Why no Russian equal to the F-16?

[taly01]

If the F-16 was a good idea Russia would have copied it!

 

[SaparotRob]

I prefer to think stolen more than copy. In retrospect, I don't think they could even if they wanted to.

 

[wuzak]

Isn't the MiG 29 a mini-Su 27 with cheaper avionics?

 

[buffnut453]

Isn't the MiG 29 a mini-Su 27 with cheaper avionics?

In a word, no. The Su-27 and MiG-29 were spawned from the same initial specification because meeting all the requirements in a single platform was deemed impossible.

The MiG-29 is a short-range, multi-role platform whereas the Su-27 is a long-range, high-manoeuvrability air superiority fighter. Yes, the Su-27 can drop bombs but that's very much a secondary role.

To other posts in this thread, I find the whole "Russia copied it from the US" vaguely ridiculous. All big air forces use intelligence to better understand what capabilities are being developed by adversaries. That intelligence data is used to inform specifications and requirements for future combat aircraft programmes to meet those emerging threats.

Aircraft designed for similar roles within similar timeframes often will end up looking rather similar. Yes, the Yak-28 looks like a Harrier because it had a similar role. However, even a superficial glance at the 2 designs show they are entirely different.

To say that the USSR/Russia "copied" US designs is rather ludicrous because it's practically impossible. Let's imagine the USSR had intelligence that provided detailed specifications, down to the blueprints, schematics, and detailed systems designs, for the F-15. Well, Russia can't produce powerful, fuel-efficient engines...which means the entire aircraft design must change. You can't "copy" a single attribute of the F-15 because all the other design parameters must change because of the different engine weights, sizes and required fuel loads.

 

[RichardSuhkoi]

In a word, no. The Su-27 and MiG-29 were spawned from the same initial set initial specification because meeting all the requirements in a single platform was deemed impossible.

The MiG-29 is a short-range, multi-role platform whereas the Su-27 is a long-range, high-manoeuvrability air superiority fighter. Yes, the Su-27 can drop bombs but that's very much a secondary role.

To other posts in this thread, I find the whole "Russia copied it from the US" vaguely ridiculous. All big air forces use intelligence to better understand what capabilities are being developed by adversaries. That intelligence data is used to inform specifications and requirements for future combat aircraft programmes to meet those emerging threats.

Aircraft designed for similar roles within similar timeframes often will end up looking rather similar. Yes, the Yak-28 looks like a Harrier because it had a similar role. However, even a superficial glance at the 2 designs show they are entirely different.

To say that the USSR/Russia "copied" US designs is rather ludicrous because it's practically impossible. Let's imagine the USSR had intelligence that provided detailed specifications, down to the blueprints, schematics, and detailed systems designs, for the F-15. Well, Russia can't produce powerful, fuel-efficient engines...which means the entire aircraft design must change. You can't "copy" a single attribute of the F-15 because all the other design parameters must change because of the different engine weights, sizes and required fuel loads.

I dont agree with the "powerful-efficient " engines comment. Going back to Soviet times the Mig-29 RD-33 engine had a thrust to weight superior to Western peers. Fuel efficiency was similar when comparing mission burn. Time on wing was fair at about 350 hours. Today I think that engine does about 600 hours in peace time. It might be fun to compare todays F414 with todays RD-33. The Mig-29 is just an amazing value. It still offers good performance for cost. This manual trimmed aircraft doesn't suffer as many black box failures as F-16, (but F-16 far outperforms it). The Poles were very frustrated by constant black box death, "give us lots of money you don't need to know why it's broken". They could open up and fix the electronics on Mig-29, but contractually prevented from doing so on F-16. The F-16 is easier to fly, that's another thing.

 

[buffnut453]

I dont agree with the "powerful-efficient " engines comment. Going back to Soviet times the Mig-29 RD-33 engine had a thrust to weight superior to Western peers. Fuel efficiency was similar when comparing mission burn. Time on wing was fair at about 350 hours. Today I think that engine does about 600 hours in peace time. It might be fun to compare todays F414 with todays RD-33. The Mig-29 is just an amazing value. It still offers good performance for cost. This manual trimmed aircraft doesn't suffer as many black box failures as F-16, (but F-16 far outperforms it). The Poles were very frustrated by constant black box death, "give us lots of money you don't need to know why it's broken". They could open up and fix the electronics on Mig-29, but contractually prevented from doing so on F-16. The F-16 is easier to fly, that's another thing.

Fair enough. But replace "powerful-efficient" with "size-weight." You still have the problem of having to redesign the entire airframe if your engines are larger and heavier than American ones. You have the same problem if your engines are lighter and smaller than American ones. You still can't "copy" elements from any US design.

 

[Dr. Saul]

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?

The F-15 is an identical copy of the 1954 North American design called the NA-237. The engines are slightly farther apart and the tails are slightly smaller, but otherwise identical, 18 years earlier.

 

[ThomasP]

 

[Dr. Saul]

More pictures of this amazing design from NA...

 

[SaparotRob]

That's a really cool looking design. It sure does look like an F-15 and do I detect a bit of Vigilante?

 

[Dr. Saul]

That's a really cool looking design. It sure does look like an F-15 and do I detect a bit of Vigilante?

You are right. A little F-108 Rapier, too. I will post those pictures. NA made a number of designs that were interrelated. All coming from the same design team, so a family resemblance. Powerful designs that made their bread an butter F-86 look positively dowdy. But that's what paid the bills.... Note the original Vigilante had 2 tails....

 

[SaparotRob]

I have to disagree on one point.
Short of putting a stupid nose on it, nothing can make an F-86 look dowdy.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Man, I think the F-86 is one of the most beautiful planes ever. Before the dognose, of course.

 

[Dr. Saul]

I have to disagree on one point.
Short of putting a stupid nose on it, nothing can make an F-86 look dowdy.

One stupid nose, coming up...

 

[SaparotRob]

Ahhh, the F-86D. The only American plane that looks like a Soviet copy of itself.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The goddamned Snoopy nose.