V-601 - Vought's MiGs

Looking on V-601 Topic
It make no sense as Aggressor aircraft for Air combat exercise, nor as Low cost fighter for US forces

But What about as International Fighter Aircraft ?
like Northrop F-5 in use of south Vietnamese air-force in 1960s.

The V-601 would fit perfectly that role, special in niche the Mig-21 occupy.
Special for countries who become Allies of USA, but were former "customers" of USSR
and got allot Mig-21 in hangars, The V-601 would bring improvements for new Allies
For Pilots could use V-601 without retraining or upgrading there Mig-21 to V-601
 
This problem was tackled in the 1980's by the Northrop F-20 Tigershark demonstrator. IMHO it failed both internationally and as an Aggressor because Lockheed lowered the price on it's F-16's to keep Northrop from competing domestically and abroad against the Falcon.

Personally, I would have loved to have seen a manned-HiMAT type aircraft (similar to Vought's V-6ZZ concept) whose performance and maneuver envelope that could have out performed most light-fighters of the day, or a canard-equipped F-16 with an installed computer system, similar to VISTA, that could be used to 'tune' the aircraft to fly and perform like the threat aircraft (i.e. 'dial-a-threat' flight control system).
 
It's also helpful to remember the reason for a covert dissimilar A2A program from back in the day. Most of us had only heard about the merits of the MiG series of fighters. Some of that was "bar talk" and some came from the vault in the squadron weapons office. For much of the time, our A2A training was against similar US aircraft. Experience against other aircraft types was usually "off the books" and not always looked upon in a favorable light by HHQ.

What the covert program did for us was two things. One, it let us see just how small and hard to see these aircraft could be. And two, we got a chance to see how well they performed at speeds that were well below our usual maneuvering speeds.

These days, these two objectives are far less important. Bad guy jets have gotten bigger and ours somewhat smaller. Dissimilar A2A training is now enthusiastically accepted. On a different note, our formations and tactics have long ago abandoned the Korean War concepts that were still common in the 60s and early 70s.

Finally, back then the objective was to replicate relative size and performance differences. Today, the emphasis seems to be on avionics-related issues, both offensive and defensive. We've gone from a WVR to a BVR environment to demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of avionics. While relative maneuvering capabilities still are important, the equally important point is how folks get into the fight to begin with.
 
Dynoman said:
This problem was tackled in the 1980's by the Northrop F-20 Tigershark demonstrator. IMHO it failed both internationally and as an Aggressor because Lockheed lowered the price on it's F-16's to keep Northrop from competing domestically and abroad against the Falcon.

Personally, I would have loved to have seen a manned-HiMAT type aircraft (similar to Vought's V-6ZZ concept) whose performance and maneuver envelope that could have out performed most light-fighters of the day, or a canard-equipped F-16 with an installed computer system, similar to VISTA, that could be used to 'tune' the aircraft to fly and perform like the threat aircraft (i.e. 'dial-a-threat' flight control system).
Click to expand...

The idea of VISTA type F-16s for aggressors makes sense. It would be interesting to know if it has ever been used for that type of testing.
 
Amusing how it took until post #40 before anyone suggested updating Migs already operated by second and third world air forces that already had fleets of Migs. Perhaps they worried that the collapsing USSR would not sell any more spare parts.
By 1992, a wide variety and quantity of Communist-surplus were sold to American Warbird owners. During the early 1990s I packed a bewildering array of (Butler) custom-made parachute containers for warbirds of all sizes and shapes. Part of the reason for new, American-made parachutes was that most of the surplus parachutes were more than 20 years old, manuals were only available in Russian and explosive cartridges were difficult to source.

Various Aeromacchi trainers including SAAF Cheeta
Bosbok
deHavilland Vampire
Folland Gnat
Iskra jet trainer
L-29 Delphin and L-39 jet trainers
Mig 15, 17, 19 and 21.
Nanjing CJ-6
SAAB Draken
Sokol Super Galeb
Sukhoi aerobats
Yak trainers

Plus a wide variety of World War 2 surplus and pre-WW2 antiques
 
Last edited:
Sundog, the F-16 VISTA aircraft list of simulated aircraft include:
YF-22/F-22
Indian LCA
JASF X-35
X-38 Crew Return Vehicle
And numerous aircraft systems level tests
according to the following paper: https://engineering.purdue.edu/~andrisan/Courses/AAE490A_S2007/Buffer/Calspan%20VSS%20Airrcraft/IFS_History_AIAA%20Paper_Calspan.pdf

As far as I know, no MiGs (or other USSR/WARSAW Pact aircraft) were simulated, however the VISTA's first flight was well after the collapse of the USSR.
 
