It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Western Fighters Versus Eastern Fighters debate. Lets try something different.

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 09:33 AM
link   
For probably as long as there has been an aircraft forum on ATS, people have started up thread after thread, and debate after debate on which aircraft and scenario can win in the East versus West fighter aircraft debate. But one thing I think is lacking in this argument is the hypothetical equipment hybrid. Let me put forward the following ideas.

Recently in a related thread I explained that a few years back there was a Russian proposal to offer westernised versions of the Flanker family(including loaned prototype demonstrators), eg: the Su 30 and Su34 for the Royal Australian Air Force's replacement fighter project. This would have seen western (presumably US F-100, F-110 series, or at a stretch F-119) engines and radar ( again presumably APG-77, 79 or 81) along with combat management systems and FCS also sourced from US or European suppliers. Of course in the real world there was no way the RAAF (or the US) was going to go for this so the idea died.

But it makes for an interesting scenario and one who's potential is worth exploring. So my challenge to you all is to "build" and discuss hybrid versions of not just westernised versions of the Flanker family (or the MIG-29 or 31) but to also come up with any practical "Easternised" western aircraft, where such modification could improve or at least offer a simillar performance alternative, perhaps at less cost, on the baseline design. Could for example a Russian sourced IRST benefit an F-15C or thrust vectoring engine improve the performance of a Super Hornet? And lastly how would they stack up against their basline design contemporaries?

Guys and gals, I can smell a good old fashioned debate brewing, lets have some fun.

LEE.




posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Boze,

I have been away for quite some time, but I have checked in to the forums now and again.... and man, I will tell you that this is a great idea. Never gonna really be a possibility but it is a great thread topic. So many great airframes out there, but the real difference in today's combat envelope is the equipment that supports that airframe, such as radars, situational awareness systems, integrated battle systems, etc.. Again, great thread!!!!

Maybe the day will come where every system is modulated from a contracted private company that will enable the best systems to be put on the best airframes, but man do I hope that we in the U.S. are at the forefront at that time as well


Peace to you all.......props to you Boze!!!

Later, Mondo



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 11:10 AM
link   
This is not about fighters, but perhaps a field where 'cross-kitting' might be useful.

One area of German WWII research that has never been successfully pursued by the west is the field of high power turboprops. The Russians did master them producing the engines for the 'Bear' and the large engines for their helicopters all stemming from that German research.

For many years the Bear was very underrated in the West, because the West could just not believe that those engines produced the power that they did - Boeing tried with their projected XB-55 with four Allison T40 engines (5,600 eshp each), but at less than half the power output of the Russian engines could not even come close to the actual performance of the Bear.

So perhaps a western designed helicopter with Russian designed high power engines and transmissions, might be an overall advance.

The Winged Wombat



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 12:27 PM
link   
With access to both sides, there are a few things that I would do.

First of all, I would upgrade the B-1 Lancer with AL-41F engines. It needs new engines and those serve the purpose perfectly.

For the hornet, I would extend the trailing edge well back into the fuselage, making its wings somewhere between SU-27 and delta level. I would enlarge the tailplanes by 150% and boost the hydraulics there. I would lose the current engines, slap some F-100 or even F-119s in there. Keep the radar and avionics, its good. Bubble canopy would be nice as well.

I would take the MiG-29...wow where to begin. There is a lot I want to do with this one. First, I would thin the skin. As much as possible while keeping it relitively resistant to heat. Remove the two engines it has and add a thrust vectoring F-135 minus the lift fan of course. Lose its radar...some sort of phased array. I would get rid of the tailplanes all together personally, replace them with thrust veins from the engine in the top and bottom of the fuselage.

Thats all for now...its early I will add more later.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Not to rain on anyones parade but people need to consider the dimensions and weight of the radar and engines they are mentioning. The size of the F-135 and to a lesser extent the F-119 is huge. But otherwise good thread.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   
One thing that would appear obvious to me...


2 F414s into a MiG-29/35/OVT airframe.


Fixes the smokey engines, and gives you a much easier to maintain, lower fuel consumption, more powerful engine.


Heck... the US Navy should look at getting some 29Ks and sticking 414s in them




Also, you'd obviously look at integrating alot of the American avionics onto it.



Basically the MiG-29s airframe + the 'Super' Hornet's engines, avionics, radar etc.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 07:39 PM
link   
This thread reminds me of the time in my youth when my friends and I dropped a Chrysler engine into a Ford and thought we had
Detroit figured out.

Aircraft are part a a weapons SYSTEM that include componants of many different subsystems, sources, and a supply chain to keep the aircraft flying, as well as a overall plan as to how that aircraft fits into a bigger scheme of offensive / defensive warfare.

Oh, yeah. 4 SR-71 high bypass turbofans in a B-1!



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
One thing that would appear obvious to me...


2 F414s into a MiG-29/35/OVT airframe.


Fixes the smokey engines, and gives you a much easier to maintain, lower fuel consumption, more powerful engine.




But I thought the MiG-35 and even the MiG-29K(Naval) had RD-33MK engines that had successfully addressed the smokey engine problem?



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
But I thought the MiG-35 and even the MiG-29K(Naval) had RD-33MK engines that had successfully addressed the smokey engine problem?



Erm.... yeah.


