A discussion in the same vein as the various WW2 sanity options. So within reason technologically and plausability wise, how could the soviets have improved their aircraft, aquisition and planning during the Cold War? Me i tend to stick s closely as reasonably plausibe to most OTL designs but tweak them in the areas they lack. I'll post my ideas later on as is late night here, but would love to hear from others meanwhile.
Soviet Air Force cold war sanity options
- Thread starter mack8
- Start date
I don't think there was anything bad with the Soviet aircraft acquisition planning or production, certainly you could have improved a few things here and there but the big picture wouldn't have changed at all during the mid period of the Cold War.
Perhaps a different decision in regards to the La-15 or La-178? Instead of focusing on mass producing the MiG 15 from the get go maybe Mikoyan focuses on improving the MiG 15 to reach something like the MiG 17 or a MiG 19 like aircraft with a single engine (I-370), eventually culminating into the SM-12 (but with a single engine) or the Shenyang J-6?
While this is going on, the La-15 with the smaller RD-500 engine is pushed into the frontline fighter role while the bigger La-178 (VK-1) is pushed into the interceptor role (as it could carry the powerful 37 mm) The La-15 will prove to be the bane of the Sabre during the Korean War as it is a much smaller and more maneuverable fighter, though, the rough airfield conditions will prove to be a problem with the narrow undercarriage like on the Bf 109 and Spitfire, afterwards, the MiG 17 enters production in 1951-52 and sees a bit of combat. (Perhaps using more ammunition than on the OTL aircrafts, more ammo could never be a bad idea, perhaps as an answer to the 600 rounds on the Hunter?)
The Su-7 is built from the beginning with a variable wing (as it was tested in wind tunnels) as a fighter-bomber instead of an interceptor, which the MiG 21 will take the role.
The MiG 21 development will probably be the most radical one, or rather, the improvement upon the design down the line in the form of a MiG Ye-8 (with a working R-21 engine - that killed the project) and with the MiG 21 Analog Experimental wing for greater maneuverability, flight characteristics and low speed performance.
There are so many projects and prototypes the Soviets designed and built that it is actually hard to find the most optimal path, but killing the MiG 23 and Su-15 could only improve the performance of Soviet aircrafts. The Su-15 could end up being turned into a hodgepodge between the Su-15-30 (MiG 25 nose and intake) and the Su-19 wing getting a proto Su-27 earlier (as the ogive wing on the TTL Ye-8 aircraft would make Sukhoi to consider it sooner) and the MiG 25 being built with fly-by-wire as was tested on several experimental aircrafts by that point.
Afterwards just continue to improve upon the TTL Su-15, MiG 25 and MiG Ye 8 (being TTL MiG 23)? With no need for the Su-27 or the MiG 29, they could instead focus on building a more capable aircraft as successors than either the OTL Su-27 or MiG 29, perhaps half digitalized, fly-by-wire, multirole aircrafts with the Yak 141 taking the lead on the modern interceptor and carrier fighter. (Originally there was an attempt at making a better MiG 29, the 9.15 built as the MiG 29M but due to financial problems the mass production never materialized and whatever MiG 29M, SM etc appeared later was still based on the 9.13 airframe.)
Perhaps a different decision in regards to the La-15 or La-178? Instead of focusing on mass producing the MiG 15 from the get go maybe Mikoyan focuses on improving the MiG 15 to reach something like the MiG 17 or a MiG 19 like aircraft with a single engine (I-370), eventually culminating into the SM-12 (but with a single engine) or the Shenyang J-6?
While this is going on, the La-15 with the smaller RD-500 engine is pushed into the frontline fighter role while the bigger La-178 (VK-1) is pushed into the interceptor role (as it could carry the powerful 37 mm) The La-15 will prove to be the bane of the Sabre during the Korean War as it is a much smaller and more maneuverable fighter, though, the rough airfield conditions will prove to be a problem with the narrow undercarriage like on the Bf 109 and Spitfire, afterwards, the MiG 17 enters production in 1951-52 and sees a bit of combat. (Perhaps using more ammunition than on the OTL aircrafts, more ammo could never be a bad idea, perhaps as an answer to the 600 rounds on the Hunter?)
