Your Nation's Air Force Mark III: Best Korea Edition

[Theodosiya]

A crazy and useless question here...

Is it possible to reengine MiG 21 & 23 with F110, giving it TVC, upgrading & adding the hardpoints, NATO compatibility, M197 and AN/APG 83/80?

When re-engining a fighter jet, you have to be mindful with the size of the specific engine you want. Not only that, depending on what engine you pick, you might have to make airframe modifications too. For example, with the IAI Kfir, the original French Atar 09 was replaced by the more-superior GE J79, which led to various changes in the Mirage-style airframe such as shortening and widening of the rear fuselage, and enlarged air intakes.

Now, with the MiG-23 and MiG-21, it is possible to fit the F110 into the airframe of the two fighters, but the question is why? A better and cheaper alternative would just simply fit a Klimov RD-33 instead, especially considering the fact the F110 is heavier and larger than the Klimov RD-33. Plus, why add TVC capability, seems pretty redundant especially considering the fact that modern air wars are fought from BVR, not WVR (in before "but the Vietnam War" even though the Americans placed strict rules of engagement on their pilots that negated any BVR combat).

Moving to avionics. AN/APG-80/83 are AESA radars and would require a large amount of power. Since both MiG-21 and MiG-23 are cheap disposable 3rd gen. fighters, they aren't likely gonna have enough power to fully operate something like the APG-80/83. Plus, with the MiG-21, are you aware that due to the design of the inlet cone nose, the size of the radar antenna has to be reduced in order to fit inside? It's the reason why the MiG-21 and J-7 have crappy avionics capability, and even with the latest J-7 variants fitted with modern radars, their true avionics effectiveness is reduced due to the inlet cone design and reduction of antenna size. It's why with the Chinese J-8, the original J-8I used the inlet cone while the J-8II switched to a larger MiG-23/Su-15 like nose.

And as for adding more hardpoints, both the MiG-21 and MiG-23 are pretty tiny. The MiG-21's stubby little wings can only have two hardpoints each while the skinny fuselage can fit a single hardpoint. At best you have to change the wings and maybe go for an enlarged cranked-delta design similar to the J-7E but larger. As for the MiG-23, you have two wing-glove pylons and two/four under-fuselage pylons, any additional hardpoints would have to be mounted on the wings.

Anyway, why modernize the MiG-21/23 when you could go for something more effective like the JF-17, SAAB Gripen and FA-50? All three planes are lightweight, cost-effective fighters that play a similar role to older light fighters like the MiG-21 or F-5 Freedom Fighter.

As for the MiG-21 the J-7 started as a MiG-21 local production but ended up later in it's life as essentially a whole new plane.

Not really. The only major airframe changes in the J-7 would be the cranked-delta wings, but the series still utilize the airframe spine and inlet cone of the MiG-21F-13.

Simply want to give the Air Guard some chance, since their fighter line have mix of MiG 21, 23 and 29, in addition to Su-15 and Su-25.

Oh, and to standarize, to some extent, the logistic for Air Guard and Air Force .

[Zhouran]

Simply want to give the Air Guard some chance, since their fighter line have mix of MiG 21, 23 and 29, in addition to Su-15 and Su-25.

Have your Air Guard retain the MiG-29 and Su-25 while put the MiG-23 and Su-15 in storage. The MiG-21 can be decommissioned and either sold off to museums or convert them into target drones, or even sell them to private buyers. If you want to supplement the MiG-29, the JF-17, SAAB Gripen A/C, and FA-50 are pretty good planes to pick and have them as replacements for the MiG-21 while MiG-35 or F/A-18E/F Super Hornets would make a good replacement for the MiG-29.

[The Akasha Colony]

A crazy and useless question here...

Is it possible to reengine MiG 21 & 23 with F110, giving it TVC, upgrading & adding the hardpoints, NATO compatibility, M197 and AN/APG 83/80?

No. F110 is 50% heavier than R-25 which would negatively impact the aircraft's balance and aerodynamic characteristics, which would be exacerbated by the higher thrust and presumably higher fuel consumption. TVC would make it even worse, given that F110 was never designed for TVC anyway, and to my knowledge has never been tested with it since F-15 STOL/MTD used F100 instead. APG-80/83 won't fit in the nosecone of MiG-21. M197 is also larger than GSh-23 and would probably not fit especially when considering the additional internal volume that would have to be dedicated to modernized electronics.

