|
It's just there's always this talk about capabilities about how XYZ soviet fighter is more maneuverable or can do nice things. A common person with no experience would see them pull a cobra maneuver at an airshow and think that means the fighter is amazing. But if we look at the raw facts I don't think a single F-15 or F-16 has ever been lost in battle to a Mig-29. It's pretty much a lopsided 170-0 kill ratio. The Russians lost like 6 planes to a dinky little country like Georgia alone. Maybe the sad truth is that as much as we'd like to think the Russian planes are "good" in some way, in actual war they're just target practice. The common armament for most Mig-29s and SU-27s consists of R-27s and R-73s. The R-73 might be able to do something at short range, but most engagements are BVR. An F-15 just fires (and forgets) an AMRAAM and starts maneuvering to evade any R-27s the Russians fire. You need to maintain a radar lock on your target for an R-27 to hit and if you got a AMRAAM on you, you're gonna be running for your dear life to evade those missiles losing the lock and causing your R-27 to fall harmlessly to the ground. Not to mention R-27s are supposedly notoriously unreliable. Meanwhile that AMRAAM doesn't need a radar lock from the F-15 that fired it which means while that missile is chasing you and you're trying really hard to avoid it, the F-15 pilot can sit back and have a coffee. I honestly don't think American pilots have had a real challenge since Vietnam. Only thing to really worry about nowadays are SAMs. DerDestroyer fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Mar 10, 2010 |
#
?
Mar 10, 2010 22:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 22:47 |
|
|
Honestly, back in the 80s when the Russian Air Force had some kind of funding for training, I'm sure the -29 had better capabilities. In Georgia, IIRC, most of the strike aircraft used were Su-25s, and I don't think the -29 was one of the airframes lost. If I had to bet money, I'd say the most capable -29 squadrons in 2010 belong to the Indian Air Force.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2010 22:53
|
|
|
DerDestroyer posted:It's just there's always this talk about capabilities about how XYZ soviet fighter is more maneuverable or can do nice things. A common person with no experience would see them pull a cobra maneuver at an airshow and think that means the fighter is amazing. We talkin' planes or missles here?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2010 22:53
|
|
|
The plane is really only as useful as the missiles you hang underneath it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2010 22:54
|
|
|
I'm of the opinion that the Russian Air Force exists today solely as a demonstration team for Russian exports 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2010 22:55
|
|
|
Yeah I think I share that opinion viking. I think that an SU-27 or Mig-29 might pose a major challenge against a US plane in a dogfight provided their pilot got enough flight hours. But in any given engagement it'll never come to that. The missiles will end it long before that. India is probably the best example of how to properly employ Mig-29s. I think if you got the money to put the pilots through the necessary training hours, develop the appropriate tactics, and build the appropriate support for it you can have something on parity with most American 4th generation fighters. However if you got all the money to do that, you're probably a nation on Americans green list for arms sales and are likely a launch customer for the Joint Strike Fighter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2010 23:00
|
|
|
DerDestroyer posted:I too have a thing for Soviet fighters and interceptors. I'm surprised you haven't mentioned the Mig-31 Foxhound. Speaking of which does anyone have an idea of whether it turned out to be more capable than its predecessor the '25? I heard that Zalson radar it has was supposedly revolutionary technology. The MiG-31 radar (Flashdance) is just another bigass fighter radar. It's not especially capable, or revolutionary, except that it is electronically steered in azimuth. That's not unusual nowadays, but fairly impressive for the late 70s USSR...but all that really gives is easier maintenance (fewer moving parts). The MiG-31 is better than the -25, though. The second crewmember gives the pilot the opportunity to pay more attention to flying the airplane (very important in the terribly-designed Russian cockpits), and it just had a bunch of improvements. The USSR