The Su-7 is built from the beginning with a variable wing (as it was tested in wind tunnels) as a fighter-bomber instead of an interceptor, which the MiG 21 will take the role.
The MiG 21 development will probably be the most radical one, or rather, the improvement upon the design down the line in the form of a MiG Ye-8 (with a working R-21 engine - that killed the project) and with the MiG 21 Analog Experimental wing for greater maneuverability, flight characteristics and low speed performance.
There are so many projects and prototypes the Soviets designed and built that it is actually hard to find the most optimal path, but killing the MiG 23 and Su-15 could only improve the performance of Soviet aircrafts. The Su-15 could end up being turned into a hodgepodge between the Su-15-30 (MiG 25 nose and intake) and the Su-19 wing getting a proto Su-27 earlier (as the ogive wing on the TTL Ye-8 aircraft would make Sukhoi to consider it sooner) and the MiG 25 being built with fly-by-wire as was tested on several experimental aircrafts by that point.
Afterwards just continue to improve upon the TTL Su-15, MiG 25 and MiG Ye 8 (being TTL MiG 23)? With no need for the Su-27 or the MiG 29, they could instead focus on building a more capable aircraft as successors than either the OTL Su-27 or MiG 29, perhaps half digitalized, fly-by-wire, multirole aircrafts with the Yak 141 taking the lead on the modern interceptor and carrier fighter. (Originally there was an attempt at making a better MiG 29, the 9.15 built as the MiG 29M but due to financial problems the mass production never materialized and whatever MiG 29M, SM etc appeared later was still based on the 9.13 airframe.)
Indeed there are many opinions of what can be done differently. Me prefering to stick close to OTL developments, i'll adress some ideas in no particular order.
Su-24 development should have been focused on the VG variant from the start. So that means the T-6 prototype flies with VG wings already in 1967, and subsequent prototypes are brought forward. That might save perhaps 2 years of development, so it enters service in 1972 instead of 1974. Most importantly, from the late seventies at least it should be exported to anyone willing to pay, thus bringing more money to USSR. It will be a formidable bomb truck and be used in the Iraq- Iran war as well as Syria-Israel clashes etc.
MiG-23 should be the same as above, ie don't waste time with the useless lift engine MiG-23PD variant. So that means more design resources focused on sorting out the MiG-23 issues earlier. Also very importantly, don't export such a monkey model as MiG-23MS that damaged the credibility of soviet weapons. The need for secrecy is understandable, but the export MiG-23 needs to have at least a major advance to make it worthwhile ie longer range radar and BVR missiles. So the export MS should have a downgraded S-23E radar based on the early S-23L model, without LD/SD capability if necessary, and downgraded but still BVR R-23 missiles.
Su-27 could also greatly benefit from having the useless T-4 project cancelled (certainly no prototype should be built) and all freed resourced diverted to it. Also the project needs to be accelerated since the F-15 flew in 1972 and in service in 1976. Even if the Su-27 can fly a year earlier in 1976 and entered limited service in 1980-81 in an initial variant would be a great advance, but they also need to avoid the costly redesign, ironically they have looked initially at many of the features of the future T-10S, ie the widely spaced fins, dorsal airbrake, LE flaps etc. So if the T-10 prototype is closer to the T-10S as eventually built it would be a step forward, the redesign won't have to be so extensive and time-consuming. Lyulka would have to also step up his game and get the engine ready sooner, as i understand considerable time was lost trying to build an engine similar to the F-100 and abandoning the initial configuration proposed, only to more or less return to the initial configuration but with some features from the RD-33. Then the T-10S would fly in 1980 and enter service in 1984.
Again, critical to offer the Su-27 for export as soon as ready, say from 1985 so that as much money can be made as possible.
Also, the new generation MiG-29/31, Su-27, Su-24 should all have IFR systems from the start, and perhaps some of the older MiG-23, Su-17, Su-15, MiG-25 etc. should be retrofitted with IFR systems. Cettainly IFR system would be appreciated by the iraqis during the Iran-Iraq war, among others.
