Cold War Aircraft Design
 

Spending the festive season re-reading some of Bill Gunston;'s books and was struck by the number of times one side would develop a type and then the other would immediately start building something similar.......

Why?

Was it :-

1. OMG we have to have the same as them just in case

2. OMG they've spotted a scenario/role that we missed

3. NOW those b******* in Red Square/Congress will listen to us

4. Wow! another opportunity to fill our factories in Long Beach/Kazan with something new and profitable..............

At the time of the Cold War I suspect that "Kazan" and "Profitable" were incompatible unless you are speaking of graft.

Imagegear

"profitable" in the sense of bigger dachas, more holidays, bigger medals, better Uni for your kids, and more workers of course

"graft" in the western sense was low as there was no cash in the system and no way of getting it out if there was

"oligarchs" only came in when Western bankers arrived in 1990-94 to explain the "benefits" of capitalism and bank accounts in S Ken....

Read Le Carre's "Single & Single".................

Or in the case of the Jaguar, here is our Mig 23, far superior in every way.

well the Su-24 fuselage looks like a straight lift from TSR-2 and then Tornado looks like a development of the Su-24

To some extent the B-1 covered the same spec the Tu-22

Like cars I guess - an awful lot of new cars look like the current Jag saloon............

Yes and no...

Su-24 and its precursor designs were a bit of a mixture of F-111 and TSR.2 inspiration (T-6-1 was a clipped delta with lift jets). However, they didn't bother with an internal weapons bay.

MiG-21 and Su-7/9/11 (Gen 2 in Russian terms) were tailed delta or highly swept trapezoid, neither of which caught on in the West.

The West used swing-wings on one big fighter (F-14), strike aircraft and the B-1. The Russians built two swing-wing tactical fighters (MiG-23/27 and Su-17/20/22) with single engines as part of their Gen3. And despite what the USAF wanted people to think, the Backfire was quite unlike the B-1, and the Tu-160 was quite different from the B-1B.

The West mostly stopped building new interceptors after 1958 with the exception of the Tornado F3. There was no equivalent of the Su-15, MiG-25 or MiG-31.

What I think did happen was that intelligence services on both sides were fond of mirror-imaging. Thus everyone assumed that the M-17 Mystic (RAM-M) was some kind of U-2 equivalent when in fact it was another interceptor.

I have the British Secret Projects books which are very interesting references (as, I'm sure are the Soviet, French and US versions (although I have the US Interceptors volume too)), both on a technical and political basis. You can see, through the development of the various manufacturers designs a norming of features and sizes. Capabilities and a lot of equipment being set by the Air Ministry.

There's no doubt that there was cross fertilisation and poo-pooing on all sides about design concepts and directions. In the UK, The types of aircraft developed were often led by Air Ministry, therefore much was based around an assessment of a specific type of threat or a specific way of fighting. I guess a lot of the people on here know that only too well. There were also a few privately funded projects with some of the most interesting coming out of Kingston (SABA and X-wing/twin Boom PCB VTOL).

For a long time, I really do think it was a race for each side to be a bit better. In later years I think that there was a strategy to bankrupt the USSR, and some of that strategy must have been reflected in aerospace projects. Problem is, I think we managed to do this to ourselves too!

1, and 2. In the "game" of strategic brinksmanship, parity is everything.

The notable thing about intercontinental ballistic nuclear armed missiles is that that's effectively it; there is nothing more potent than that, especially if sub launched (though chemical weapons are a big worry too). So once both sides have a lot of those, that's an end to development through fear.

Everything else (aircraft, etc) is just in case some other dispute brews up elsewhere, and / or keeping the chaps busy and out of trouble. The politicians are less keen on funding things like that.

There is a 5th component; being seen to be keeping up with the Jones'. If a dictatorial government wants to steady it's own internal politics with talk of strong leadership, there's no better way of doing that than building a lot of things that look impressive in or over or bobbing in the water alongside a parade. The louder / bigger / greyer the better. The alternative, being seen to be militarily impotent, is unbelievably risky for a tough talking dictatorship. Most dictatorships are full-time scared ****-less of their own populations.

The tricky thing is that ultimately a dictatorship might be forced into doing something rash by it's own internal politics; hence Falklands '82, Gulf Wars 1 (Iraq/Iran) and 2 (Iraq / rest of the world). Let's hope the ratcheting up of tension in the Far East doesn't get out of hand.

The other notable thing about a dictatorship's view of its own military capability is that it's perfect ground for a conspiracy of optimism to develop. It's highly likely that the guys at the top think that they've got more military capability than they actually have. I mean, who is going to volunteer to tell them that it's all junky old rubbish? How are they supposed to find out for themselves? What dictator gets an external auditor in to check?! Worst case is there's some dangerous social engineering going on. The guys at the bottom egg on the guys at the top, giving them a sense of "invincibility". The guys at the top start a war they think they can win, but actually get done in by the USA / whoever. The guys at the bottom get a change of leadership. Result.

When a conflict is started, deliberate non-involvement on the part of everyone else is not really an option. So everyone else is still kinda forced to maintain superiority just in case a situation becomes dangerous (e.g. Gulf War 2, Iraq vs. Rest of World). The attraction of massive technical superiority is that it feels "cheaper" (lots of swatting power for less manpower).

Though "superiority" is less clear cut these days; a lot of the technology is now readily accessible to, well, almost anyone. Want a cruise missile? An amateur can build one in their garden shed these days.

"MiG-21 and Su-7/9/11 (Gen 2 in Russian terms) were tailed delta or highly swept trapezoid, neither of which caught on in the West."

