Mig-21 TU-95 Ficon Query

[Cobra]

Hey Guys,What If the Soviets Tried a Ficon System using a Mig-21? Would it work or Not? just now the Thought Struck Me & I Thought about Asking. Think this would Work as a Whif Project? What Say You? Thanks for Looking.Dan

[Weaver]

Oooh - that's interesting. Should work no better or worse that the US system I'd imagine.

[Maverick]

I think it would depend on which -21 you were using.  The earlier models (F comes to mind) are smallish, whilst the later SMT, bis etc are bigger beasts.  You could even consider a smaller airframe in the first instance, like a -17 or -19.

Regards,

Mav

[McGreig]

Shouldn't be a problem conceptually, as you're already half way there with the Tu-95/Kh-20 combination.

MiG designed the Kh-20 ("AS-3 Kangaroo") cruise missile specifically for the Tu-95 "Bear". It was based on the airframe of the unsuccessful I-7 fighter and was in a similar size range to the MiG-19 and MiG-21. In fact, initial testing of the missile systems, mothership-missile interface and airborne launching was performed using four specially modified MiG-19 fighters.

Also, looking a photos of the Tu-95/Kh-20 combination, it looks like a Soviet FICON wouldn't suffer the same ground clearance problems as the B-36/F-84 combination. However, whether or not the Russians would be any more successful than the USAF in dealing with the airborne hookup and retrieval problems is another question - - -

[Weaver]

I've often wondered if the hook-up problem could be eased by trailing a cable with a drogue, similar to an air-refuelling drogue but MUCH stronger, behind the trapeze. The fighter hooks onto the drogue with a probe and is then "reeled in" until it makes contact with the trapeze proper. I know it wouldn't solve all the problems (particularly turbulence), but it might make it easier by demanding less precision maneuvering in close proximity to the carrier plane. Essentially it's like a horizontal equivalent of the "beartrap" system used to land big helicopters on small ships.

In a modern iteration, you could imagine the carrier plane's flight control system linking to the fighter's automatically via the cable and taking control of it, so that the fighter automatically and safely conforms to the movement of the carrier as it's winched in.

NASA Dryden did some work on towing (but not winching in) using a modified F-106.

[ysi_maniac]

^^^^
This is a good idea that deserves a model

[frank2056]

NASA Dryden did some work on towing (but not winching in) using a modified F-106.

That was the Eclipse project. The idea was to tow a reusable air launched rocket into the air. The F-106 tow worked remarkably well - why would you have to reel a towed FICON in?

[McGreig]

why would you have to reel a towed FICON in?

My guess would be pilot comfort. FICON missions could last for 10 hours or more. A major benefit of the B36/F-84 FICON was that the F-84 pilot could enter and exit the F-84 in the air, spending most of the flight in the B-36. A towed FICON would mean that the fighter pilot would have to spend all this time in a relatively cramped cockpit with little to do (and would it be heated if the fighter engine was not running?). Also, range was presumably not an issue with the Dryden tests, but would a towed FICON not create more drag and adversely affect the range in comparison to a  carried, semi recessed fighter?  (Although the additional drag of the semi recessed F-84 apparently reduced the range of the B-36 by between 5% and 10%).

[DaFROG]

I vaguely recall reading somewhere that towing was experimented with the MiG15? without the MiG's engine running the pilot would quickly freeze.
'course you could run electricity down the tow cable.
it's much more fun to have recessed carriage it's only a small leap from there to a giant nuclear powered flying battleship aircraft carrier

[jcf]

I'd guess that the biggest problem with an in-flight mate up would be with the prop-wash from the those big turbo-props.
The pusher config of the B-36 meant that the F-84 was in fairly clean air when it mated up, a MiG 21 wouldn't be so lucky
when trying to attach to a Tu 95.

Seems it would probably be a one-way trip.

[ChernayaAkula]

I'd guess that the biggest problem with an in-flight mate up would be with the prop-wash from the those big turbo-props.
The pusher config of the B-36 meant that the F-84 was in fairly clean air when it mated up, a MiG 21 wouldn't be so lucky
when trying to attach to a Tu 95.

Oh, that could be helped! 

[Weaver]

You could solve the freezing pilot problem for a towed aircraft by fitting it with a small APU that would provide aircon and basic electrical power for minimal fuel burn while the main engine was off. I agree with McGreig though, that allowing the pilot to get out would be the main advantage of "docking" the fighter. Depending on configuration, you might also be able to re-arm it too, at least with cannon ammo.

My ideal carrier aircraft would be a huge flying wing with a multi-aircraft "hanger" in the middle with trailing edge doors and the turbofan engines well outboard. The tow cable would pass through a rigid, telescopic boom attached to the front of the hangar. For launch, the fighter would be connected to the boom, the doors opened, and it would be extended backwards before disengaging. For recovery, the cable would be payed out well behind the carrier, the fighter would attach, it would be reeled in until it mated with the boom and then the boom retracted. The point of the boom is to constrain the movement of the fighter when it's very close to the carrier.