Is there any particular reason they were so bad? Russian planes never seemed terrible (post war speaking) . Were the pilots just that bad? Was the MiG-29 a poorly designed aircraft? Like I wouldn’t think Serbians would be THAT bad but they got eviscerated during the war.
Russian Aircraft
Luis Taylor
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Parker Edwards
Russia sold a lot of equipment fo friendly states. Those states tended to draw the ire of the US. Once in a while those states would try something that got America's attention and would attempt to use their Soviet made arsenal to enforce whatever they did.
Usually that ended poorly.
Benjamin Turner
The main failure of Soviet equipment is their doctrine and training, in reality there is nothing wrong with Russian weapons, but how they are employed and the training they do is retarded.
Sebastian King
The Iran-Iraq war is definitive proof that given equally skilled and trained pilots, American aircraft will blow the ever living fuck out of Soviet aircraft.
You can make whatever arguments you like about quality of pilot or tactics used, but the fact of the matter is that American aircraft will come with better trained pilots and generally superior tactics simply because almost any nation that uses them is an ally of the USA and benefits from that.
Carter Myers
>using arabs in war for any argument
christ
Blake Harris
Didn't the Vietnamese perform rather well with their MiG-21 and MiG-17 vs USAF F-4 and Starfighters? IIRC, the total number of American Air-to-Air losses amounted to roughly 250 vs ~200 Vietnamese aircraft shot down. According to Wiki, some hundred-odd kills were achieved by Vietnamese pilots.
Owen Campbell
That was mainly due to the USAF being extremely focused on bombers post-Korea. There was very little formal BFM training in the AF, unlike the Navy.
James Roberts
>believing this
You know that the Soviets disabled their "totally not Russian pilots guys" ejection seats? Yeah, they didn't even want their pilots to eject and be captured.
Elijah Gonzalez
Isn’t it the perfect level playing field? If both sides are incompetent mudslimes then shouldn’t the equipment itself play a larger role?
Thomas Russell
While Russian engineering has generally always been subpar (again, in general terms as there are a number of aspects in which vatnik rubbish was intelligently built) to Western technololgy, the reputation of Russian aircraft was doomed by the fact that Russians sold their equipment to virtually every third world subhuman nation imaginable, whereas the yanks are far more selective in their choice of customer.
Again, I don't mean to imply that there is technological parity between what Russia produces and what we in Western Europe and America can put out..
>Remember Rimon 20?
...but those numbers are that high merely because a yank pilot is in training, quality, and support leagues above the impoverished 3rd worlders they encountered in those dogfights.
Jayden Martinez
So I've heard. Would be interesting to know if the numbers became even/reversed once the USAF gathered enough experience in air combat.
Sebastian Cruz
OP must have learned about jets from the Discovery Channel.
Ian Gomez
The only time Russia had aircraft on par with the west was when they used western aircraft or engines.
Justin Collins
who are the people in this picture?
Jason Price
>muh monkey pilots!!1
en.wikipedia.org
Justin Jackson
John Boyd is the noble American on the right, and on the left is Artem Mikoyan, someone i actually admire highly despite the mocking depiction
Gavin Perry
They didn't have the resources that western militaries had in designing and building their aircraft after the 60's. They fell behind in computers and metallurgy in particular as the cold war went on.
Andrew Hernandez
Radar
Russians cant put half decent radars in their fighters because poverty and such, and their strange refusal to use AWACS dosent help the matter either
Leo Thomas
when did they stop teaching the noose?
Angel Cox
Even with sub par weaponry and terribly trained pilots the USA managed to maintain a positive kill ratio. Once they fixed the biggest armament issues and improved training that ratio improved significantly.
Chase James
The USAF didn't refocus on realistic training and ditch the fly-safe bomber culture until after Vietnam.
Henry Young
Bad training and inferior radar support mostly. The latter leads to the MiG being able to ambush at close range where they are superior
Ian Turner
worse radars, worse engines, shoddy design choices in line with a bad doctrine that made them worse at doing their actual job
Lucas Harris
did you even read the fucking wiki page for rimon 20? It was israeli pilots in US phantoms going up against soviet pilots in export mig-21s upgraded to domestic spec and the slavs got fucking rekt
Owen Sanders
It has a bit to do with the Soviets building simplistic designs in huge numbers with the intention of outnumbering and overwhelming NATO forces in a Zerg-rush.
