO document for the novel, how does this read? Keep in mind it is 1998 and only what is known then is within the story environment. The tale is a fictionalisation of the Georgian crisis.
I was thinking of course, too long, but I wanted to cover all the pertinent details.
I don't know the formatting such a report would be in.
It turns conversational towards the end, I want it to sound more official.
Just working on a little fiction project, in one scene a protagonist is looking over a NATO comparative testing field report. My sources are good, but I like to get feedback because they're varied, and when you're combining a fictional piece from a single source from multiple references it's good to see if it reads well.
So combined from references including USAF advanced flight training centre, the reformed Luftwaffe, a Fulcrum mechanic in the Czech Republic and bits and pieces, represented in a fictional 1998 NATO document for the novel, how does this read? Keep in mind it is 1998 and only what is known then is within the story environment. The tale is a fictionalisation of the Georgian crisis.
In close combat dogfighting the early series MiG-29 has marginally superior but otherwise similar performance to the Block 15 series F-16A Fighting Falcon, whilst the Block 30 series F-16 and any F/A-18 Hornet fighters are marginally superior to the Fulcrum-A.
The FBW Block 40/50 series F-16C Vipers and current F-15C/D/E Eagle are comfortably superior to the Fulcrum-A owing partly to a much stronger airframe. Each aircraft have distinct advantages and disadvantages but on the whole the Fulcrum-A pilot is forced to work progressively much harder to achieve the same BFM results, particularly at low altitude.
It is a dangerous combat aircraft which is harder to fly at the same level as comparative NATO models but at the same time has some higher limitations than most NATO fighters as altitudes rise. It is suggested that close combat be avoided.
The Russian R-70 Archer missile is far superior to the American AIM-9L or export AIM-9P4 missiles but new South African and Israeli close range missile systems are contemporary, current series French Magic somewhere in between. The AIM-9M will close the gap but remain inferior.
At BVR ranges NATO medium range missile systems are progressively superior to the Fulcrum due to more advanced fire control and multimode radars, a full technological generation ahead of its Flogger-based Sapphire radar set. The updated Fulcrum-C in Russian service is reportedly fitted with a more capable and newer Topaz multimode radar, in which case the R-27R missile is very similar in performance to the exported AIM-7F Sparrow and British SkyFlash used widely by NATO. The R-77 of the Fulcrum-C is believed to be equivalent to the AIM-120 AMRAAM. The newest semi-active missile in US service is the AIM-7M specially produced for the current F-15C update, it is believed continuing R-27 development will produce equivalent types entering production at a similar pace with NATO.
The Fulcrum-A navigational fit, avionics and general pilot equipment is spartan and inadequate, servicing only basic military requirements. The Sapphire radar is based on the late series MiG-23ML/P lightened set using obsolete circuitry and has problems discriminating signals and handling data. This affects tracking reliability, lookdown/shootdown and ECCM capabilities. The navigational system is obsolete, radios are easily jammed and ECM equipment is minimal.Even vision from the cockpit is impaired by the deep pilot seat and high sides although forward and forward/down views are good.
The MiG radar has limited multimode providing a simple HUD bombsight for light ground attack using dumb bombs, munitions canisters and rockets. There is only a simple terrain avoidance system, no full ground attack mode is enabled and there is no facility for smart weapons.
The engines of the Fulcrum-A and their control system can best be described as hotrod. They are overpowered, high maintenance and are sustained only by a constant resupply of parts or detuning . Luftwaffe engineers developed an unlicensed detuning kit replacing most of the turbine hot area section and doubling serviceability and engine life at the cost of some 10% thrust rating. Mikoyan OKB now offers a similar kit available to export operators and has continued engine development for new variants.
The Fulcrum has a tremendous maximum thrust-weight ratio and is capable of remarkable manoeuvres in relatively clean trim. The engines work very hard to achieve this in maximum afterburner, in order to satisfy a twin engine requirement Klimov started with smaller turbofan base and hotrodded them to provide significant performance boost in afterburner thrust, on fairly basic fuels readily available at frontal airfields. At cruise ratings however the Klimov engines are very much in the light F404 class rather than the heavy F110 class. The result is that it performs superbly at afterburner and unremarkably at normal military. It is initially very serviceable in frontal deployment. At non-afterburner engine settings any model F-16 or Hornet is much quicker than the Fulcrum and bleeds less energy in manoeuvres, Fulcrums turn the tables on other nimble fighters by using their afterburners, with sheer brute power.
The Fulcrum has a small fuel load which is gone in minutes at full afterburner. Given that fast supersonic flight requires thrust reheat in most fighters, an exaggerated amount of technology and development was given to Fulcrum supersonic aerodynamics. It is designed to routinely exceed Mach 2, yet a frontal fighter requires things like fast mission turnaround times and high sortie rates, not supersonic performance it lacks the surplus fuel to achieve without scrapping the mission. Interception, which uses high Mach speeds over short sprints is only the Fulcrum's secondary role and it's not very well equipped for it by NATO standards. Again fuel load is prohibitive, interceptors are often required to loiter on station before a high speed run. Avionics are too poor, interceptors need reliable and long ranging BVR performance and ECCM. The Fulcrum is not well built for interception despite its excellent high Mach performance.
The field serviceability of the Fulcrum is remarkable, the aircraft is capable of operating routinely under conditions that an F-16 would never tolerate without engine failure. Russian aircraft excel in this area, which goes back to Soviet doctrine. Frontal Aviation was designed to be attached directly to forward army units as fully mobile and independent air armies, they're designed to be serviceable at rough forward airstrips or poorly maintained, remote wilderness bases in any weather, including a snow storm, quite literally and they do it remarkably, with all their ground crew and servicing equipment in tow. This doesn't change the fact that they are very high maintenance aircraft with poor longevity, but this regular maintenance can be performed in a barn with hack tools so long as you have a regular supply of spares. In this arena the Fulcrum carries the legacy of the legendary MiG-21 as workmanlike and unrefined but available to do the job while satisfying a high performance requirement and presence in numbers.
The Fulcrum construction is a simple wing box and metal monocoqué of the classical second generation style, only sectional areas and aerodynamics matches the typical standards of western composite fighters. So the Fulcrum has both slight higher supersonic tolerances and slightly lower subsonic ones, however an all round competitive performance to current NATO warbirds, at the second echelon or mission specific sense of modern warfare.
The Fulcrum is clearly designed to be easily and cheaply mass produced, to have airframe performance equivalent to the bulk of contemporary front line fighters in western Europe, to be deployed at mobile forward bases in close proximity to the enemy and to make massed attacks from multiple directions, within friendly mobile SAM fields. Its main drawbacks are BVR combat performance, poor fuel load, questionable maintenance reliability and dismal avionics fitment. It is not very adaptable because of these qualities. The Luftwaffe has decided the type is unsuitable for NATO use even with avionics refit, except for use as a training tool. So far Romania and Poland intend to use their Fulcrums in joint NATO ventures in the future, Germany is selling theirs to Poland and conversions will be done in Romania.
I was thinking of course, too long, but I wanted to cover all the pertinent details.
I don't know the formatting such a report would be in.
It turns conversational towards the end, I want it to sound more official.
Last edited:
