Page 222: Take Care What You Choose For Cover

[D-503]

That's exactly what happened with the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter. High-altitude interceptor turned into a ground strike aircraft. With a pretty telling record of striking the ground, indeed.

The "Lawn-dart". My kind of humor.
At least some notorious bavarian politician had full pockets after the deal was sealed...

But to be fair to Lockheed, it was partially not their fault. Biilions for the deal, but ZILCH for infrastructure - the german air force didn´t even built shelters! That´s right, they parked those delicate machines right outside on the tarmac, day and night, in sunshine, rain and snow...
And they forbid pilots to put tarps over at least the cockpit section, because that looked to "makeshift"...

Over a third of the fleet crashed, leaving over 100 pilots dead, including the son of the then president of the Bundestag, Kai Uwe von Hassel, who also happened to be the german secretary of defense, when the first Starfighters turned into Lawndarts.
Oh, and that crash finally helped the widows to sue Lockheed with the help of star-lawyer Melvin Belli; before that, the german establishment did their "very best" to cover all that sh*t up. Now they had a "prominent" voice.

Only "good" thing that came out of it was the start of the "F-104-Replacement-Group"-program, when finally even the politicians came to the conclusion/were persuaded that a tailor-made european fighter plane could/would be a smart solution.
See Tornado. Apart from the usual budget-overruns i never heard a pilot complaining over that machine.

[Demarquis]

Yeah, the F-104 debacle was infamous, but that doesn't mean that every aircraft that changes roles is a failure. The Harrier had both land and sea based versions, the F-18 has gone through major modifications that allowed it to expand the roles it could play, the F-16 was supposed to be a scrappy little air to air dogfighter, but that role went away and it serves now almost entirely in the ground attack role.

[D-503]

Yeah, the F-104 debacle was infamous, but that doesn't mean that every aircraft that changes roles is a failure.

Nobody claimed that.
It was just pointed out that a high speed high altitude interceptor is impractical/useless as ground attack airplane.
That the first Mig-25 (imagine: those early Tumanski turbojet-engines were derived from throwaway-engines for supersonic-drones!) went on a long long long journey to evolve finally into todays third generation Mig-31s (imho still a totally different plane, see the all new wings alone...) just underlines that.
Additionally to their interceptor-role (still much faster than any western fighter) they are now quite impressive rocket launching platforms, too (thanks to their nightmarish "saslon-A" radar-complex).

But still no A-10/Su-25-replacements.

[Demarquis]

I am afraid I cannot follow your argument. My original comment was "I always wondered if it would have made any sense for them to have turned it into an air to ground strike aircraft. It might have given them some flexibility they didn't have." It appears that the Russians eventually did exactly that (I had forgotten about the Mig-31), as you yourself point out. So we are in agreement?

Perhaps the confusion is around nomenclature. I don't regard the term "Ground Attack" to be limited to A-10 or Su-25 type aircraft. To me, a ground attack aircraft is anything that can usefully attack the ground. Does it clarify things if I refer to the Mig-31 as a "long range strike" aircraft?

[D-503]

I am afraid I cannot follow your argument. My original comment was "I always wondered if it would have made any sense for them to have turned it into an air to ground strike aircraft. It might have given them some flexibility they didn't have." It appears that the Russians eventually did exactly that (I had forgotten about the Mig-31), as you yourself point out. So we are in agreement?

Um, i can´t follow you? Where did i point out "That they turned it into a ground attack aircraft (for more "flexibility")"?
Neither ´25 nor ´31 are anything like that. Both are high altitude/(ultra) high speed interceptors.
The latter´s ability to fire different rockets that can somehow serve that purpose still makes it not a (good) ground attack aircraft. This expensive machine would simply be wasted in that role. There are better (and way more "cost-effective"!) aircraft for that.

Does it clarify things if I refer to the Mig-31 as a "long range strike" aircraft?

Um, LONG range? With an action radius less than 400nm at supersonic speeds? Hardly.
If you refer to the long-range R-33? Maybe, but that´s the rocket then.

[Demarquis]

I've been doing a little research. The sources I am reading all report a cruising range of well over 1500 miles on internal fuel (though not with maximum payload). It was deliberately designed to fly at supersonic speed at low altitudes. It was also designed to fire air to ground missiles. They even seem to have some equipped with anti-ship missiles. No doubt it is one of Russia's most effective high altitude interceptors, and while I wouldn't call this a multi-role aircraft, it clearly isn't limited to just air to air missions.

You seem to think that it's too expensive to be considered an efficient air to ground aircraft, which might be correct. But I never said it was a cost-effective ground attack aircraft, only that it could carry out that mission, which gives the Russians more flexibility (because it provides them with a wider range of aircraft they can call upon if needed).

Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good (enough).

[QuakeIV]

For the air to ground missions it flies it’s not by any means cost or combat ineffective. Conversantly Su-25 is a total death trap and increasingly for use against low tech barbarians only. It doesn’t even really sortie anymore on the russian side and needs to fly extremely carefully on the ukrainian side. Between the two of them, the MiG-31 is the far superior ground attacker in this conflict.

[D-503]

I've been doing a little research. The sources I am reading all report a cruising range of well over 1500 miles on internal fuel (though not with maximum payload).

Cruising != Emergency.
And 1500 miles is definitely not "long range".

It was deliberately designed to fly at supersonic speed at low altitudes.

No. You can tell it by the whole design. It MAY fly supersonic at low level, but it is not deliberately MADE for it.

It was also designed to fire air to ground missiles.