advanced a fair amount in electronics and avionics between the two planes. Not high-tech, and not especially good at anything in particular, it's still a fast loving interceptor that can ruin a B-52's day (maybe a B-58's day, that'd be cool to see play out). quote:The way I see it, I think that the exported models were inferior to what the Russians actually use in their armed forces and also they were never meant to be deployed the way they were by the 3rd world countries that used them. I think to really benefit from a Mig-29 you need an army of mechanics to ensure it's well maintained and you need good ground support in the form of radar etc and maybe an AWACS. Many nations couldn't afford that so the Mig was a flop since the opponents it ran into usually had those things. Yes, export models were almost always inferior. A lot of them would have the previous generation radar, RWR, low-end missiles, etc. There's been a lot more parity over the past couple of decades though. Russia doesn't have the best MiG-29s anymore. Hell, India's MiG-21 Bison is probably better than the average Russian Fulcrum. When you compare fighter aircraft, the public generally looks at the wrong things. Cobra maneuvers and vertical stalls are not going to win the fight. Your chance of victory would almost be better if you flew into the ground hoping the enemy would follow you in. Having a radar capable to tracking a target at long range and a missile capable of engaging at long range will give you the edge. Maneuverability is a defensive capability...you want maneuverability so you can degrade the enemy's ability to engage you at range. Maneuverability isn't necessarily a game changer...low observability is. If you can deny the enemy the ability to even SEE you, you can get in close and take your shots. Chances are you'll force him into a defensive maneuver, in which case he's just eliminated his ability to retaliate. Congrats, you win. Taking 5th generation fighters out of the equation, I'd take a Boeing 747 with a good radar (an APG-70 or newer -63 variant), and a missile with a 50 nm effective range against anything the Russian AF currently flies, and I'll feel pretty good doing it. I'll take radar and range over aesthetics and airshows ANY day. Godholio fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Mar 10, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2010 23:29
|
|
|
DerDestroyer posted:An F-15 just fires (and forgets) an AMRAAM and starts maneuvering to evade any R-27s the Russians fire. The Russians also have an active homing missile in service, the R-77. It's been exported to several other countries as well. But yeah, internet discussions about modern jets fighting is usually just like a game of top trumps. I guess that's why stories from Vietnam, the Six Day War and stuff like that is more interesting to me as it actually happened and it happened with vacuum tubes, turbojets and non-regulation handlebar mustaches. Cockpit audio from real fighting is pretty drat rare, here are two of the gems I know of: Intercom recording from a Lancaster, apparently over Berlin in 1944 (footage unrelated of course) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoRVStgnTa8 Bloody good show!  This is from Vietnam: quote:On June 2, 1972 at approximately 1330 hours, Brenda 01, a hard-wing F-4E, tail number 68210, flown by Major Phil Handley shot down a MiG-19 with 20mm cannon fire, approximately 40 miles northeast of Hanoi. At the time of the kill, the estimated flight parameters were: F-4 speed over 1.2 mach (800+ kts); MiG-19 speed mach 0.77 (500 kts); altitude above terrain 500 feet; slant range 200-300 feet; and flight path crossing angle 90 degrees. This was the only MiG-19 shot down by cannon fire during the course of the war in Southeast Asia, and is believed to be the highest speed gun kill in the history of aerial combat. MP3 and transcript: http://www.nickelonthegrass.net/MiG_Kill.htm That's that gun baby. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2010 23:40
|
|
|
Russian interceptor and fighter theory during the Cold War depended heavily on ground controllers vectoring aircraft onto incoming bombers. The 3rd world isn't going to be fielding all kinds of expensive radar and AWACS equipment, so I guess it makes sense they weren't using the aircraft as they were intended?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2010 23:51
|
|
|
You mean you aren't supposed to lose a few airframes and then fly your top of the line fighters to a country that hates you, never to return?!