Now, with the MiG-23 and MiG-21, it is possible to fit the F110 into the airframe of the two fighters, but the question is why? A better and cheaper alternative would just simply fit a Klimov RD-33 instead, especially considering the fact the F110 is heavier and larger than the Klimov RD-33. Plus, why add TVC capability, seems pretty redundant especially considering the fact that modern air wars are fought from BVR, not WVR (in before "but the Vietnam War" even though the Americans placed strict rules of engagement on their pilots that negated any BVR combat).

TVC is more useful outside of combat than in it. Its primary maneuvering benefits in a close combat situation are in improving post-stall and high-alpha maneuverability, but while this looks cool at airshows it's actually not terribly useful in real combat because such maneuvers require losing tremendous amounts of energy, and energy management is the most important aspect of BFM. TVC provides some ancillary benefits in combat maneuvering by somewhat reducing the need to rely on control surfaces for maneuvering (which creates drag and loses energy), but these aren't overwhelming. Much of F-22's superiority in WVR combat comes not from TVC but simply from how brutally powerful its engines are, which give it a comparatively huge energy budget for maneuvering.

The biggest advantages TVC brings for modern fighter aircraft are that it can significantly decrease takeoff/landing length and that it can eliminate the need to use control surfaces to maintain trim during supersonic flight. F-22 has TVC in large part because the original ATF requirements specified an 800 meter takeoff distance. YF-23 did not need TVC for this because it was both lighter and had a larger wing area and thus Northrop decided to focus more heavily on the stealth aspect of the design.

TVC is also useful for supercruise, because in supersonic flight an aircraft's center of lift will naturally shift toward the rear. Normally this would require either using the aerodynamic control surfaces to compensate for this change, or shifting fuel around to rebalance the weight as Concorde did. The former causes significant increases in drag as the surfaces are deflected away from their resting (and most aerodynamically efficient) positions while the latter requires placing the fuel tanks in specific places in the aircraft, which is a troublesome design constraint for a fighter. An aircraft with TVC though can use it to compensate without using either of these techniques, significantly improving supersonic cruising ability. This is why F-22 has pitch-only TVC, as these advantages only require pitch-only TVC. Pitch-yaw TVC is mostly for maneuvering.

You're right though in that these aspects would be mostly wasted on an old fighter. MiG-21 and -23 were never designed to supercruise and MiG-23's variable sweep wings should already give it a short takeoff/landing distance.

[Theodosiya]

A crazy and useless question here...

Is it possible to reengine MiG 21 & 23 with F110, giving it TVC, upgrading & adding the hardpoints, NATO compatibility, M197 and AN/APG 83/80?

No. F110 is 50% heavier than R-25 which would negatively impact the aircraft's balance and aerodynamic characteristics, which would be exacerbated by the higher thrust and presumably higher fuel consumption. TVC would make it even worse, given that F110 was never designed for TVC anyway, and to my knowledge has never been tested with it since F-15 STOL/MTD used F100 instead. APG-80/83 won't fit in the nosecone of MiG-21. M197 is also larger than GSh-23 and would probably not fit especially when considering the additional internal volume that would have to be dedicated to modernized electronics.

Now, with the MiG-23 and MiG-21, it is possible to fit the F110 into the airframe of the two fighters, but the question is why? A better and cheaper alternative would just simply fit a Klimov RD-33 instead, especially considering the fact the F110 is heavier and larger than the Klimov RD-33. Plus, why add TVC capability, seems pretty redundant especially considering the fact that modern air wars are fought from BVR, not WVR (in before "but the Vietnam War" even though the Americans placed strict rules of engagement on their pilots that negated any BVR combat).

TVC is more useful outside of combat than in it. Its primary maneuvering benefits in a close combat situation are in improving post-stall and high-alpha maneuverability, but while this looks cool at airshows it's actually not terribly useful in real combat because such maneuvers require losing tremendous amounts of energy, and energy management is the most important aspect of BFM. TVC provides some ancillary benefits in combat maneuvering by somewhat reducing the need to rely on control surfaces for maneuvering (which creates drag and loses energy), but these aren't overwhelming. Much of F-22's superiority in WVR combat comes not from TVC but simply from how brutally powerful its engines are, which give it a comparatively huge energy budget for maneuvering.