Mirage III did Ok................

"The West mostly stopped building new interceptors after 1958 with the exception of the Tornado F3. There was no equivalent of the Su-15, MiG-25 or MiG-31. "

F-14, F-15, F-16, F-22, Mirage 2000, Typhoon, Rafael, Viggen..................... all post date 1958 by a long time

HH - Those were mostly multi-role, although I'll grant the Tomcat (I wasn't thinking Navy). Even the early F-15 and the F-22 were air-superiority rather than bomber-destroyers.

And the MIII was a pure, not tailed, delta, a configuration the Sovs hardly even tested.

E.g, if you want to lift X,000lb/kg of weapons from a short / rough strip using 1970s technology, you’re going to end up with swing wings.

Unless you're Swedish.

Certain developments East vs West followed Newton's Third Law, e.g.

US develops Mach 3-capable XB-70 Valkyrie bomber
USSR develops MiG-25 to intercept it
US develops F-15 partly as a response to the MiG 25

But 'form follows function' is an important maxim; the Tornado (GR variants) are an optimised shape for low-level penetration, whereas the F-15, MiG-29 etc. have a shape and especially wing optimised for air-to-air combat.

I didn't know the Jaguar had an excess of thrust....


Vastly different intended roles between the MiG-23 and the Jaguar I'm afraid...I'm not defending the MiG-23 but it was a point based interceptor designed to go fast and straight- the Jaguar was a light attack aircraft. Jaguar vs. MiG-27 is perhaps a better comparison.

George - I think you'll find that almost all the aircraft listed were originally billed as "interceptors" - they only started to talk about hanging iron on them later - or when they decided to sell them overseas (hence no F22 Strike version...)

Sandiego - remember the British wanted a supersonic TRAINER when they started the Jaguar programme........

Salute!

@Harry

I agree with George. Most post-50's USAF and USN and USMC planes were not envisioned as pure defensive interceptors, even the F-14 ( it was also supposed to provide air superiority for missions besides protecting the carrier task force).

The F-15 was a pure air superiority design to meet the operational requirements and doctrine of the times, Sure, it was a great interceptor, but it's main misison was to guarantee air superiority over the battle field - Europe!!! The F-16 started out as a supplement, but evolved into a multi-role bird. The F-4 also started out as an air superiority bird, but quickly evolved to multi-mission. Oh yeah, the A-10. A point design to assist the attack helos and bust tanks pouring thru the Fulda Gap.

We need some "PACT" vets here to add to my own personal background of those times. SO I flew the pure interceptors ( defense of the homeland), dedicated ground attack types for a few combat tours, and then the multi-role Viper (an excellent point defense interceptor, BTW).

From what I saw, the U.S. did not follow the PACT designs. And the Eagle was not developed to intercept Foxbats. The B-70, then the Bone were supposed to be way out there with zero fighter escort. Times had changed since raids on ball bearing plants. I noticed the similarity of the Fencer to the 'vaark, as the PACT started to develope some ofensive capability with their planes besides the PVO Strany planes like the Fishbed, Flanker and then Fulcrum.

Biggest design consideration was "form vs function" and operational/doctrinal requirements.

Good thread, and I might invite some fellow vets of those years to contribute.

Gums opines...

On a point of order - the Air Ministry ceased to exist in 1964, well before many of the projects you refer to were defined.

Well I'm not going to disagree with that - it was one of our sadder days when we anbandonned the P.1216 three-nozzle supersonic ASTOVL family at the behest of the septics. A friend of mine (Dr Mike Pryce) wrote quite a good (if a bit short) after completing his PhD research on the histoiry of VSTOL projects, and there were still vestiges of it kicking around the front office block and experimental hangar at Kingston when it closed in the early 90s.

I've also felt it ironic that SABA (P1233/n) was formally abandonned in mid 1990 with the announcement that "as the likelyhood of any significant tank warfare is very low for the forseeable future there is no requirement for such a dedicated anti-armor platform". It was only a matter of months after that that the Army found itself in the middle of the biggest tank war isnce el alamein (and again ten years after that).

SABA would never have been available for GW1, but it would have been an extremely useful platform had it been available for GW2. It would also have been one heck of a fun aeroplane - the size and weigh of a sea fury but with over double the power delivered via an large unducted fan for low-speed brute grunt and a long straight wing with nine pylons, right on the CG.

In fact that canard-pusher config for a dedicated CAS/anti-armor aeroplane wasn't as novel as some had suggested, because it's pretty similar to the Boulton-Paul P.100 proposal for precisely this role in 1942!

PDR

There were no attempts by anybody else to build anything even vaguely similar to the excellent and very successful Buccaneer.

The USN had their Skywarriors, Skyhawks, A-7's, Vigilante's & Intruders which more than covered the Buccaneer role TBH...

I would call the A-6 "similar" to the Buccaneer in several aspects, and actually quite close in size, performance, weights... . As going down the "best" debate always seems to go in circles, I think it best to say both were successful and capable.

Well I should have been a bit more concise - I was not talking about size/weights - more about the fairly uniquely high wing-loading (for high speed low level performance) and BLC control (landing take-performance). Most contemporary BLC designs with high wing loading were interceptors (eg Starfighter). I would say the A-5 was probably closest in that it was as it was a carrier-based nuclear strike aircraft with blown flaps - but a totally different delta wing. Sovbloc experimented with BLC but only for interceptors. The A-6 was similar size and layout as the Bucc but not a particularly adventurous design. Anyway, the Bucc was brilliant and I am not having anything else compared to it:-)