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2010 23:52
|
|
|
Ola posted:internet discussions about modern jets fighting 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2010 23:57
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:If I had to bet money, I'd say the most capable -29 squadrons in 2010 belong to the Indian Air Force. The Luftwaffe doesn't fly them anymore, do they? Speaking of 29s, I really like this photo. A couple of F15s intercepting Mig29s on their way to Canada for the Abbotsford Airshow in 1989.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 00:12
|
|
|
Color me informed, didn't know the Luftwaffe used them! Holdovers from the East Germans? Are they still operational?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 00:15
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Color me informed, didn't know the Luftwaffe used them! Yeah, they inherited them from the unification. I'm 99% sure they don't fly them anymore though, unless they maybe have a couple for aggressor training or something. Edit: Doesn't look like they have them anymore, all sold to Poland except one museum piece... although the US might have one still. slidebite fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Mar 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 00:19
|
|
|
I noticed the US has Mig-29s, SU-27s etc for things like aggressor training. Do the Russians have things like F-14s or F-16s?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 00:46
|
|
|
I'm fairly certain they don't, at least publicly. However, it's pretty common knowledge that the Serbs called Russian advisors in after the shoot-down of our F-117, and it's entirely possible that Iran crated up an F-14 or 3 and sent them out. The US acquired its Soviet airframes from defectors/countries that swapped from Warsaw Pact dominance to Capitalism, and the reverse hasn't happened to my knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 00:51
|
|
|
What can they do with flattened lumps of scrap from the F-117 anyway? Isn't the F-117 retired now?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 00:52
|
|
|
DerDestroyer posted:What can they do with flattened lumps of scrap from the F-117 anyway? Isn't the F-117 retired now? Yeah, but there's like a 10 year gap between the shoot down and the retirement. Russia is also designing their first stealth aircraft. I wouldn't be surprised if they learned something from the wreckage, Vietnam-era design or not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 00:54
|
|
|
Well, the coatings and such can be analyzed, the electronics and such maybe pieced together. Look at the re-assembly of TWA Flight 800, it's not too hard to rebuild an annihilated airframe. It obviously won't ever fly again, but you can learn a poo poo ton of stuff. Also, yes, the Nighthawk was retired, precisely because one was shot down and the technology compromised.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 00:55
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Well, the coatings and such can be analyzed, the electronics and such maybe pieced together. Look at the re-assembly of TWA Flight 800, it's not too hard to rebuild an annihilated airframe. It obviously won't ever fly again, but you can learn a poo poo ton of stuff. The difference between the Russians picking up pieces of a shot-down F-117 and TWA800 is that the people putting TWA800 back together new how the plane was supposed to go together in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 01:17
|
|
|
That's entirely true, but let's not pretend that Russian aerospace engineers are loving retards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 01:20
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:That's entirely true, but let's not pretend that Russian aerospace engineers are loving retards. Russian Aerospace engineers are awesome. Period.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 02:10
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Honestly, back in the 80s when the Russian Air Force had some kind of funding for training, I'm sure the -29 had better capabilities. In Georgia, IIRC, most of the strike aircraft used were Su-25s, and I don't think the -29 was one of the airframes lost. Latest Air & Space magazine from the Smithsonion has a write up of the Marine/Malaysian joint mission. F/A-18D v Mig 29, Devildogs took every engagement with only a couple "draws". They mention the Malay air force doesn't get the number of flight hours that the Marines do (pretty much no air force gets the flight time our military does) but says they do have some good flyers. They mention the Malay are dropping the 29 and getting newly fitted with Su-30 this year and might fair better (better technology) once they get used to it. One thing I thought was interesting is that one of the bigger challenges other air forces have is loiter time. Not due to efficiancy but because almost none of them practice in-flight refueling which all of ours do regularly. ETA: they also mention that it's really good training for our guys to fly from less prepared fields and without air conditioned hangers. They had to do maintenance on the taramac and do FOD walks because the Malaysians with the top intake -29s didn't worry about that at all. Tindjin fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Mar 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 02:12
|
|
|
ursa_minor posted:Russian Aerospace engineers are awesome. Period. Of course they are. They designed the Firefox, after all. We just went and stole it from them, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 02:24
|
|
|
I hate simulated air battles more than anything. Like Armchair quarterbacking with fighter planes. It proves NOTHING. "Blah Blah Blah Mig-29 in east german air force beat f-16 close-up in mock battle" Means gently caress all. The 29 is very capable theoretically, but has absolutley no results. F-16/F-15 vs Mig-29: 1991: 5(?) Mig-29 lost. 1999: 6 Mig-29's lost. A very bizzare statistic is the fact that a flying museum-piece Mig-25 shot down an F-18 in the opening hours of desert storm using a 1960's-era Bisnovat Long range missle. Does anybody have any further details about this incident? Did the Mig survive the war? Also for fighter buffs, this is kind of specific, what was the last confirmed air kill for the USAF( or any modern air force) that was achieved by using the plane's Cannon?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 03:07
|
|
|
Ola posted:This is from Vietnam: Wasn't this recreated in the dogfight series on the History channel? That was an awesome series, I need to get it on dvd. [edit] Here's a good one, talk about a balsy maneuver: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLAnQ8g70is God I love the flying bricks. Applebees Appetizer fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Mar 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 03:25
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that this is the coolest photo ever taken.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 04:19
|
|
|
MonkeyNutZ posted:I'm pretty sure that this is the coolest photo ever taken. Better res? Bigger?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 04:24
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, it's a murder! (I know that's supposed to be for crows but there's nothing good for blackbirds)
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 04:29
|
|
|
Maker Of Shoes posted:Better res? Bigger? I should totally rasterbate that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 04:36
|
|
|
Phy posted:Holy poo poo, it's a murder! This website is AI as gently caress (not really): http://www.nzbirds.com/more/nounsb.html Blackbirds, a cloud of Blackbirds, a cluster of Blackbirds, a flock of Blackbirds, a merl of Blackbirds (Brewer’s), a keg of Blackbirds (Red-winged), a flock of Cloud seems apt. Edit: an Unkindness of Ravens owns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 05:03
|
|
|
TimingBelt posted:
If it did survive the war, it would've been buried a few years later. I've actually looked around online and haven't been able to find anything concrete. There's a solid chance a MiG-25 is what shot down Scott Speicher, but it's not definitive...the initial report said it was a SAM, but his wingman is quoted saying it was a MiG. There was another F/A-18 lost in the Gulf War, but no details at all on how. Maybe someone else has more info? quote:Also for fighter buffs, this is kind of specific, what was the last confirmed air kill for the USAF( or any modern air force) that was achieved by using the plane's Cannon? Not exactly what you're looking for, but an A-10 shot down a helicopter with the GAU-8 in Desert Storm. Aside from that, I think the last one was Vietnam. The USAF and Navy both prefer to engage at longer range, and the AIM-120 and post-Vietnam AIM-7 missiles have been pretty drat good. Desert Storm and Allied Force were all missile kills (aside from the A-10). The RAF hasn't had one in quite a while...I remember reading about an almost-dogfight in the Falklands, but the other plane got out of there and avoided dying. Edit: Clearly, it's a keg of Blackbirds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 05:27
|
|
|
TimingBelt posted:Also for fighter buffs, this is kind of specific, what was the last confirmed air kill for the USAF( or any modern air force) that was achieved by using the plane's Cannon? Already mentioned above is the A-10. An F-22 got an exercise cannon kill, but who cares. Several air forces have used cannon to bring down gun/drug-smugglers, but that's not exactly dogfight material so much as shooting down fleeing unarmed aircraft material.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 05:55
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:
I remember reading that the Nighthawk was retired simply because the aircraft were getting old (and therefore more costly to keep flying) and the USAF wanted more F-22's, so they canned the F-117. The F-117 was also designed using the very best of 1970's technology, and the role it served (penetration and surgical strike) could be performed by the B-2, F-22 or a JASSM (a stealthy cruise missile), so it wasn't terribly useful to keep around in the future.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 06:20
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I guess I need to represent. The E-3 is not sexy at all, is a maintainer's nightmare, smoky as gently caress, and the engines sound like banshees, but drat if it doesn't get the job done. I saw one crash while standing next to a kid whose dad was on board. That was not a good day. Advent Horizon fucked around with this message at 08:59 on Mar 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 08:42
|
|
|
Most if not all of the American victories over Russian jets were downgraded export models flown by so called "buffer countries". The Russian strategy during the Cold War was to get as many countries with as many tanks and planes and men as possible surrounding them so that any direct attack on Russia would have to go through 5 different countries lovely airforces and lovely armies before they reached the Russian forces, which would now be at a serious advantage. Most of the countries in the USSR were there just to soak up as many American bullets and missiles as possible and make them use as much fuel and other supplies as possible and maybe score the occasional victory. Look how much trouble the US is having in the middle east. Imagine during all this time being spent trying to secure Iraq the entire army of the Russian Federation was pushing through from the other side. There are a lot of differences but the fundamentals are similar. The Russian air force was at least as good as any NATO force during the cold war, and there are still very few countries it couldn't compete with today. Imagine the combat records if you took a bunch of F15s or F16s and put them into the hands of the Iraqi or Libyan air force circa 1980. Nevermind terrible export models, the MiG-23s initially exported to Libya were literally MiG-23 airframes with MiG-21 engines and avionics installed. Why risk your actual good technology falling into enemy hands when you can just sell them your old poo poo in a new box for more profit? Its not like the Libyan air force would have been anything more then cannon fodder for the USSR regardless of the aircraft they flew. Oh look, the prettiest plane ever has come to visit us, the MiG-23!  quote:Many potential enemies of the USSR and its client states had a chance to evaluate the MiG-23’s performance. In the 1970s, after a political realignment by the Egyptian government, Egypt gave their MiG-23MS to the United States and the People's Republic of China in exchange for military hardware. In the US, these MiG-23MS and other variants acquired later from Germany were used as part of the evaluation program of Soviet military hardware. Dutch pilot Leon Van Maurer, who had more than 1200 hours flying F-16s, flew against MiG-23ML Flogger-Gs from air bases in Germany and the U.S. as part of NATO's aerial mock combat training with Soviet equipment. He concluded the MiG-23ML was superior in the vertical to early F-16 variants, just slightly inferior to the F-16A in the horizontal, and has superior beyond visual range (BVR) capability. Pretty Little Rainbow fucked around with this message at 09:11 on Mar 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 09:08
|
|
|
leica posted:Wasn't this recreated in the dogfight series on the History channel? Yes it was. It was a cool show but it annoyed me that the animators had no understanding of the actual maneuvers. This gun kill happened with the MiG travelling at 90 degrees across the nose of the Phantom but it was animated as tail on, completely missing out on how impressive the shot was. Another was an F-8 Crusader shooting down a bunch of -19s or -17s. He had a big speed advantage but in order to stay behind them he would do an oblique barrel roll, climbing steeply to minimize the horizontal travel, then rolling inverted and pulling down on the targets again. It makes perfect sense when you play a flight sim or whatever, but in the animation the F-8 just does a quick aileron roll about its own axis and the viewer is none the wiser. Feel free to spergsay this. Ola fucked around with this message at 11:23 on Mar 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 11:18
|
|
|
Speaking of Cold War... For thoes who have not seen, here is James May in a U2 spy plane. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6cZLfK4Zjk Pretty loving amazing when they see a commercial airliner below them, about the same size as we see them standing on the ground. Preoptopus fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Mar 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 15:34
|
|
|
Ola posted:It makes perfect sense when you play a flight sim or whatever, but in the animation the F-8 just does a quick aileron roll about its own axis and the viewer is none the wiser. Yeah I had no clue since I have no idea about flight dynamics, so the show was very entertaining to me. I've loved the F4 Phantom since I was a kid, and to actually "see" it in "action" made me loving giddy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 15:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 22:47 |
|
|
More F-35 rubbishness. So, you know how the USMC and the UK are buying a STOVL variant so it can operate from forward strips? Yeah, maybe not without those forward operating strips having giant one-piece concrete landing pads that won't explode when the planes land. ARES link
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 16:46
|
|