The biggest advantages TVC brings for modern fighter aircraft are that it can significantly decrease takeoff/landing length and that it can eliminate the need to use control surfaces to maintain trim during supersonic flight. F-22 has TVC in large part because the original ATF requirements specified an 800 meter takeoff distance. YF-23 did not need TVC for this because it was both lighter and had a larger wing area and thus Northrop decided to focus more heavily on the stealth aspect of the design.

TVC is also useful for supercruise, because in supersonic flight an aircraft's center of lift will naturally shift toward the rear. Normally this would require either using the aerodynamic control surfaces to compensate for this change, or shifting fuel around to rebalance the weight as Concorde did. The former causes significant increases in drag as the surfaces are deflected away from their resting (and most aerodynamically efficient) positions while the latter requires placing the fuel tanks in specific places in the aircraft, which is a troublesome design constraint for a fighter. An aircraft with TVC though can use it to compensate without using either of these techniques, significantly improving supersonic cruising ability. This is why F-22 has pitch-only TVC, as these advantages only require pitch-only TVC. Pitch-yaw TVC is mostly for maneuvering.

You're right though in that these aspects would be mostly wasted on an old fighter. MiG-21 and -23 were never designed to supercruise and MiG-23's variable sweep wings should already give it a short takeoff/landing distance.

What could be done, then, regarding the MiG-23? Not enough MiG-29 for all cities and Air Guard airbases, no MiG-31, only MiG-25... (I decided to have MiG 23, 25 and 29 as Air Guard fighters. Su-25 CAS are supposed to be Air Force fighter.)

[Zhouran]

What could be done, then, regarding the MiG-23? Not enough MiG-29 for all cities and Air Guard airbases, no MiG-31, only MiG-25... (I decided to have MiG 23, 25 and 29 as Air Guard fighters. Su-25 CAS are supposed to be Air Force fighter.)

You can try and fit the Zhuk-8II radar (used on the Chinese F-8IIM) into your MiG-23, as well as digital fire-control system and an upgraded cockpit with MFDs. Or, you can retire the MiG-23 in exchange for more SAMs. The Soviets themselves sometimes relied more on their SAMs than their fighters when facing against enemies with superior fighters.

The biggest advantages TVC brings for modern fighter aircraft are that it can significantly decrease takeoff/landing length and that it can eliminate the need to use control surfaces to maintain trim during supersonic flight. F-22 has TVC in large part because the original ATF requirements specified an 800 meter takeoff distance. YF-23 did not need TVC for this because it was both lighter and had a larger wing area and thus Northrop decided to focus more heavily on the stealth aspect of the design.

TVC is also useful for supercruise, because in supersonic flight an aircraft's center of lift will naturally shift toward the rear. Normally this would require either using the aerodynamic control surfaces to compensate for this change, or shifting fuel around to rebalance the weight as Concorde did. The former causes significant increases in drag as the surfaces are deflected away from their resting (and most aerodynamically efficient) positions while the latter requires placing the fuel tanks in specific places in the aircraft, which is a troublesome design constraint for a fighter. An aircraft with TVC though can use it to compensate without using either of these techniques, significantly improving supersonic cruising ability. This is why F-22 has pitch-only TVC, as these advantages only require pitch-only TVC. Pitch-yaw TVC is mostly for maneuvering.

I have 4th gen. planes that use TVC, although the emphasis is placed more on BVR combat than WVR combat. I would actually kinda prefer more focus on the avionics including radar than on maneuverability. It's why my nation's heavy fighters use long-range PESA and AESA radars while doctrine emphasizes beyond-visual-range combat over close-range dogfights. Although having TVC-equipped aircraft is cool in aerobatic context, making them ideal for airshows.

Also, I wasn't actually aware that TVC helps with both supercruise and decrease of landing/take-off length. I always thought TVC was only helpful for maneuverability, and in regards with VTOL planes, hovering. With the Su-35S, the canards from the original Su-27M were removed because according to Sukhoi, the canards were added on the Su-27M/35 due to the heavy radar on the nose and that the canards would keep the plane maneuverable due to the heavy radar, however with the Su-35S its radar was lighter and the TVC was all it takes to keep the plane maneuverability, therefore removing the canards. I always thought to myself that since the Su-37/30SM combines both TVC and canards, would the removal of the canards actually affect and reduce maneuverability? Not only that, if the F-22 was to be hypothetically fitted with a canard would it increase maneuverability in exchange for frontal stealth or will this make no difference apart from a larger frontal RCS signature?

[The Akasha Colony]

I always thought to myself that since the Su-37/30SM combines both TVC and canards, would the removal of the canards actually affect and reduce maneuverability? Not only that, if the F-22 was to be hypothetically fitted with a canard would it increase maneuverability in exchange for frontal stealth or will this make no difference apart from a larger frontal RCS signature?

It depends on the aircraft's design. Canards on F-22 would largely duplicate the functions of the existing stabiliators and TVC system, increasing drag (and RCS) for little benefit.

Modern American fighters as well as heavy Soviet/Russian fighters are energy fighters, relying on their powerful engines and high thrust to give them maneuvering performance. Trading their performance as energy fighters to improve their performance as turn fighters by adding drag-inducing canards is not a particularly good idea.

[Zhouran]

Modern American fighters as well as heavy Soviet/Russian fighters are energy fighters, relying on their powerful engines and high thrust to give them maneuvering performance. Trading their performance as energy fighters to improve their performance as turn fighters by adding drag-inducing canards is not a particularly good idea.

So that means the Su-35S has less drag than the Su-37/30SM. That's a shame because I really love the look of the canards on the 33/37/30SM/34, I don't know why but it makes them look attractive to my eyes.

With European fighters such as the Gripen, Rafale and Typhoon, the three use a tailless design along with canards. Would the addition of canards help improve the maneuverability of tailless delta-wing fighter jets since they lack stabilators? I know that the Mirage 2000 lacks canards and is said to be already maneuverable, while the Israeli Kfir was given canards for better maneuverability and handling in slow speed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since you mention modern American fighters and heavy Soviet/Russian fighters being energy fighters, would that mean European fighters like the Rafale and Gripen are turn fighters instead?

[Taihei Tengoku]

Such distinctions died the better part of a century ago.

[The Akasha Colony]

So that means the Su-35S has less drag than the Su-37/30SM. That's a shame because I really love the look of the canards on the 33/37/30SM/34, I don't know why but it makes them look attractive to my eyes.

With European fighters such as the Gripen, Rafale and Typhoon, the three use a tailless design along with canards. Would the addition of canards help improve the maneuverability of tailless delta-wing fighter jets since they lack stabilators? I know that the Mirage 2000 lacks canards and is said to be already maneuverable, while the Israeli Kfir was given canards for better maneuverability and handling in slow speed.

Rafale does not have a choice because it needs canards in order to generate enough lift for carrier landings. Rafale and Typhoon both descend from the same original design concept before the French struck out on their own which is why they are identical in general layout and very similar in performance, with Typhoon benefiting from greater British experience in aerodynamics and engine development and Rafale benefiting from France's electronics industry.

The use of canards in the Eurocanard family provides a number of benefits, including in supersonic flight (remember the shift in center of lift) and in takeoff/landing situations (which is why Su-33 and Rafale have them). But outside of these situations, they are used primarily for maneuverability, since they are usually not aerodynamically loaded in normal level flight.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since you mention modern American fighters and heavy Soviet/Russian fighters being energy fighters, would that mean European fighters like the Rafale and Gripen are turn fighters instead?

It's not completely binary, but more or less yes, if only in comparison to American and some Soviet fighters. They are turn fighters only because they have to be, as against a heavy energy fighter like Su-27 or F-15, they are automatically at an energy disadvantage and must rely on turning to survive. Energy fighters are generally superior to turn fighters but are also more expensive because they require very powerful engines. Of the sort Europe has never produced, at least not in low-bypass form. Rafale's two engines together produce less thrust than the single engine in F-35 and only slightly more thrust than just one of the F119s in F-22. EJ200 is slightly better than this but still a far cry from the sort of thrust expected of engines like F100, F110, and newer-generation engines like F119 and F135.

Only three countries have experience designing large, high-thrust fighter engines, and that's the USA, Russia, and China. And in China's case, these engines are mostly just derivatives of Western turbofan cores. Some countries like Japan and South Korea have produced American fighter engines under license to power their licensed American fighters. Snecma/Rolls-Royce and IHI could probably develop high-power engines if needed, but so far there has been little real interest given the cost of developing new engines.

The ATF and JSF programs that each developed two engines for what was to be a single fighter in each program was quite extravagant, although this was the result of the USAF's negative experiences with early-production F100s in the F-16 that prompted the development of the F110 as an alternative. Both Su-57 and J-20 use upgraded versions of existing fighter engines, which is more expedient but results in somewhat worse performance, usually in terms of fuel efficiency. The use of the upgraded AL-31 in Su-57 is itself a bit of a surrender by the Russian government, which had been working to develop a truly new next-generation engine under the AL-41 designation but was unable to do so, resulting in the current AL-41, which is just an improved AL-31.