Bill S said:
V-601 was an "Americanized" MiG-21 for Naval Adversary Aircraft

Proposal was for 24 new aircraft deliveries on a similar delivery schedule to the original F-16N and TF -16N aircraft (1986-89). The aircraft would be crated and shipped to Vought for modification and reassembly.

1983 proposal included: Structural work to support new avionics and ejection seat.
Adding UHF, IFF, VHT, TACAN, ILS, Intercom, New altimeter, standby gyro, ADI, Fire warning system in engine bay, airspeed indicator, EGT system, Oxygen regulator and seat pan disconnect, Clock, Escape system, Fuel shutoff system, 28 VDC to 155 VAC inverters, Nicad batteries and charging system. Wiring for TACTS pod.
A year later the proposal added: Radar with look-down capability, INS, second VHF, Com control system, Improved TACAN, Crash recorder/beacon, Load/strain recorder, Chaff/flare dispenser, Arresting gear system, provisions for a RHAW system.
Additional changes at a later date: deleted VHF radio, deleted ILS system, retain the original crew escape system.
Click to expand...

Here are a few more details about the V-601 plan to add to my 2011 post on the subject.
The Manufacturing Flow
Components needing System Acceptance Test
Arresting Hook Installation
V-601 Cockpit Illustration
 

Attachments

  • V-601-Proposed-Manufacturing-Flow.jpg
    V-601-Proposed-Manufacturing-Flow.jpg
    49.6 KB · Views: 350
  • V-601-Components-Needing-System-Acceptance-Test.jpg
    V-601-Components-Needing-System-Acceptance-Test.jpg
    34 KB · Views: 312
  • V-601-Arresting-Hook-Install.jpg
    V-601-Arresting-Hook-Install.jpg
    27.2 KB · Views: 328
  • V-601-Cockpit.jpg
    V-601-Cockpit.jpg
    139.6 KB · Views: 425
Nice find Bill, thanks for posting. :)
 
There was a project to modify Mig-21's with Spey turbofans as well, can't remember the conversation RR had and with whom (Egypt rings a bell though) but there was a degree of technical assessment carried out on how to do it.
 
norseman said:
There was a project to modify Mig-21's with Spey turbofans as well, can't remember the conversation RR had and with whom (Egypt rings a bell though) but there was a degree of technical assessment carried out on how to do it.
Click to expand...
Didn't Speys go into some of the Chinese knock-offs?
 
The Chinese also managed to hoover up a couple of RR modified Speys (25,000lb reheat version used in Phantom tests) from a holding area (dump) and rumour has it they are/have already put a variant in the JH-7's and initiated reverse engineering production. They were seemingly trying to track down the 27/28,000lb Spey prototypes but I think they were scrapped. There were a few TF-41 prototype engines floating around as well, 17,000lb dry and 27,000lb reheat versions related to Corsair projects and some installation/fitting projects for the F-111 and F-14 as potential engine options (and angling for RAF sales).

It's a real pity they didn't get further with this as the heavier (not physically) militarised Spey also had better acceleration, engineered for even better reliability (and it was very good as it was), improvements in fuel consumption, surge protection and maintenance as the initial military version was a bit rushed and needed some tweeking. The Phantom fitted with the 25k lb version was meant to have blistering performance and no further air intake adaptions other than already carried out and would have really justified the Spey adaption program for it. Would have been interesting to have seen the real world results of the Spey programs for the Mirage III/5, Mirage IV, Mirage F1, F-14, F-15 (was more a general what if discussion again on a potential early RAF order), A-5 Vigilante, A-4 Skyhawk, Corsair, Crusader, F100 Super Sabre, Mig-21, Saab Viggen, Sea Vixen, Scimitar and quite a few more.

The tweeks required to turn the TF-41 Spey variant in the Corsair into the 17/18,000+ dry variant would have been a tremendous quick win with no real fuel penalty and minimal engineering requirements (compared to some of the other re-engine options mooted (and done in the A7F's case).