Su-24 development should have been focused on the VG variant from the start. So that means the T-6 prototype flies with VG wings already in 1967, and subsequent prototypes are brought forward. That might save perhaps 2 years of development, so it enters service in 1972 instead of 1974. Most importantly, from the late seventies at least it should be exported to anyone willing to pay, thus bringing more money to USSR. It will be a formidable bomb truck and be used in the Iraq- Iran war as well as Syria-Israel clashes etc.
MiG-23 should be the same as above, ie don't waste time with the useless lift engine MiG-23PD variant. So that means more design resources focused on sorting out the MiG-23 issues earlier. Also very importantly, don't export such a monkey model as MiG-23MS that damaged the credibility of soviet weapons. The need for secrecy is understandable, but the export MiG-23 needs to have at least a major advance to make it worthwhile ie longer range radar and BVR missiles. So the export MS should have a downgraded S-23E radar based on the early S-23L model, without LD/SD capability if necessary, and downgraded but still BVR R-23 missiles.
Su-27 could also greatly benefit from having the useless T-4 project cancelled (certainly no prototype should be built) and all freed resourced diverted to it. Also the project needs to be accelerated since the F-15 flew in 1972 and in service in 1976. Even if the Su-27 can fly a year earlier in 1976 and entered limited service in 1980-81 in an initial variant would be a great advance, but they also need to avoid the costly redesign, ironically they have looked initially at many of the features of the future T-10S, ie the widely spaced fins, dorsal airbrake, LE flaps etc. So if the T-10 prototype is closer to the T-10S as eventually built it would be a step forward, the redesign won't have to be so extensive and time-consuming. Lyulka would have to also step up his game and get the engine ready sooner, as i understand considerable time was lost trying to build an engine similar to the F-100 and abandoning the initial configuration proposed, only to more or less return to the initial configuration but with some features from the RD-33. Then the T-10S would fly in 1980 and enter service in 1984.
Again, critical to offer the Su-27 for export as soon as ready, say from 1985 so that as much money can be made as possible.
Also, the new generation MiG-29/31, Su-27, Su-24 should all have IFR systems from the start, and perhaps some of the older MiG-23, Su-17, Su-15, MiG-25 etc. should be retrofitted with IFR systems. Cettainly IFR system would be appreciated by the iraqis during the Iran-Iraq war, among others.
Last edited:
A few words about the MiG-29. Wouldn't change much about it except eliminating the louvres so that more fuel can be carried, an extra 900 litres, improving the range which was too short. Intake grills would suffice, like Su-27 or MiG-29M had. Other than that, IFR like suggested above.
And we get to the Yak-38, which was one of the most useless aircraft ever built imo. Kill it with fire (certainly shouln't be more than a research program, paving the way to the much more capable Yak-41), instead build about 200 MiG-23Ks to fly from the Kievs, which should be built from the start with a ski-jump like Vikramaditya. It's hindsight, but all the technological bricks are there, apparently ski-jump were proposed as early as 1952 by the americans. There must have been some research paper mentioning it that the soviets could get to read?
Getting further back in time, the MiG-15/17 would be better off with a single calibre armament, either 3x 23mm with increased ammo, or 4x 23mm but more or less same rpg, still not quite sure which is better. MiG-19 was fine on that regard with 2-3x 30mm depending on variant.
Then the MiG-21 should at least keep 2x30mm for all the F variants, while the P models should be fitted with the new GSh-23L with perhaps 200 rpg, thus correcting the P model's crippling flaw, the lack of a gun. Then in it's heyday in the sixties and seventies the MiG-21P variants would be an even more formidable opponent in Vietnam and ME, getting more kills due to having a gun.
And we get to the Yak-38, which was one of the most useless aircraft ever built imo. Kill it with fire (certainly shouln't be more than a research program, paving the way to the much more capable Yak-41), instead build about 200 MiG-23Ks to fly from the Kievs, which should be built from the start with a ski-jump like Vikramaditya. It's hindsight, but all the technological bricks are there, apparently ski-jump were proposed as early as 1952 by the americans. There must have been some research paper mentioning it that the soviets could get to read?