I can fire a wide range of missiles, yes.

and while I wouldn't call this a multi-role aircraft, it clearly isn't limited to just air to air missions.

We can agree on that one.

You seem to think that it's too expensive to be considered an efficient air to ground aircraft,

"Expensive" is not the main argument. It´s the layout of the plane itself. Everything (large static intakes, enormous engines, wing-design, and the primary role of it´s formidable saslonA-radar-complex) clearly points away from that.
And the fact that russia has a lot of other planes way more suitable for that role.

[D-503]

Conversantly Su-25 is a total death trap and increasingly for use against low tech barbarians only.

Well, within the range of anti-aircraft-missiles anything is a death trap.

[Demarquis]

I am still having trouble following your argument. You do not consider that it can be a ground attack aircraft because it doesn't look like a ground attack aircraft? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the low flying capabilities were present from the first manufactured model, and were included on purpose. Are you arguing that they discovered it could usefully fly low by accident?

[D-503]

I am still having trouble following your argument.

It´s probably me lost in translation again.

You do not consider that it can be a ground attack aircraft because it doesn't look like a ground attack aircraft?

Other way round. The "look", or better: "form" follows function.
Big static inlets are contraproductive at low altitudes and relative low speeds - and they didn´t care because it is not the design-goal.
No need for eg supercruise at eg mach 1.6 or so. Or even low altitude performance.
(That´s why a lot of western models have variable intakes for better overall performance, eg supercruise or dogfight)
Everything on that plane is designed to perform best at roughly mach 2,8: Wings, engine characteristics with their matching intake geometry, general layout, everything.
Climb as fast as possible, accelerate to Vmax, and kill those ´*****n basterds!!1! (sry for language).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the low flying capabilities were present from the first manufactured model, and were included on purpose. Are you arguing that they discovered it could usefully fly low by accident?

But that thing isn´t good at flying low. The ´25 even worse.
They fire their air to ground missiles from distance and altitude.
And that is only a bonus because of that gargantuan saslon-A radar system; and that radar system can only fit in something as huge as the ´31, not in some tiny fighter like a MiG-27.



Edit: From my memory they developed the ´25 in great hurry for one job: Killing the Valkyries.

Then no B-70s showed up. Costs were trough the roof because of that "throwaway-engine" by Tumansky, which once was designed for a throwaway supersonic drone, and just quick´n´dirtily adapted to a "real" plane.

So they came up with the idea to refine it.
A better engine was found with the soloview, still good for m2,83 which is way faster than any western fighter or bomber, and with way better lifespan and economics.
New Inlets for the slightly lower top speed and the needs for the new engines and different wings and altered internal structure for faster maintenance based on the experience with the ´25.
In parallel they came up with that formidable new radar, with the only "drawback" being so huge and thirsty for energy. Too big for a fighter, but it fitted nicely into the then ´31.
Perfect match.
A second man was seated behind the pilot (´25s were single-seaters) for radar and wso, and here we are now.

[Demarquis]

So you are arguing that the Mig-31 isn't optimally designed for ground attack, but that it nevertheless has been given the capability (missiles and sensors) to carry out that mission anyway. Then we aren't really in disagreement. My assumption is that they have aircraft better suited for the job (Mig-29, Su-whatever they are now), the 31 can do a passably effective attempt at it. Who knows but that a standoff bomber might be the better choice for certain tactical circumstances?

[QuakeIV]

Well again, one of the only 'ground attackers' actually achieving anything useful is this thing. Other than that its heavy bombers. Pretty much the only thing that can safely be used is cruise missiles and the like, so standoff attacks.

[Sweforce]

Absolutely. I restrict the fireing arcs thou to prevent them from hitting the stored munitions.

Ricochet/bouncers?

I doubt that Alex's borrowed blaster pistol shots can bounce.

[D-503]

I doubt that Alex's borrowed blaster pistol shots can bounce.

But the splinters/fragments it generates.
And then there´s the foes hitting back.
Bad enough when they are lousy marksmen, worse if they go into martyr-mode...

[gaerzi]

My long video game experience taught me that it's always more enjoyable to shoot the explosive barrel next to an enemy than directly the enemy. (Unless the enemy in itself has exploding parts that can be targeted, then it's equally enjoyable.)

[Curlysan]

My long video game experience taught me that it's always more enjoyable to shoot the explosive barrel next to an enemy than directly the enemy. (Unless the enemy in itself has exploding parts that can be targeted, then it's equally enjoyable.)

Depends on the barrels blast radius. We'll hopefully not find out in the next episode. Staying tuned!

[Sweforce]

I recently saw an old disaster/thriller movie where an airliner ended up in trouble due to a madman of a prisoner took a high powered revolver from his guard when keeled over due to an heart attack. Two wounded people and a shot up hydraulics system later and they where in trouble.

Defending against a boarding party on a spaceship must be complicated if any weapon capable of penetrating the invaders armour can also seriously damage the ship.

[Dan Wyatt]

The threads on individual pages have a limited lifespan, so I don't consider it a problem if the discussion wanders a bit off topic. Aerospace subjects are appropriate to this forum, I think.

Hello Arioch, just wanted to ask if you will update the official site with newer pages, if so, when? It's been an awfully long time for most of us here.

[Arioch]

Hello Arioch, just wanted to ask if you will update the official site with newer pages, if so, when? It's been an awfully long time for most of us here.

Yes, of course I'll post new pages.

It should have been weeks ago, and would have been this Monday, but a client had an emergency request this weekend. With any luck, the new page will be up this week.