Energy is better than turn performance because an energy fighter is usually faster than a turn fighter, which means that the more powerful fighter can choose when to engage and when to disengage at will, since the less powerful fighter cannot flee from or chase down a faster opponent.

[Iltica]

Rafale does not have a choice because it needs canards in order to generate enough lift for carrier landings. Rafale and Typhoon both descend from the same original design concept before the French struck out on their own which is why they are identical in general layout and very similar in performance, with Typhoon benefiting from greater British experience in aerodynamics and engine development and Rafale benefiting from France's electronics industry.

The use of canards in the Eurocanard family provides a number of benefits, including in supersonic flight (remember the shift in center of lift) and in takeoff/landing situations (which is why Su-33 and Rafale have them). But outside of these situations, they are used primarily for maneuverability, since they are usually not aerodynamically loaded in normal level flight.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since you mention modern American fighters and heavy Soviet/Russian fighters being energy fighters, would that mean European fighters like the Rafale and Gripen are turn fighters instead?

It's not completely binary, but more or less yes, if only in comparison to American and some Soviet fighters. They are turn fighters only because they have to be, as against a heavy energy fighter like Su-27 or F-15, they are automatically at an energy disadvantage and must rely on turning to survive. Energy fighters are generally superior to turn fighters but are also more expensive because they require very powerful engines. Of the sort Europe has never produced, at least not in low-bypass form. Rafale's two engines together produce less thrust than the single engine in F-35 and only slightly more thrust than just one of the F119s in F-22. EJ200 is slightly better than this but still a far cry from the sort of thrust expected of engines like F100, F110, and newer-generation engines like F119 and F135.

Only three countries have experience designing large, high-thrust fighter engines, and that's the USA, Russia, and China. And in China's case, these engines are mostly just derivatives of Western turbofan cores. Some countries like Japan and South Korea have produced American fighter engines under license to power their licensed American fighters. Snecma/Rolls-Royce and IHI could probably develop high-power engines if needed, but so far there has been little real interest given the cost of developing new engines.

The ATF and JSF programs that each developed two engines for what was to be a single fighter in each program was quite extravagant, although this was the result of the USAF's negative experiences with early-production F100s in the F-16 that prompted the development of the F110 as an alternative. Both Su-57 and J-20 use upgraded versions of existing fighter engines, which is more expedient but results in somewhat worse performance, usually in terms of fuel efficiency. The use of the upgraded AL-31 in Su-57 is itself a bit of a surrender by the Russian government, which had been working to develop a truly new next-generation engine under the AL-41 designation but was unable to do so, resulting in the current AL-41, which is just an improved AL-31.

Energy is better than turn performance because an energy fighter is usually faster than a turn fighter, which means that the more powerful fighter can choose when to engage and when to disengage at will, since the less powerful fighter cannot flee from or chase down a faster opponent.

The Typhoon uses long arm canards though, FWIR it destabilizes it more but you don't get the benefits of the tip vortices over the wing at high AOA. The Sukhois' nards on the other hand are very close to the wing, but unlike the Rafale and Gripen, are level with the main wing instead of above it, probably because the Su-27 didn't have them originally. I suspect that because of this they might not receive the same COL benefits.

I still don't understand why they seem so obsessed with high angle-of-attack performance though. It makes sense for the Su-33 since it has to land nose-high on a carrier, but why do the Su-30(35?) and 57 need to be able to maneuver at or below stall speed?

[The Federation of Kendor]

Anyway, can I talk about tactics here. Because if I can, then what is the good tactic for an airplane to use? And how to counter hit and run tactic, especially when my forces are outnumbered

[Kanugues Wed]

Full-on large scale civil war started being fought in my country around 1951, at which time we received our first military aircraft from the soviets. What sort of aircraft would we be getting? The civil war lasted from 1951-1965. I'm thinking that we would start with WW2 era aircraft aid and end the civil war with stuff like MiG-17s? Is this correct?

[Zhouran]

Full-on large scale civil war started being fought in my country around 1951, at which time we received our first military aircraft from the soviets. What sort of aircraft would we be getting? The civil war lasted from 1951-1965. I'm thinking that we would start with WW2 era aircraft aid and end the civil war with stuff like MiG-17s? Is this correct?

Regarding fighter jets, MiG-9s would probably be the first choice before acquiring the MiG-15 later on.

[Kanugues Wed]

So we would begin our jet-powered air force with a MiG-9 deliver perhaps around 1958?

[The Northernmost Americas]

Full-on large scale civil war started being fought in my country around 1951, at which time we received our first military aircraft from the soviets. What sort of aircraft would we be getting? The civil war lasted from 1951-1965. I'm thinking that we would start with WW2 era aircraft aid and end the civil war with stuff like MiG-17s? Is this correct?

How important are you to the USSR? Depending on this you could receive Mig-9s or even Mig-15s as early as 1950/51

[Kanugues Wed]

We’d be awesome propaganda fodder since we were fighting a brutal UK-backed king, but I’m not very sure of how useful we’d be strategically. We’d make a useful naval base, but this is pre sino-soviet split, so I feel like the PRC would be more useful than us. Also, the revolution only really picked up enough steam around 53 to really operate large runways. The royalist Air Force consists of a few hundred hurricanes, spitfires, P-40s, captured zeros, ghetto-modded DC-3s with bombs and a few Wellington’s. No jets, although they will probably get a few meteors near the end.

[The Northernmost Americas]

We’d be awesome propaganda fodder since we were fighting a brutal UK-backed king, but I’m not very sure of how useful we’d be strategically. We’d make a useful naval base, but this is pre sino-soviet split, so I feel like the PRC would be more useful than us. Also, the revolution only really picked up enough steam around 53 to really operate large runways. The royalist Air Force consists of a few hundred hurricanes, spitfires, P-40s, captured zeros, ghetto-modded DC-3s with bombs and a few Wellington’s. No jets, although they will probably get a few meteors near the end.

If the Korean war is ongoing at the same time start off with Mig-9s, with Mig-15 deliveries towards the end of the civil war. No Korean war and I don't see why the USSR couldn't spare you some Mig-15s from the start.

[Zhouran]

So we would begin our jet-powered air force with a MiG-9 deliver perhaps around 1958?

Doesn't have to be that late. You can start deliveries of MiG-9s by around '53 and then the MiG-15 by '55 before acquiring the MiG-17 by '58 and so on. With the MiG-9s, you can have them to train your pilots in jet operations and get used to jet flying before switching to the more-advanced MiG-15s, that's what the Chinese PLAAF did when the received the MiG-9 in 1950 before retraining their MiG-9 pilots in the MiG-15.

[The Akasha Colony]

I still don't understand why they seem so obsessed with high angle-of-attack performance though. It makes sense for the Su-33 since it has to land nose-high on a carrier, but why do the Su-30(35?) and 57 need to be able to maneuver at or below stall speed?

They don't seem to be all that obsessed about it. As was mentioned, Su-33 has canards for carrier landings, while Su-30MKI and derivatives have canards not to improve maneuverability but to offset the forward shift in center of gravity due to the addition of a much heavier radar in the nose by shifting the center of lift forward to match. When the canards were no longer necessary they were deleted in Su-35 and Su-57 never had them. The addition of TVC made up for this but was presumably added for the other benefits, rather than specifically to improve high-alpha or post-stall performance, since AFAIK Russian jets have roughly the same AoA limiters as Western planes like Typhoon that don't have particularly good high-alpha performance.

Soviet and now Russian interest in possible high-alpha performance seems to mostly be design and institutional inertia stemming from the original Su-27 design, which was developed in the era of all-aspect but not HOBS missiles (although it quickly got HOBS R-73 upon introduction). It seems the Russians are wary of introducing fighters that might seem "worse" in any way than the ones that preceded it, even if certain capabilities are no longer needed due to changes in technology and combat characteristics. Part of this may be due to the lack of any real recent experience in air-to-air combat.

[Zhouran]

It seems the Russians are wary of introducing fighters that might seem "worse" in any way than the ones that preceded it, even if certain capabilities are no longer needed due to changes in technology and combat characteristics. Part of this may be due to the lack of any real recent experience in air-to-air combat.

I actually did notice that. Before the MiG-29 or Su-27, the Russians weren't too focused in maneuverability since they expected their dogfighters like the MiG-21 to be already maneuverable while their interceptors like the Tu-128 would sacrifice maneuverability for long-range radar. Apart from lack of experience in A2A combat, it could probably be due to their manufacturers' reluctance to "de-evolve" and instead stick with what's been designed and made already.