Then Arabs decided to go toe-to-toe with Israel (three times). Then Iraq went against Iran, poorly. Then Iraq went against the US and UK, poorly.
Jace Ross
Expanded version.
Wyatt Smith
>Didn't the Vietnamese perform rather well
Not as much as they're made out to be. They had the benefit of American complacency and being able to fight almost entirely on their own terms. They deployed their fighters incredibly conservatively, which obviously makes sense in strategic terms, but leads to an inaccurate picture of the quality of their aircraft - they only ever engaged when they were sure they'd win.
A common tactic for MiG-17s, for example, involved bouncing F-105 formations with only one or two aircraft. The F-105s were faster, but when laden with bombs, the MiG had the advantage. So for the formation to escape, they all would jettison there bombs - the MiGs never really had to shoot anyone, and often times they fled as fast as possible because they were sneaking in before CAP could intervene.
Meanwhile, American pilots ran into a problem with complacency - it was assumed missiles and BVR were the future, but very little effort was made to train pilots to use their missiles effectively. So while missiles were far more effective than the memes make them seem, pilots were generally missing because they were firing their missiles outside their engagement envelope or employing tactics that the missiles weren't well suited for.
Once this was fixed, though, American exchange ratios vastly improved. On the rare occasion the VPAF was caught on anything close to even terms, they were slaughtered, and especially later in the war they proved almost completely incapable of dealing with American ECM tactics.
Elijah Lee
Russian aircraft aren't "bad;" they were designed with different requirements and philosophies in mind. The Soviets must have been well aware that they could not compete tit for tat with the United States because they simply didn't have that kind of economy. It was large but not on that level. Being isolated, the Soviets were going to be behind in certain areas of technology, most notably avionics. You should also consider that industrialization was still an on going process for much of the country in the years following ww2.
So they had to design aircraft with those limitations in mind. They had to be cheap and rugged, able to be deployed on rough airfields. They had to be able to be constructed at times by simpler factories in the case of a total war. They had to be easy to build in number.
From an aerodynamic standpoint, Russian aircraft are usually well designed. The engineers can only work with what they've got, and they've produced some excellent aircraft over the years.
James Cox
I doubt those ratios are even true. Sounds like somebody just pulled numbers out of his ass.
Jason Sanders
see
Adrian Thompson
>that mental gymnastics
Evan Nguyen
Has anyone bothered to check the source on this image? It's some blog post on a website advertising recreational jet flights. Throughout the whole article, no source is provided. Just have to assume this random dude portrays everything accurately. Ehh... that's not really good enough. That image should be updated with a better source (a source that has sources).
Blake Green
>then Iraq went against US an UK
sorry but if i remember correctly, the US launched an illegal invasion of that shithole for global political and economical interests, destabilizing the whole region and further and contributing to the rise of islamic extremism and the redugee crisis that is obliterating europe now.
Daniel Kelly
...
Joshua Ortiz
It's simplistic to consider an aircraft bad simply because it isn't individually as capable as western examples. Everything depends on how they are going to be used and by whom.
Robert Anderson
Yeah, that's a nice map someone made. I want sources. Where did he get his research?
Gabriel Phillips
The comrade Barney Panders supporting faggot is right- these are great planes for their intended purpose, if you consider that purpose to be live fire target practice for the American air force.
Christopher Hall
Well, I could just say "Murrica, Fuck yeah! Russia sucks, end of story," but that's really fucking boring and, while fundamentally true, isn't always such and is never that simple.
Xavier Peterson
Europe is killing itself because they are virtue signaling faggots.
Asher Miller
>fought on home turf with extensive ground support in the form of AA and radar guidance against a foe with incredibly restrictive ROE that couldn't pursue them pretty much anywhere
>still suffered 3:1 losses despite their "superior" planes
Yeah nah not at all.
John Nguyen
>You should also consider that industrialization was still an on going process for much of the country in the years following ww2.
