Quote from: PR19_Kit on April 04, 2025, 07:27:31 AM

Quote from: Beermonster58 on April 04, 2025, 01:24:29 AMBut, surely it could be made more attractive by employing Kit's rule no 1?  

Absolutely, but the #1 and #4 engines would be even further away from the central axis than they are now.

Only if you leave them on the wing tips, if you drop them down onto pylons & extend the wings past them ...   

Quote from: Old Wombat on April 04, 2025, 11:11:32 PM

Quote from: PR19_Kit on April 04, 2025, 07:27:31 AM

Quote from: Beermonster58 on April 04, 2025, 01:24:29 AMBut, surely it could be made more attractive by employing Kit's rule no 1?  

Absolutely, but the #1 and #4 engines would be even further away from the central axis than they are now.

Only if you leave them on the wing tips, if you drop them down onto pylons & extend the wings past them ...   

Or, leave them where they are and, extend the wings outboard as in the SR.71?

All are possible, if only it looked a bit less 'Soviet'. 

That M.50 would be fun to build......and play with lol. Love that style of aeroplane.

Quote from: PR19_Kit on April 05, 2025, 02:24:09 AMAll are possible, if only it looked a bit less 'Soviet'. 

Define "Soviet"   It looks a bit like a B-58 on steroids!   (I've been considering a B-58 with two engines wingtip mounted and, the wings extended  outwards........!)

Quote from: Beermonster58 on April 07, 2025, 11:11:47 PMDefine "Soviet"  

Yes, I know what you mean, it's not easy, but they do seem to have a 'look' about them which defines the genre.

There's no way an F-104 or a Lightning F2A could be anything other than American or British, and likewise an Su-7 or a Blinder just HAS to be 'Soviet' just from the way it looks.

Quote from: PR19_Kit on April 08, 2025, 04:20:44 AM

Quote from: Beermonster58 on April 07, 2025, 11:11:47 PMDefine "Soviet"  

Yes, I know what you mean, it's not easy, but they do seem to have a 'look' about them which defines the genre.

There's no way an F-104 or a Lightning F2A could be anything other than American or British, and likewise an Su-7 or a Blinder just HAS to be 'Soviet' just from the way it looks.

Now, that's a VERY subjective comment! 😉👍😂.  I get what you say though. There's a very practical, almost brutal functionality about Cold War  Russian designs. That's why I like them. 😊

Quote from: Beermonster58 on April 08, 2025, 07:02:27 AMThere's a very practical, almost brutal functionality about Cold War  Russian designs. That's why I like them. 😊

I believe that just about every aircraft was required to be able to operate from rough fields. If not, they certainly gave that impression. Which begs the question: if they had such experience in building landing gear that could take a right royal pounding, why did they wait so long before getting into the aircraft carrier business?    Reliability, perhaps, if I recall correctly their engines had/have much shorter lifetimes than western equivalents. And blowtorches like the Lyulka AL-7 would burn through so much fuel that one exercise would require returning to port to take on more kerosene. 

Quote from: The Rat on April 08, 2025, 11:44:39 AM

Quote from: Beermonster58 on April 08, 2025, 07:02:27 AMThere's a very practical, almost brutal functionality about Cold War  Russian designs. That's why I like them. 😊

I believe that just about every aircraft was required to be able to operate from rough fields. If not, they certainly gave that impression. Which begs the question: if they had such experience in building landing gear that could take a right royal pounding, why did they wait so long before getting into the aircraft carrier business?    Reliability, perhaps, if I recall correctly their engines had/have much shorter lifetimes than western equivalents. And blowtorches like the Lyulka AL-7 would burn through so much fuel that one exercise would require returning to port to take on more kerosene. 

Doctrine was a big part of it too. For much of the Cold War, Soviet doctrine was based around defeating USN carrier battle groups by swamping them with missiles in large, coordinated attacks by aircraft, ships and submarines. Since carrier-killing missiles were big, the emphasis was on maritime patrol aircraft (the infamous Bear-Ds) to direct the strikes and medium bombers like the Tu-16 Badger, Tu-22 Blinder and Tu-22M Backfire to carry the missiles. There's no point having carriers if the aircraft they can launch can't carry an AS-4 Kitchen missile that's the size of a small fighter.

Hand-in-hand with this was the desire to hunt down NATO SSBNs during the conventional phase of WWIII before it went nuclear. That's why they got into ASW helicopter carriers with the Moskvas and the Kievs. The Yak-38s on the latter were pretty much a large-scale trial: the most they could have done was chase off LRMPAs in the manner originally intended for the RN's Sea Harriers. These assets handily transferred into a later concept, which was bastion defense. Essentially, when the Soviets' SLBMs got enough range, they realised that all they had to do to was protect them from NATO SSNs and the best way to do that was to keep them in "bastions" in the Arctic from which they could fire their missiles. The bastions would then be defended by their own SSNs, surface ASW forces and land-based aircraft.

At no point did the Soviets have the  resources or the knowledge and experience, for USN style power-projection, and it didn't feature in their doctrine. Essentially, they were on the defensive, and you don't fight a large pack of big dogs with a couple of your own, you do something different, something "asymetric", to coin the current buzzword.

What Harold said, the Soviet version
of power projection was local and the
support of revolutionary movements,
nominally people's socialist states and
trying to influence unaligned states.
Playing spoiler and complicating the
"West's" own maneuvering.
Trying to build an aircraft carrier force
would be expensive and the lack of a
year round ports with easy access to
the sea limits the options. The only
"warm water" ports are on the Black
Sea but the exit is easily denied. The
Baltic ports have weather limitations and the sea can be interdicted. Vladivostok's location is a disadvantage because its at the end of a very long logistical chain. Arkhangelsk's issues are obvious.