According to MiGs PR people



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 05:46 AM
link   
This isn't really in the spriti of the east west merger theme that Lee suggested but as for a fantasy modification of a plane I am curiously drawn towards imagining a modern day Lancaster bomber style conversion in which a Concorde is modified with a bomb bay stuffed with ALCM's and fitted with nose and tail turrets equipped with the sort of solid state lasers envisaged for later versions of the F-35 (ie as in the Boeing AL-1 but scaled down in size) which are aimed by 'gunners' wearing helmet mounted sights.

The whole thing is mental =, but as I said, strangely appealing to me



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Heh.

What about a Flanker (I do not know all the designations) with F-22 radar and F119? The F119 sopposidly has twice the supersonic thrust as previous generation engines, so I wonder if this would enable the Sukhoi a supercruise?



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23 people need to consider the dimensions and weight of the radar and engines they are mentioning. The size of the F-135 and to a lesser extent the F-119 is huge.
Yeah my thoughts to Westy. Just remember guys that anything in the F100, 110, 119 and 135/136 size will not fit the MIG-29. They may however fit relatively easy into the intake duct and engine bay area of the SU-27 family(certainly the F-100/110 should) and there should be no problems with the MIG-31 Foxhound. Just remember that in many cases there will need to be modified or new engine mounts, intake duct modifications for differing mass flow requirements, including for some plug extensions, and often reballasting for different engine weights and CofG. The same goes in reverse, you wont fit an AL-41F in a Super Hornet but you may shoehorn in an RD-33. All of this also applies to the radar as well. Within reason if you want to fit a radar array that is a little bigger than the original dimension this is possible( older readers may remember back in the early 80's GD produced an F-16 with an enlarged mockup nose to house the FA-18's APG-68) but dont try and cram a set from the MIG-31 onto say a Typhoon, trust me people it wont fit!


Originally posted by waynosThis isn't really in the spriti of the east west merger theme that Lee suggested..
But you couldnt resist could you?


Again with the bloody Lancaster waynos. Anyone would think that they were one of the greatest millitary aircraft ever produced the way you wax lyrical about them. What with there huge bomb bay, legendary versatility and...... Oh yeah, s'pose they're pretty good. As for Concorde's with turrets, as long as they are the pop up type that can also shoot missiles sideways along two different directions simultaneously, you are onto a winner
. Actually its a neat idea and would be very difficult to intercept.

Keep up the good work guys and keep those ideas flowing. I have a factory in China thats just itching to start work. (Oopps I said that with my external voice..... Oh well)

LEE.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316

Originally posted by Daedalus3
But I thought the MiG-35 and even the MiG-29K(Naval) had RD-33MK engines that had successfully addressed the smokey engine problem?



Erm.... yeah.


According to MiGs PR people


hmmm..
well I didn't see any smoke at Aero India 07 and I didnt see any at the MiG29KUB test flight either..



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
hmmm..
well I didn't see any smoke at Aero India 07 and I didnt see any at the MiG29KUB test flight either..


I seen smoke trails in one of the videos for the OVT, and figured, "if thats what they are using as PR"...


But, hey, it could have been bad fuel or something - its just I wouldn't expect to see it in a PR video if they had said they'd fixed the problem.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   
MiG-35 comes with AESA as well



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Correct Harlequin, the Mig-35 is fitted with the Phazatron Zhuk AE active phased array radar. This is comparable technically with the APG-79 of the Super Hornet. Although I suspect that the APG-79 has better developed radar modes currently, this doesnt mean that th Zhuk AE is far behind or cannot catch up, hell you could even stick it on an early model Super Hornet or the "classics" and get a better gain than the early models with the APG-73.

As a side issue does anyone have a table of engine and or radar dimensions to illustrate what will or won't fit into a candidate airframe. No sense in coming up with a great combintion to discover it don't fit!


LEE.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   
I do like the `Fulcrum` - and especially that the russians listened to the germans when they tested the `A` model and corrected all of the faults (radar, lack of fuel, combat range and smokey engines) and improved on the good points (hotas, helmet system, data link etc) so here we have the `ultimate` fulcrum - the MiG-35.

i do honestly see it as a match for the super hornet - the 2 are very very close in the roles they perform - and something i heard in wvr they look very similar as well.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
I do honestly see it as a match for the super hornet - the 2 are very very close in the rIoles they perform - and something i heard in wvr they look very similar as well.



Without supporting systems, its probably more than a match for any Hornet... "super" or otherwise.


I didn't realise the MiG-35 came with AESA (I thought it was PESA - whoops).

Defense-Update



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by thebozeian
This is comparable technically with the APG-79 of the Super Hornet.


If I may ask from what do you base that view on? Mind you the AESA of the Mig has not demonstrated some of the multi function capabilities of the APG-79. Nor do we know how it stacks up in raw performance specifications. And it is after all essentially a fist generation fighter AESA (for the Russians).



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 03:08 AM
link   
westy , just because they haven`t shown on the `discovery channel` what this radar can do doesn`t mean it can`t do it - its allready been declared track and scan , hi res wvr mode , A2G mode (destroyer sized target at 200km) etc - so i think it might well do everything the us systems can do.

each tranceiever has an operating output of 5watts (declared)

and how do you know (or is it an assumption again) that its a `first generation aesa` for the russians...



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join