Also there were at least two upgrade packages offered for the AMX to lift thrust with minimal effort and engineering to much improve hot and high and general performance figures.

Sorry, seem to have drifted off and a deviated Spey topic. :)
 
Although not clear if they ran loosely under the V-601 project or not, there were a couple of other MiG-21/F-7 projects that Vought Studied.
One was an effort on Egyptian MiG-21MFs with Emerson to install a new radar and AIM-7 missile system
A second was a significant upgrade to Pakistani F-7 aircraft including: radar, fuel system and engine upgrades.
Attached are a few scans of this information.
 

Attachments

  • 00.jpg
    00.jpg
    34.4 KB · Views: 355
  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    69 KB · Views: 245
  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    49.5 KB · Views: 287
  • 5.jpg
    5.jpg
    23.4 KB · Views: 236
  • 4.jpg
    4.jpg
    19.7 KB · Views: 228
  • 3.jpg
    3.jpg
    62.4 KB · Views: 211
  • 6.jpg
    6.jpg
    33.6 KB · Views: 239
  • 7.jpg
    7.jpg
    54.6 KB · Views: 225
  • 8.jpg
    8.jpg
    26 KB · Views: 285
Seems like a lot of work for 24 airframes. If I was at vought, I'd be asking how to smuggle them in from China, and stick a new serial on them. I guess it relates to the belief that the Mig was many time better as a 'dogfighter' than anything the US had?
 
There was never an intention for Vought to build MiG-21s as far as I can see. The airframes would have been new build, obtained from an undisclosed third party (presumably China?) and then upgraded with US systems.

The advantage of this approach was the airframe would be a very representative threat.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
There was never an intention for Vought to build MiG-21s as far as I can see. The airframes would have been new build, obtained from an undisclosed third party (presumably China?) and then upgraded with US systems.

The advantage of this approach was the airframe would be a very representative threat.
Click to expand...
Could this be related with the late 80"s proposal of the so called F-7M Airguard, with Western aviomics, seat and armament?
 
archipeppe said:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
There was never an intention for Vought to build MiG-21s as far as I can see. The airframes would have been new build, obtained from an undisclosed third party (presumably China?) and then upgraded with US systems.

The advantage of this approach was the airframe would be a very representative threat.
Click to expand...
Could this be related with the late 80"s proposal of the so called F-7M Airguard, with Western aviomics, seat and armament?
Click to expand...
No, that was a different proposal by different people. Same basic idea though.
 
The US procuring Chinese Migs (J-7s) just to bother the Soviets is an amusing idea... imagine if Nixon had a (small) partnership with Mao in 1972, to provide aggressors aircraft to USAF and USN...
 
While a westernized MiG-21 would be the most practical (for aggressor roles and for exporting the many on the market), I'd be interested in seeing what a westernized MiG-23 would have.
 
Not sure a westernised Mig-21 OR Mig-23 would be of any use anywhere these days.
 
Well, there was no reason for the US to build a MiG 21 copy since from the late 60's on they got their hands on several dozen actual ones at various points. I'd say the study to "Westernize" these MiG's took the same course, at about the same time, as proposals to modernize Soviet armor. Somewhere I have several sales pitch folders on that.
The problem overall, was it usually simply wasn't worth doing. The airframe itself was sufficiently limited that any upgrading would result in no more than small increments in improved performance.


The results of US testing of the MiG revealed more issues than reasons to want to copy it.
 
Last edited:
Archibald said:
maybe it's stupid but... what american engine could have been fitted in a MiG-21 rear fuselage ? a F-404 ? an older engine such as J-79 ?
Click to expand...
I'd want something that would spool up faster than the MiG engine and that had better thrust. I'd be willing to bet that either J79 or F404 would do the job, as could an afterburning TF41/Spey.

Basically make the Vought-21 have higher performance than the actual MiG so that US pilots train harder than they fight.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'd want something that would spool up faster than the MiG engine and that had better thrust. I'd be willing to bet that either J79 or F404 would do the job, as could an afterburning TF41/Spey.

Basically make the Vought-21 have higher performance than the actual MiG so that US pilots train harder than they fight.
Click to expand...
Considering you are talking about major redesign work I can see why this project never went anywhere. Although I doubt other than J79 that the turbofans would spool up faster than the turbojets used in the MiGs. Thrust being more or less would depend on the engine and MiG combo used.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom