The next generation Mig-21bis for domestic and export use has been largely shaped by air combat developments in Algeria with a significant overhaul made of the airframe itself. The already planned R25 engine with a 100kN wartime emergency thrust has been chosen to replace the aging R13, enabling unparalleled acceleration in emergency combat conditions for up to two minutes. The radar system has been removed and replaced with an IRST derived directly from the Mig-23, incorporating missile integration and close-range combat modes for faster general acquisition. Compatibility with the R13T, R13MT, and R60 missiles has been included, allowing two long-range and four short-range missiles to be carried in standard interception configurations. The largest changes, however, have come in the airframe with an updated structure of aluminum-lithium alloy along with a new double delta wing wing form. This lifespan extension of old tooling is not expected to make a competitive front-line fighter, but a capable export craft more than able to compete with and destroy American export fighters.
IMO adopting pure IRST here is a mistake, it means that this aircraft is strictly chained to a controlled interception environment with minimal independent search capability. The S in IRST is pretty notional at this point given the narrow look angle and search rates they had. Outside that it's probably a perfectly competent interceptor and dogfighter, but any nation that can would be a lot better served buying MiG-23/25. So mostly CMEA members, doubt we sell those to just anyone.
One of the largest issues facing the new generation of Soviet fighters has been the lack of an adequate engine system for propulsion. For all of the thrust and promise of the AL-21F reliability across the force has been poor with both the 23 and 25 suffering from severe maintenance issues. Further, the AL-21 engine is severely fuel inefficient, limiting range and causing several concerns for long-distance carrier operation. This has been made all the worse by shortages of engine production from the plant with prioritization split on what is to receive them. The Aviadvigatel offering of the re-engineered and modernized D-20 engine, now designated the D-30 and in a low bypass configuration has been selected as the replacement. Since significant capacity has already been developed the less reliable AL-21 engines can be pushed into alternative applications. Second-generation aircraft of both the Mig-23 and Mig-25 families are expected to be constructed with the new engine before 1974, allowing significant range and capability extensions for both aircraft.
Adopting a big turbofan like this is a serious advance and shows willingness of Soviet designers to make serious changes in upgrades. I presume this is closer to the actual commercial D-30's in a low bypass config rather than the scale-up the D-30F-6 was on the Mig-31, the big afterburner on the Mig-31 likely wouldn't fit and it's considerably heavier than AL-21F. Still the advantage in range and performance will make the 23 and 25 into even better dogfighters. And it will make defining "4th Generation Fighter" a real pain, are these 4th gens? The Mig-25 now has pretty much every trait of a 4th gen aircraft, but it originally had turbojets and is a weird interceptor heavy fighter thing.
Frontline units across the German theater have started to receive the new Mig-23 in quantity while the new Mig-23K has started to replace the obsolete subsonic air wings used on the Kharkov Class. The immediate issue with the plane has come in the form of the engine and some specifics of the missile-radar complex. Close-range engagement profiles for the R13 and its variations are inherently limited with the R60 compensating somewhat but proving to be limited due to poor kinematic performance. The airframe itself also suffers from several minor avionics issues as the performance of identical systems against enemy air defense has been universally poor and the simple radar warning system used in both the Mig-23 and Mig-21 are insufficient for an accurate battlefield picture. Countermeasure pod evaluations in place of a drop tank have proven viable to improve survivability through the use of thermal flares and chaff, and one has been designed to replace the central drop tank as a temporary measure until adequate second-generation models can be produced.
The primarily used model by the army is expected to receive the main focus of modernizations with a higher agility R13M of both radar and heat-seeking variants developed for the fighter. The primary performance improvement is expected to be a shorter intermediate phase, allowing for its use in a far closer minimum range envelope. Further, the IRST is expected to be improved with provisions made for mounting the Mysl HMD system for close-in combat. This is to be paired with a more advanced directed radar with a high off-boresight tracking and locking mode, reducing pilot load in combat situations. Automatic slats have been added to the wings along with a computerized control system, improving stability under all flight conditions. Long countermeasure rails are to be incorporated into the airframe, with current standards divided into the specific dimensions of optimal countermeasure release patterns. A fully integrated RWR system with specificity to 30 degrees outside vertical threat profiles and small blindspots outside the main axes has also been developed to be integrated into the new second-generation Mig-23M.
