Worst Soviet Fighter

[edyvw]

F-16 needs a cleaner ramp than most with that low intake, true.

It is much more a question of political viability than fighter/facility suitability.

I think political issue is between US and Europe.
Grippen would be good option, but that means Swedish politics. I haven’t met anyone from air forces that are using them, that are happy with them. And it is all about Sweden and contract stipulations.

 

[john_pifer]

I think political issue is between US and Europe.
Grippen would be good option, but that means Swedish politics. I haven’t met anyone from air forces that are using them, that are happy with them. And it is all about Sweden and contract stipulations.

Yeah, I’m not sure how Sweden sells Gripens to Ukraine and retains neutral status.

 

[edyvw]

Yeah, I’m not sure how Sweden sells Gripens to Ukraine and retains neutral status.

They are not maintaining neutral status. They are applicants for NATO membership. They delivered thousands of AT4 missiles and other stuff. The only reason why they re not in NATO yet is the usual blackmail by Turkey and Hungary.
A consequence of Putin's "4-dimensional" chess game.

 

[Astro14]

They are not maintaining neutral status. They are applicants for NATO membership. They delivered thousands of AT4 missiles and other stuff. The only reason why they re not in NATO yet is the usual blackmail by Turkey and Hungary.
A consequence of Putin's "4-dimensional" chess game.

No, they’re not in NATO yet because for several decades they declined membership to preserve their neutrality.

After 9-11, they joined the “Partnership for Peace” nations, a small group that wasn’t NATO but worked with NATO and had staff assigned to NATO commands.

Had they wished to join recently, it would’ve been fine.

After the invasion of Ukraine, they had a change of heart, and now, their membership is a political football.

 

[Number_35]

Mig 28 was so bad they just skipped it.

There's an argument for CGI if ever there was one.

 

[Number_35]

Nah. It is perception of power. Most things in Russia were developed for perception purposes bcs. domestic politics. TU144 is classic example. It served purpose for domestic audience. Overblown scare in the West is the bonus.

I remember as a child seeing a big 2-page ad in one of the weekly news magazines, likely TIME/LIFE/LOOK, with a grainy B&W photo of an SST taking off. This would have been around late 1969.

It said something like "Faster Than The Speed Of Sound - The Best Passenger Plane Rubles Can Buy".

The ad was sponsored by a consortium of American aircraft manufacturers.

As it turned out, the TU-144 and the Concorde were not economically viable, and the US did well to stay out of that game.

 

[Number_35]

The Cuban missile crisis happened in 1962. At that time, no side had a properly capable ICBM, and Russians had an advantage bcs. at that time, their space program, which had direct consequences on ICBM technology, was ahead of the US program. The reason for such a huge investment in space programs was ICBM technology. The US did not overtake the Russian program pretty much until after the death of Sergei Korolev in 1966.

The Cold War ended with more warheads on the USSR side, better MIRV technology, and more mobile systems. Their nuclear program was one of the very few programs that was always appropriately funded. They also had a larger bioweapons program, more WMD's, more enriched uranium, plutonium etc.
This is not surprising. The question is: where do you stop developing warheads that pretty much serve as deterrents? Those are weapons that guarantee MAD, and there is always other stuff that are higher priority. For Russians, nuclear weapons have much higher significance than for us. The reason is that their power is based on nuclear power. That is the only way Russia can be a member of an exclusive club of powers. Other than that, as John McCain said, they are gas station pretending to be a country. So, their over the top investment in the nuclear program is not at all surprising.

One theory is that the Soviet space program had more capable boosters than the US until about 1968.

In the interim, the US was forced to concentrate on miniaturizing its rockets' payloads, which led to superior electronics.

 

[Astro14]

One theory is that the Soviet space program had more capable boosters than the US until about 1968.

In the interim, the US was forced to concentrate on miniaturizing its rockets' payloads, which led to superior electronics.

Actually - it was the other way around - US advances in electronics allowed for smaller rockets, so no larger rockets were needed.

We didn't have to concentrate on miniaturizing payloads - we led in miniaturizing them. We didn't need big rockets as a result of that lead.

It wasn't a matter of our failure to develop rockets, it was the Soviet failure to make payloads smaller that forced them to make and use big rockets.

Once Apollo got started, it was very clear that building big rockets was something we could do. The F1 engine was a marvel of engineering and performance

And frankly, that they could not do. The Soviet Moon Rocket failed over and over, in no small part because it relied on 30 moderate engines for launch, and there were always engine failures.

N1 (rocket) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Number_35]

Actually - it was the other way around - US advances in electronics allowed for smaller rockets, so no larger rockets were needed.

We didn't have to concentrate on miniaturizing payloads - we led in miniaturizing them. We didn't need big rockets as a result of that lead.

It wasn't a matter of our failure to develop rockets, it was the Soviet failure to make payloads smaller that forced them to make and use big rockets.

Once Apollo got started, it was very clear that building big rockets was something we could do. The F1 engine was a marvel of engineering and performance

And frankly, that they could not do. The Soviet Moon Rocket failed over and over, in no small part because it relied on 30 moderate engines for launch, and there were always engine failures.

N1 (rocket) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thanks, good information. The small-rockets-led-to-miniaturization theory was popularized in a Ken Follett novel 20 or so years ago. Follett always has a political axe to grind; I trust your opinion over his.

Koralev, the Soviets' Von Braun, was (falsely) denounced by a rival and imprisoned during the Stalin era.

It's been speculated that the harsh treatment he received in the gulag contributed to his premature death decades later, and that had he lived, the N1 would have been a success.

 

[y_p_w]

I remember as a child seeing a big 2-page ad in one of the weekly news magazines, likely TIME/LIFE/LOOK, with a grainy B&W photo of an SST taking off. This would have been around late 1969.