Getting further back in time, the MiG-15/17 would be better off with a single calibre armament, either 3x 23mm with increased ammo, or 4x 23mm but more or less same rpg, still not quite sure which is better. MiG-19 was fine on that regard with 2-3x 30mm depending on variant.
Then the MiG-21 should at least keep 2x30mm for all the F variants, while the P models should be fitted with the new GSh-23L with perhaps 200 rpg, thus correcting the P model's crippling flaw, the lack of a gun. Then in it's heyday in the sixties and seventies the MiG-21P variants would be an even more formidable opponent in Vietnam and ME, getting more kills due to having a gun.
Can I play, can I? 
MiG-21, for 2nd half of the 1960s, should've been turned into something with a better intake (for a more capable radar, and high AoA suitability), while the wing will need to gain the 'kink' and Fowler flaps for better low-speed handling. Alternatively, have the Ye-8 be developed around the off-the-shelf engines.
MiG-23 - keep it simple. I'd suggest that the alternative to it look like the 'half of the MiG-25' (but with 1-engine), or a big Mirage F1. No 'monkey models' for export indeed.
MiG-29/Su-27: copy the Americans blindly. Two designs need to be designed around a same engine (while having the alternative engine type on the back burner - again same as the Americans are doing) - one 1-engined, another 2-engined.
AA missiles: the earlier an all-aspect IR missile is made, the better. Use the guidance system concept from the SA-9 for all I care to speed up the process.
MiG-21, for 2nd half of the 1960s, should've been turned into something with a better intake (for a more capable radar, and high AoA suitability), while the wing will need to gain the 'kink' and Fowler flaps for better low-speed handling. Alternatively, have the Ye-8 be developed around the off-the-shelf engines.
MiG-23 - keep it simple. I'd suggest that the alternative to it look like the 'half of the MiG-25' (but with 1-engine), or a big Mirage F1. No 'monkey models' for export indeed.
MiG-29/Su-27: copy the Americans blindly. Two designs need to be designed around a same engine (while having the alternative engine type on the back burner - again same as the Americans are doing) - one 1-engined, another 2-engined.
AA missiles: the earlier an all-aspect IR missile is made, the better. Use the guidance system concept from the SA-9 for all I care to speed up the process.
Only one thing I would add, is that judging the effectiveness of Soviet aircraft by their performance in the export market is very misleading
Even if the best variant of MiG 23 or SU 27 was available by the mid 70s or mid 80s respectively, I doubt they would have done much better in the export market. Like a fish out of water they would have been slaughtered without appropriate IADS.
In defense of MiG-23Ms let me remind readers that they shot down F4s in both Israeli and Iranian service. Along with F-5E
A refit for older Soviet interceptors and fighters involving better IR missiles should have been initiated much sooner than OTL.
Other thing is bigger & older SAMs that would geared towards interception of high altitude bumpers should have been repurposed for low level work sooner this would greatly help shoulder the burden from their fighters
No mig-27 and no su-25 should have been built. For the former SU 24 is already entering Service and SU 17 is sufficient for CAS role. For latter there is no need for a su-25 in a nuclear war if it’s made just make it exclusively for exports
A sanitized Su-15 version should have been cleared for export s by early 70s, it can take on second & third gen western fighters
On a doctrinal level, I think Soviet fighters should have been deployed only over their homeland, even the ones of VVS. With the technology available to them they are wholly insuitable for conducting long range fighter sweeps. Nor are they suitable for providing escort for Soviet tactical attack aircraft.
Even if the best variant of MiG 23 or SU 27 was available by the mid 70s or mid 80s respectively, I doubt they would have done much better in the export market. Like a fish out of water they would have been slaughtered without appropriate IADS.
In defense of MiG-23Ms let me remind readers that they shot down F4s in both Israeli and Iranian service. Along with F-5E
A refit for older Soviet interceptors and fighters involving better IR missiles should have been initiated much sooner than OTL.
