Mig23 and Mig27 for the RAF

[uk 75]

Looking again at the various Soviet vstol and stovl Mig and Sukhoi prototypes and then the in service Mig 23 and Su17 I was struck by how similar they were to British paper projects of the same period.
British versions of the Mig and Su would not have looked very different. The Su looks very like the Lightning VG. The Mig like the Vickers then BAC tactical fighter designs minus the lift jets.
The F4 thread got me thinking that perhaps the Russians were closer to our design thinking ad neither they nor us put anything like the F4 into service

 

[zen]

It's certainly true that the Soviets did evolve the Su-17, and for the Lightning to be a success it would have had to undergo such a evolution.

And one can see the Su-19 as a earlier F155 type. Notable for how light at empty it was.
Whenever I ponder an ideal RN and RAF fighter, this is the machine that makes me think it is possible to get reasonable solution.
Succeeded in part by the Mig-25.

The Tu-28 is almost a Red Barrel.

While the Delta winged prototype alternative Mig23 looks more like a Starfighter. Though the lift jet gets it close to some western V/STOL designs.

As for the Mig-23, this is the product of quite some sound design and requirements engineering.
The Mirage G, and the earlier Type 584/585 do seem to parallel it.

 

[kaiserd]

Not sure what is meant above by “closer to our design thinking”.
Is it swing-wings and/or other design aspects/ focus?

 

[Archibald]

Supermarine had their 580 series packed with british MiG-23 look alikes. VG designs aplenty.
The MiG-23 however was a flying piece of junk and death trap which manoeuvered like a flying Torrey canyon.

 

[uk 75]

All I meant was that like us, the Soviets did not make an F4 lookalike.

 

[uk 75]

I have returned to this thread because I think the Mig23/27 do look like the aircraft which Britain should have designed around 1960 to enter service by 1970 to replace the Sea Vixen in the RN and the Hunter in the RAF.
Unlike the later AFVG which is my favourite aircraft for this role in the longer term, it would only be single engined so the FAA would have been very resistant. But it would have given them three carriers in the 70s and made a smaller and simpler CVA01 more achievable.
It would not have been as capable as the F4 but it would have been UK built and closer to what foreign air forces wanted.
BAC P45 shows it could have been done.

 

[zen]

Considering that the upper reaches of the Admiralty were supportive of the Type 583 a compromise to the early Type 585 is possible.
Essentially the Type 584 navalised.

And at that moment we're there, since although Type 584 was seen as more complex and take longer to develop....the chief 'trade-able' elements be the clangbox diverter and lift jets.
Remove them as the Navy would and you've got a Mig23 like design.

Once the RAF abandon V/STOL tactical nukes delivery, supersonic V/STOL gets dropped and yet all the money spent on Type 584 isn't wasted.
Since pulling out V/STOL elements leaves you a single engined VG strike fighter.

We know the avionics package since that's one of the options that would've been selected for P.1154.

 

[Martes]

I have returned to this thread because I think the Mig23/27 do look like the aircraft which Britain should have designed around 1960 to enter service by 1970 to replace the Sea Vixen in the RN and the Hunter in the RAF.

Brown mentions the following concerning potential aircraft for CVA-01:

with the planned variable-geometry (‘swing-wing’) aircraft being designed to meet Operational Requirement 346 being embarked later. ...

Aircraft weighing up to 70,000lbs could be operated, with two 250ft catapults and two lifts (70ft · 32ft) installed.

The operational requirement may provide more details but it does seem a very straightforward way to getting a British implementation of Mig-23 (and/or Su-24).