This is probably the result of Algeria and pilot reports emphasizing ability to get lock on targets very quickly and chaff/flare integration. Serious flare integration at this point is huge, most fighter aircraft didn't start to get countermeasures until the late 70's or even 80's. Chances are other powers learned that too though. Unfortunately RWR seems to be just Beryoza earlier, not a generational leap akin to ALR-46. Well maybe, but 30 degree specificity doesn't sound too great.
For the Mig-23MK the same modifications are expected to be incorporated along with the ability to mount for the newly developed Kh-15 missile system with an active radar anti-shipping seeker head. Further hardening of the landing gear and provisions for the mounting of twin R13M mounts on the inner pylon have been approved for the design, allowing a total of eight missiles to be carried for interception duties against likely far larger bomber waves. Multiple target tracking on the lighter Saphir system is not expected neither is TWS functionality, but the presence of more ordinance is expected to significantly improve fleet defense capability. The more limited navelized version does have worse agility and capability due to the heavier and more reinforced airframe, but that can be compensated for with lower fuel loads as the D30 engine offers considerable range extensions over AL21F-equipped Mig-23s. In all of this, the lack of performance of a single pilot for guidance, tracking, acquisition, and engagement has left the ground attack variation effectively canceled with developments made in the Mig-23B program transferred to the Il-42 and Su-24.
Kh-15 is probably the same sort of ballistic weapon as OTL so useful to have it on fighter platforms but not revolutionary. So far no sea-skimmer from planes.
To accompany the general modernization of the Mig-25 to the D-30 engine system an avionics upgrade has been planned out. New production integrated circuits are expected to significantly improve the processing capability of the aircraft along with some improvements in detection. Dedicated hardware for the precise location of radar threats has been incorporated along with improving the capacity of the underwing pylons to carry all variations of the Kh-15 or 1500kg on each pylon for use as a light tactical bomber. The fuselage mounts for R40s can be directly replaced by 500kg bombs of any variety, but the configuration is inherently limited. Countermeasure systems are currently in development with a temporary modification made to provide a limited capacity for thermal countermeasures on first-generation airframes. The new Saphir-25M radar system is effectively a total overhaul of past systems, introducing strong chaff rejection with the R13M system. The new system further incorporates improved missile compatibility, allowing the use of the R40A equipped with terminal onboard radar guidance.
Now this is probably a new RWR more akin to ALR-46 or later. Maybe MPRF radar processing too, I think our computers are good enough to fit that in a big fighter radar like this. Pretty spooky to have in 1972. R-40A would I think make multiple target engagement much more practical. Previously doing it with SARH missiles and a mechanical radar. we'd have had to be splitting the missiles by time so that only one was terminal and receiving illumination. Now it's possible for a Mig-25 to execute an attack similar to F-14/AIM-54 where it can just launch all missiles one after the next.
Ground attack capabilities for the entire force have been effectively consolidated into two airframes to provide weapons officer targeting capability while ensuring a stable platform. The Su-24 has been advanced with the unmodernized Al-21F engine that is set to run at a less aggressive thrust profile at a lower altitude to minimize wear. Integrated tracking systems from the canceled Mig-23B program have been added as an under-cabin pod providing full tracking capability on the front aspect along with enhanced loiter designation capacity after ordinance release. The plane itself is expected to carry its ordinance across nine hardpoints with five on the fuselage, two heavy, and two light hardpoints on the wings. The central and inner wing points are made for carrying the heaviest ordinance while the rest are designed for Kh-25 or 500kg bomb mountings with the option for twin R60 mounts on the outer light wing pylons. The tracking system itself is still unreliable but it is likely to be pushed given the inadequacy of other supersonic attack aircraft.
Yeah with one-seater fighters the load is just too much with current computing and automation capabilities. It seems like it's already bad enough just executing air superiority missions with them. So the ground attack has been handed off to dedicated platforms. Getting a real EO pod will make them capable enough, though I wonder what other than Kh-25 they're going to carry. Presumably Kh-15 as well, but ideally they'd get something longer ranged to give them some interdiction capability.