Other thing is bigger & older SAMs that would geared towards interception of high altitude bumpers should have been repurposed for low level work sooner this would greatly help shoulder the burden from their fighters
No mig-27 and no su-25 should have been built. For the former SU 24 is already entering Service and SU 17 is sufficient for CAS role. For latter there is no need for a su-25 in a nuclear war if it’s made just make it exclusively for exports
A sanitized Su-15 version should have been cleared for export s by early 70s, it can take on second & third gen western fighters
On a doctrinal level, I think Soviet fighters should have been deployed only over their homeland, even the ones of VVS. With the technology available to them they are wholly insuitable for conducting long range fighter sweeps. Nor are they suitable for providing escort for Soviet tactical attack aircraft.
Last edited:
Yes indeed. The aircraft is just a part of the system.
How good was the kill ratio vs. the F4s?
Any worth in a Su-7 with a good fixed wing?
Double the price of ownership and use of a MiG-23 with a fixed wing might've been ... off putting for many perspective users. Ditto for the requirement for long paved runaways.
Thus providing the NATO fighters with free shots?
Oh yes, absolutely.Can I play, can I?
MiG-21, for 2nd half of the 1960s, should've been turned into something with a better intake (for a more capable radar, and high AoA suitability), while the wing will need to gain the 'kink' and Fowler flaps for better low-speed handling. Alternatively, have the Ye-8 be developed around the off-the-shelf engines.
MiG-23 - keep it simple. I'd suggest that the alternative to it look like the 'half of the MiG-25' (but with 1-engine), or a big Mirage F1. No 'monkey models' for export indeed.
MiG-29/Su-27: copy the Americans blindly. Two designs need to be designed around a same engine (while having the alternative engine type on the back burner - again same as the Americans are doing) - one 1-engined, another 2-engined.
AA missiles: the earlier an all-aspect IR missile is made, the better. Use the guidance system concept from the SA-9 for all I care to speed up the process.
Like i said earlier, i don't tend to wander far off OTL design, but a baby MiG-25 as a MiG-23 alternative sounds very interesting.
As to a single engine MiG-29, i tried to imagine how it would look like (some art from the net is subpar imo, and i don't really like the Izdeliye 33, too close to F-16 for me), the best i could come with was the concept of the later Sukhoi S-56 (without canards) but with a MiG-29 look so to say, and coupled with the Ye-8 or Izd. 33 style intake so the front gear is mounted under it. So it still has two fins so it looks cool, as well as better cockpit visibility. Unfortunately, i can't draw this stuff on the computer (in my younger years i used to draw by hand fairly accurate looking planes).
There is still the issue of the engine, Lyulka spent far too much time on the AL-31, so i don't know, maybe RD-33 is created as a bigger 12,500 kgf engine from the start?
Last edited:
The sole purpose of the RD-33 was to power the MiG-29. So with the alternative -29 being a 1-engined design, indeed the Isotov company should go with a ~1500 kg engine instead of a 1055 kg type, with Saturn making a follow-up (much like USAF was eager to have two engine types for the F-15 and -16, lest the original supplier grows complacent).
The prototypes (both 1-engined and 2-engined) can even fly with the AL-21, much like the Sukhoi T-10 did in the 1970s.
I have no problems with the not-29 looking like a big F-20.
Yes, a rebuild with a solid nose & side inlets looks obvious? Like the modern PRC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guizhou_JL-9#Specifications_(FTC-2000)
It could be a cheap fighter/advanced trainer as well for the export world, especially as for example numerous communist nations as well as India had a huge number of Mig21s in service that it could replace?
Thinking more on this, what about looking at Viggen (or Su30/Su34 but fixed) style canards, to keep the Mig 21 delta wings and rear and centre fuselage as much as possible unchanged for cost and production reasons? With just a new front end added with its nose and intakes and small fixed canards above them? Keep the engine the same, but with some upgrades to give a small increase in power for the same reasons to keep the cost down.
Last edited:
My take is that there was a lot of potential in making a significantly improved MiG-21, without paying the premium. So yes, re-think the front 1/3rd of the fuselage, and the combination of better high AoA behavior, low-speed handling and greater volume for electronics and/or fuel can be had on a budget and on time.