I don't know why the MiG-29 and Su-27 were designed to have strong emphasis on maneuverable compared to their American counterparts, though it could be that because the two planes are larger and heavier than the MiG-21 and MiG-23, Mikoyan and Sukhoi probably feared that their 4th gen. fighters wouldn't outmaneuver their American opponents in a dogfight (dogfight was an emphasis the Soviets focused on since they lagged behind in radar technology).

[The Akasha Colony]

I don't know why the MiG-29 and Su-27 were designed to have strong emphasis on maneuverable compared to their American counterparts, though it could be that because the two planes are larger and heavier than the MiG-21 and MiG-23, Mikoyan and Sukhoi probably feared that their 4th gen. fighters wouldn't outmaneuver their American opponents in a dogfight (dogfight was an emphasis the Soviets focused on since they lagged behind in radar technology).

The development of all-aspect IR SRAAMs briefly increased the value of maneuverability and quick nose-pointing capability, as well as the lethality of trying to enter the merge. Mutual kills became a serious concern since fighters could now fire while closing head-on, which was previously not possible with IR AAMs. This capability came after F-14, F-15, and F-16 had already entered service in the US and the USAF and USN were looking for ways to address this with ACEVAL/AIMVAL. They decided that longer-ranged and higher performance missiles in the form of AIM-120 and AIM-132 were the answer, rather than any maneuverability changes to match agile light fighters. But the need for maneuverability itself became somewhat moot when HOBS missiles and HMDs became a thing, and this was already established by the time F-22 entered serious development. Even though F-22 still doesn't have an HMD and is still not qualified to use AIM-9X in combat.

Su-27 was developed at a time when the USSR lacked good all-aspect or HOBS missiles, although by the time it entered service the USSR finally had both.

[Austrasien]

There was probably a desire for the Su-57 to "better" than the F-22 in some respect to keep the Mig-25/F-15/Su-27/F-22 cycle of one-upmanship going. But matching its signature, let alone exceeding it, was not possible for Russian industry which cannot replicate the high precision of US industry*. Bigger/faster like the 1.42 was probably the original hope but the (real) AL-41 was still "getting there" after almost a generation of work. So they made it turn good, which builds on Sukhois work on the flankers, and covered it in radars which Russian industry excels in (and also takes attention away from the continued deficit in domestic infrared FPA).

*Edit: For those not aware there are at least three major components of RCS: Direct or specular reflection, creeping waves and re-radiation. The first is the best known, the main focus of stealth shaping and also the easiest to manage. The second is a lesser known phenomenon caused by electromagnetic waves becoming trapped at an interface between two materials with substantially different electrical properties (like air and metal) and hugging the surface of the object; in practical terms, it means an objects entire structure contributes to its RCS from all aspects so, for example, an aircraft's trailing edge still contributes to its RCS head on. Finally, there is re-radiation, the radar emissions induce an electrical current in the aircraft which travels along its skin and through its structure. Wherever that current meets an electrical discontinuity it can be re-radiated as photons with the same frequency as those which induced it.

The last effect is usually quite small in absolute terms but it is still practically detectable, especially by modern radars, and it is exceedingly difficult to eliminate. It will remain even when an aircraft has been properly shaped and covered in RAM. It can only be controlled by making the aircraft as electrically smooth as possible. A big part of which is achieving the highest level of physical smoothness possible as physical discontinuities usually create electrical discontinuities. And if the final product is too rough electrically/physically it will never be able to achieve the highest level of stealth. This is a big part of why stealth aircraft remain difficult to build even though the "secret" of shaping is known far and wide and RAM is readily available - it is easy to design a stealthy airframe in AutoCAD it is incomparably harder to actually make it.

[Gallia-]

Ultimate electric eyeball vs. ultimate camouflage tarp

[Gallia-]

We have seen Sweatytankii, but what about Sweatyjety? i.e. Would some sort of evaporative cooling ability be able to increase turnaround times for very high speed aircraft (M3+) by reducing skin temperatures during lower supersonic and subsonic portions of flight? It's going to be a supersonic cruiser like SR-71 and B-70 so this would be during the landing approach and whatever. Ignore questions of plumbing for now let's just focus on the idea and best coolant besides water, since I'm sure if there can be a sweaty facesitting tanku-chan there can be a sweaty top-down-bottom-up jetyplane. o:

[The Corparation]

Best coolant for high speed aircraft is whatever fancy Jet Fuel the engines burn.