Design and testing of the new Object 200 complex for the replacement of obsolete M-3 and M-4 bombers has advanced rapidly with the near total obsolescence of subsonic bombers. Adapting a lifting body airframe along with a new generation of jet engines Suhkoi has designed a combined fuselage meeting all current specifications on paper. The use of a variable geometry wing was necessary to meet operational requirements with the development of the improved RD-36 or NK-32 engine for a quadruple mount to provide enough thrust. The principle goal of the program is effectively a nine thousand-kilometer range at a three thousand-kilometer cruising speed necessitating a large number of adaptations. Sukhoi has also claimed that the bomber will be able to carry two heavy Kh-45 missiles internally and two externally for both anti-shipping and nuclear roles. For lighter antishipping work it is expected to carry sixteen Kh-15s internally and eight externally allowing a significant increase in saturation against heavy carrier targets.
So bomber. This is an extremely capable(i.e. expensive) bomber platform that should be able to actually penetrate even some competent air defenses. Kh-45 looking into it should be able to overtop USN SAM systems, basically a aero-ballistic glider in the 70's. At the same time this is a pretty specific capability to be paying a lot of cash for. ICBM's work just as well for nuclear attack, this is really a dedicated tactical platform for engaging carrier groups or for hunting launchers on the ground at shorter ranges. For a lot of the cruise missile deployment or mud moving missions that OTL bombers have actually done, this is major overkill. Similar to the B-1A in that regard. I wonder if the M-4 will hang around like the Tu-95 and B-52 have IRL.
The Yak-38 has had its first flight with evaluations centered on assessing the aircraft as a capacity addition and modernization of the Kiev-Class. The first flights themselves have proven disappointing as while the plane is capable of VTOL operations its payload is limited in the extreme. Under good conditions, two Kh-15 missiles can be carried, but even that requires considerable weight shedding to allow. Using lift jets to achieve some aerodynamic stability along with several improved systems to reduce the load on the pilot has still resulted in a questionable temperamental frame. The test pilots have found the craft challenging to operate in a pure VTOL configuration and it is currently believed that a small STOL craft would be a better improvement. A lot of one hundred of the fighters are still going to be ordered as they offer a massive improvement over the obsolescent Yak-30 but even then the gains are far more marginal than they should be.
So our Yak-38 is more like a harrier, IRL no way would Yak-38 get off the deck with something like two Kh-15's. Hopefully lessons learned will be adapted for any future VTOL... presuming there is one. Not so sure given Kiev-Class is limited and there are full-size carriers in the USSR.
Combat experience with the R60 has shown several deficiencies in the range of combat along with lacking launching discipline. The sensitive seeker head does allow front aspect shots under some limited conditions along with longer-ranged side aspect shots but the kinematics of the missile are lacking. Many pilots have been trained to release as soon as a side aspect tone is available but this has proven questionable due to both the seeker and the missile itself. Against fast-moving targets, the motor is insufficient to achieve an intercept and if the profile is significantly changed the missile can be turned into an evasive maneuver. While not an issue early on in the war the lack of any measures for countermeasure resistance has limited the system as the seeker is easily confused by thermal countermeasures. Improvements toward the fidelity of the seeker and a disengagement of the seeker for a few seconds on the detection of countermeasures, and a kinematic overhaul will come on the updated missile, significantly improving performance.
Push-ahead IRCCM and presumably spatial discrimination. Another thing from Algeria I presume, though that it was necessary suggests that the West will have wised up to the need for countermeasures on their fighters as well. I suspect that ITL will simply be more advanced in both IRCCM and flares than IRL so will mostly even out, no advantage to either side. That we're thinking about side-aspect hit chance and motor power makes me think something like R-73 is in the pipeline.
Using a higher bypass development on the D-30 engine the Il-76 prototype has had its first flight. The transport is effectively developed as a replacement for the An-12 along with being pushed into several auxiliary airforce roles. Progress on the prototype has effectively been directly copied over from several bomber programs that have been rejected allowing a simple continuation of performance even if the fuselage is improved. Most of the avionics and cabins have been cloned directly from the M-3 to keep the continuation of production while the fuselage itself is built from modern aluminum alloys. Once entering into production the Il-76 is expected to deliver up to forty tons on rough dirt fields and provide forward resupply along with modernizing airborne forces. Four thousand kilometers of range is expected to be enough to entirely replace the An-12 in all frontline and rough field roles.
Awkward that Il-76 is going to inherit some features from our old bombers. Still hopefully it will do it's job without being too awkwardly old in this regard. Maybe if we push Tupolev factory some for airliners they'll have something better to think about and do some upgrades.
