Why no Russian equal to the F-16? (1 Viewer)

[Admiral Beez]

Up until the MiG-21 and Su-17 the USSR always had a sizable force of single-engine, single-seat supersonic strike-fighter aircraft. However as the USAF began introducing the single-engine, single-seat F-16 the USSR began moving away from the single-engine format and more emulating the twin-engined F-15 with their MiG-29 and Su-27. Why didn't the USSR make their own single-engined F-16 equivalent? Was it because the Soviets did not have a sufficiently powerful and reliable engine?

 

[WAFU]

The MiG 29 is their equivalent, but it was a one off that required a fair bit of industrial espionage to make it work.
They don't innovate, they copy and series develop a design to infinity.

See the SU-27, a rip of of the Grumman lifting body design F-14, and via the SU-30,33,34 to the SU-57 which is little more than an RCS reduced variation on it.

 

[GrauGeist]

Even the YaK-38 bore a strong (very strong) resemblance to the Harrier, but with two engines.

 

[Frog]

When the YF-16 first took off, its contemporary was the MIG 23 / 27 series.

 

[Snowman]

You are right, Russians could not create equally fuel efficient yet reliable engine for this class fighter. Here you can find some additional observations on this matter:

The Truth About the MiG-29

How U.S. intelligence services solved the mystery of a cold war killer.

www.smithsonianmag.com

And here is what the Ukraine Air Force pilots say about Su-27:

The Russian Jet That Fights for Both Sides

What Ukrainian air force pilots had to say about their aging Su-27s.

www.smithsonianmag.com

 

[Admiral Beez]

When the YF-16 first took off, its contemporary was the MIG 23 / 27 series.

I understand, but the Soviets didn't see the F-16 and think, let's make our own agile single engined fighter for the 1980s?

 

[Frog]

I understand, but the Soviets didn't see the F-16 and think, let's make our own agile single engined fighter for the 1980s?

I understand too, but not being stupid, in the USSR, they certainly tried to get informed of its development, even if merely by subscription to air magazines...
I personally learnt about the YF-16 through the now defunct french Aviation Magazine (AviMag) while I entered high school (1974).
By the way, the MIG 23 first flight was june 10, 1967.

 

[Macandy]

You are right, Russians could not create equally fuel efficient yet reliable engine for this class fighter. Here you can find some additional observations on this matter:

The Truth About the MiG-29

How U.S. intelligence services solved the mystery of a cold war killer.

www.smithsonianmag.com

And here is what the Ukraine Air Force pilots say about Su-27:

The Russian Jet That Fights for Both Sides

What Ukrainian air force pilots had to say about their aging Su-27s.

www.smithsonianmag.com

Both have astonishingly large, and in the case of the SU-27, REALLY astonishingly large, RCS's
And smoke, early F-4 levels of smoke.

 

[Glider]

The MiG 29 is their equivalent, but it was a one off that required a fair bit of industrial espionage to make it work.
They don't innovate, they copy and series develop a design to infinity.

See the SU-27, a rip of of the Grumman lifting body design F-14, and via the SU-30,33,34 to the SU-57 which is little more than an RCS reduced variation on it.

I don't think anyone can accuse the Russians of copying anything when they designed the Mig29. If they had the one thing that stood out as being poor is the layout of the cockpit and the radar would have been a lot better.

 

[RichardSuhkoi]

The MiG 29 is their equivalent, but it was a one off that required a fair bit of industrial espionage to make it work.
They don't innovate, they copy and series develop a design to infinity.

See the SU-27, a rip of of the Grumman lifting body design F-14, and via the SU-30,33,34 to the SU-57 which is little more than an RCS reduced variation on it.

Mig 29 ripped off from what?
I don't see it.

 

[WAFU]

Mig 29 ripped off from what?
I don't see it.

the Mikoyan design office relied heavily on copying US design technology from Northrop and North American in the 60's. They didn't have an original idea in their heads.
The MiG 29 was a one off 'me too' YF-17esque flash in the pan - MiG haven't come up with a successful design since.

 

[SaparotRob]

Is Mikoyan-Gurevich still in business?

 

[Macandy]

Is Mikoyan-Gurevich still in business?

Barely

Churns out some modernised versions of its MiG 29

 

[SaparotRob]

Like adding launch rails adapted for AGM-88s?


joke (just in case)

 

[special ed]

You got the funny for telling us when to laugh!

 

[SaparotRob]

Just making sure.

 

[GrauGeist]

Is Mikoyan-Gurevich still in business?

Sort of - in 2006, Putin had the aircraft manufacturers rolled up into a (mostly) state owned company called the "United Aircraft Corporation".

Any new designs still carry their respective design bureau names, like the MiG-35 and Su-57.

 

[RichardSuhkoi]

the Mikoyan design office relied heavily on copying US design technology from Northrop and North American in the 60's. They didn't have an original idea in their heads.
The MiG 29 was a one off 'me too' YF-17esque flash in the pan - MiG haven't come up with a successful design since.

Would you agree the Mig-29 is an astoundingly stable aerodynamic platform, that it flys extremely well with ordinary pilots despite having manual trim?

 

[GTX]

the Mikoyan design office relied heavily on copying US design technology from Northrop and North American in the 60's. They didn't have an original idea in their heads.
The MiG 29 was a one off 'me too' YF-17esque flash in the pan - MiG haven't come up with a successful design since.

I would caution against being too quick to write of the MiG designers own capabilities

 

[ThomasP]

Interesting theory WAFU. You do realize (I hope) that if your theory re the Mig-29 (ff 6 October 1977) being a copy of the F14 Tomcat (ff 21 December 1970) is true, then the F15 Eagle (ff 27 July 1972) must have been a copy of the Mig-25 (ff 6 March 1964) . . . right? I mean they do both use the lifting center-body upper surface concept . . . and there is no way the designers at McDonnell-Douglas could have come up with the idea themselves . . . right?

And its not like the theory of lifting center-body has been around since the early-1900s and was incorporated in several designs in the 1930s and 1940s . . . right?