It also provides a 'bridge' for the Soviet-friendly states' air-forces until a much more advanced (but still simple and affordable) fighter is available from start of the 1980s.
A much wider application of AEWs was needed, for the users of Soviet kit. AEWs don't need to be all-singing, all-dancing aircraft with the big rotating aerial - already the radars that can look at the sides at 120-150 deg sectors are an asset. Being movable, they are less susceptible to being attacked by enemy bombers, and still can be positioned reasonably close to the friendly fighters. Even a moderately rich nation could've afforded half a dozen of these.
Means of attacking enemy radar sites were required, but it seems there was not much of proliferation of these beyond what the Soviet AF used.
Means of attacking enemy radar sites were required, but it seems there was not much of proliferation of these beyond what the Soviet AF used.
On the MiG-21, if we are to have side intakes it should be on the Ye-8 replacing the ventral intake for the simple reason that we know they could then fit the gun under the fuselage. And there were some larger/more mechanized delta wings studied by Mikoyan for late 1960s/early 1970s variants of the MiG-21, so we can go with those rather than the much later chinese wings. Also, i don't really think you can put a much bigger radar in Ye-8's nose, maybe a RP-22 with a bigger dish, but i don't think much else because it's not much bigger than the regular MiG-21. So perhaps true BVR capability can't be had on the Ye-8, though in the initial planning the intended K-13M missile (not to confuse with the later R-13M) was supposed to weigh 150-160 kg and have a range of 16-18 km.
Agree about AEW, perhaps the Tu-126 can be exported to various ME countries, India etc. and maybe would be wiser to put that AEW radar on a better platform, jet-powered, so there is less interference from the props? Later on of course the A-50 can be exported as well to anyone with cash.
And i will add beasts like Tu-22M as well to the list of exports, just sell the things for much needed cash. Probably Iraq, Libya, Iran, China, India will buy some.
Agree about AEW, perhaps the Tu-126 can be exported to various ME countries, India etc. and maybe would be wiser to put that AEW radar on a better platform, jet-powered, so there is less interference from the props? Later on of course the A-50 can be exported as well to anyone with cash.
And i will add beasts like Tu-22M as well to the list of exports, just sell the things for much needed cash. Probably Iraq, Libya, Iran, China, India will buy some.
The biggest issue is the engines. The Russians were happy with engines with low TBO's and short service lives compared to western engines and that continued all the way to the end of the cold war.
The AEW issue is a harder one to crack, it certainly would have made a lot of sense for them if they had a working and reliable AEW aircraft earlier. The Russians built and maintained a lot of fighter bases to protect against SAC's B29's, B36's and then the B47 & 52's along with masses of surveillance radars all of which required manning with skilled and technically well trained Officers. The Russians just couldn't build a reliable AEW radar worth deploying, partly that was due to their terrible electronics industry who just couldn't solve the ground clutter issues for overland deployment. The Russians also never really used flight refuelling to a significant degree unlike the US and UK who maintained large tanker fleets which are a real combat multiplier in that it allows aircraft to remain on station for longer periods, transit long distances without having to land to refuel and strike targets at distance and not just for strategic aircraft but for tactical aircraft too.
The AEW issue is a harder one to crack, it certainly would have made a lot of sense for them if they had a working and reliable AEW aircraft earlier. The Russians built and maintained a lot of fighter bases to protect against SAC's B29's, B36's and then the B47 & 52's along with masses of surveillance radars all of which required manning with skilled and technically well trained Officers. The Russians just couldn't build a reliable AEW radar worth deploying, partly that was due to their terrible electronics industry who just couldn't solve the ground clutter issues for overland deployment. The Russians also never really used flight refuelling to a significant degree unlike the US and UK who maintained large tanker fleets which are a real combat multiplier in that it allows aircraft to remain on station for longer periods, transit long distances without having to land to refuel and strike targets at distance and not just for strategic aircraft but for tactical aircraft too.
Not sure if that's possible.