It said something like "Faster Than The Speed Of Sound - The Best Passenger Plane Rubles Can Buy".

The ad was sponsored by a consortium of American aircraft manufacturers.

As it turned out, the TU-144 and the Concorde were not economically viable, and the US did well to stay out of that game.

I had a Japan Airlines Concorde toy. It was metal with wheels that worked. Not sure what was the deal with it, as I got it long after they had canceled their order. Can’t find anything on it. It had their traditional crane logo on the tail.

 

[2EHA]

Or, they have little regard for human life.

ussr bought space pens

 

[2EHA]

Yeah, I’m not sure how Sweden sells Gripens to Ukraine and retains neutral status.

you can’t operate these aircraft on a grand total of 5 airfields, taking off from poland opens next can of worms. moskali saving last cruise missiles just to spite fighter deal if it ever happens

then you have 24/7 mig-31 and ground launched kill zone that tore up our old pos planes. vsu has had no functioning air force since week 1

 

[edyvw]

No, they’re not in NATO yet because for several decades they declined membership to preserve their neutrality.

After 9-11, they joined the “Partnership for Peace” nations, a small group that wasn’t NATO but worked with NATO and had staff assigned to NATO commands.

Had they wished to join recently, it would’ve been fine.

After the invasion of Ukraine, they had a change of heart, and now, their membership is a political football.

I understand all that very well, but there is much more behind their “neutrality.” That issue dates back to Teheran and Yalta.

 

[edyvw]

I remember as a child seeing a big 2-page ad in one of the weekly news magazines, likely TIME/LIFE/LOOK, with a grainy B&W photo of an SST taking off. This would have been around late 1969.

It said something like "Faster Than The Speed Of Sound - The Best Passenger Plane Rubles Can Buy".

The ad was sponsored by a consortium of American aircraft manufacturers.

As it turned out, the TU-144 and the Concorde were not economically viable, and the US did well to stay out of that game.

TU144 was never about economics, but perception of power. I think it had 57 flights altogether and Aeroflot kept 6 on Sheremetyevo in case one brakes up. There was only one domestic route it served. It was abysmal product. Concord was actually good plane, regardless of economics. It was also need of Europeans to have something unique.
Lots of insecurity going on

 

[Number_35]

TU144 was never about economics, but perception of power. I think it had 57 flights altogether and Aeroflot kept 6 on Sheremetyevo in case one brakes up. There was only one domestic route it served. It was abysmal product. Concord was actually good plane, regardless of economics. It was also need of Europeans to have something unique.
Lots of insecurity going on

In fairness, the Concorde joint venture probably helped dampen the traditional French-Brit animosity, and the R&D experience and technical knowledge gained probably helped in other projects.

 

[john_pifer]

Let’s say someone DID supply Ukraine with jets (at least, jets that are more capable than what they currently have).

Dont those become Russia’s first and most important (both strategically and politically) targets?

Wouldnt Russia pull out all the stops to destroy those aircraft even at extremely high cost?

I assume IF someone were to provide these aircraft to Ukraine, it would not be a tremendous number of units. Perhaps 5-10 aircraft?

How would Ukraine protect them from missile attacks?

I understand that Ukraine has a lot of very advanced Russian-made SAMs. Are these capable of downing a cruise missile? I know our Patriots and (for example) Israel’s Iron Dome system is capable of this.

I Think most cruise missiles are just like very small aircraft, with little jet engines that deploy, so they dont go any faster than a jet aircraft, and certainly aren’t supersonic in the terminal phase, if im not mistaken.

Ballistic missiles are a different matter. But I don’t think anyone deploys non-nuke ballistic missiles, do they?

 

[edyvw]

Let’s say someone DID supply Ukraine with jets (at least, jets that are more capable than what they currently have).

Dont those become Russia’s first and most important (both strategically and politically) targets?

Wouldnt Russia pull out all the stops to destroy those aircraft even at extremely high cost?

I assume IF someone were to provide these aircraft to Ukraine, it would not be a tremendous number of units. Perhaps 5-10 aircraft?

How would Ukraine protect them from missile attacks?

I understand that Ukraine has a lot of very advanced Russian-made SAMs. Are these capable of downing a cruise missile? I know our Patriots and (for example) Israel’s Iron Dome system is capable of this.

I Think most cruise missiles are just like very small aircraft, with little jet engines that deploy, so they dont go any faster than a jet aircraft, and certainly aren’t supersonic in the terminal phase, if im not mistaken.

Ballistic missiles are a different matter. But I don’t think anyone deploys non-nuke ballistic missiles, do they?

They do have a lot of Russian system S300, TOR etc. They are extremely capable. However, they are already a year into the war. They used a lot, some destroyed, and some neglected in the last 30yrs. I think they got as much USSR SAM from NATO countries, many upgraded. But, they need desperately more now.
@Astro14 can talk definitely more about usability of aircrafts, but IMO, nothing would change in Russian posture. They are trying to destroy whatever UKR air forse is left as they are equipped now with Harpoon and JDAM’s. Not that Russians are not trying to do it now.

I think there is still hesitation about Russian reaction to it, but IMO, we crossed that bridge the moment they invaded UKR.

 

[mk378]

Anything that can draw russian missile fire away from civilians will be appreciated. If they had a few fighter jets I'd expect them to be in the air on patrol much of the time not sitting ducks on the ground.

 

[edyvw]

Anything that can draw russian missile fire away from civilians will be appreciated. If they had a few fighter jets I'd expect them to be in the air on patrol much of the time not sitting ducks on the ground.

They can’t spend time in the air. No one has air supremacy. Russians are firing missiles from TU95, 160, and submarines and ships. It is mostly out of their reach. Keeping them in the air, is exposing them Russian S400.