Nigga half the population of Russia is still living in pre-Industrial Revolution squalor. We're speaking dirt floors, outhouses, no running water, woodfire stoves as both heat and cooking, no gas/electric lighting.
Jose Price
Seems like even a MiG-21 is a notable achievement for a nation like that, pretty impressive actually.
Adam Parker
Its from an article on MigFlug where the author took the reported data from all the conflicts starting at Vietnam. He doesn't actually give his sources, but if you go and check the articles on wiki and the sources from those articles you can find the dara is fairly accurate.
There is probably some miscalculations and in the comments on the article you can see some butthurt shitskins. Its kinda humerous. But its the only comprehensive list anyone has done.
Jeremiah Davis
Yeah, I've poured through a number of the sources on wikipedia. Strange how hard it is to find comprehensive data. Everything is fragmented. I read this ridiculous source translated from what must have been Russian which gave a generous claim in favor of the MiG-21 in the Vietnam war. I imagine he didn't take this source into account, not that I blame him, but I think it's important to also read what information there is from the other side, and there's so little of it. And then it comes down to who do you trust? Certainly not the Soviets, right? But maybe it's not all bullshit. To be honest, I just don't know.
I was hoping by 2018 that we would have a cool interactive website that lists every aerial combat loss since world war 2 and all the information we have about it (flight number, time, location of engagement, size of forces) with a source behind each one or as many as possible. It would also break down conflicts by each side's claim, as well as third party observers.
Joseph Wood
Wrong war child. Gulf war one was the only time Iraq even sortied aircraft.
Chase Phillips
Nigga half the population of Russia is still living in pre-Industrial Revolution squalor. We're speaking dirt floors, outhouses, no running water, woodfire stoves as both heat and cooking, no gas/electric lighting.
Nicholas Gonzalez
Jeremiah Mitchell
tl;dr
>US planes for most of the war couldn’t engage without visual confirmation
>most US planes were designed to fight BVR
>most US planes lacked guns
>missle tech at the time was horrible
>gooks generally only flew near the Chinese border so if need be they could run to China
The deck was stacked in the gooks favor and in every possible way and the US still had a better kill:loss ratio.
Nathan Kelly
Unfortunately there is way to much BS from most militaries. See Syria having claimed to have shot down at least a dozen Israeli F-35s, and almost 100 US F-16s and F-15s. (spoiler alert their SAMs have downed a single Israeli F-16). The US is generally very honest about their loses, but what about all the others who lie about how many aircraft have been destroyed?
Further, confirming what caused the planes to crash is very difficult. For example, in the gulf war an EF-111 dove for the ground followed by an Iraqi Mirage F-1. Supposedly the Mirage crashed and thus the EF-11 was awarded a kill; however, the wreckage of the mirage was found some 30 miles from where it should have been as suggests the mirage suffered mecahnical problems tat caused it to crash. So does that count as an aerial victory, if an unrelated mechanical fault downed the plane? And then what do we do with planes that are hit, crash land, get repaired and fly again? Would that be two aerial victories? If so, whats the difference between a plane getting hit and surviving and getting hit and killed?
Unfortunately, life isn't ace combat where you get a message whenever you successfully get a kill.
Zachary Moore
Interesting that the MiG-25 had the most success, high speed combined with huge long range missiles appears to work best against western jets. Presumably Russian avionics aren't good enough if they get close, without the aim-54 and high speed interceptors to counter them there's not much they can do if the MiG-25 is careful.
Isaac Peterson
Yeah, the Iraqi's found a strat for the MiG-25 that worked. Let ground radar pick up a lone enemy aircraft. Come in at ~mach 2 launch missile near edge of normal engagement envelope (but because your going mach 2 it is actually well within), turn and run like hell. This abused the ROE of the western airforces, minimizing the MiG loses because of the western unwillingness to destroy the bases launching the MiGs. Once that was lifted, the MiGs did fuck all.
The funny part is their Russian advisors gave them so much shit for this strategy during the Iran-Iraq war, yet it is the only reason the MiG-25 broke even.
Samuel Jones
iFunny
Cameron Cruz
The MiG-21 wasn't a bad plane for its intended role as an interceptor, the problem is retarded officers forced it into roles it wasn't designed for.
Dylan Perez
Most of the MiG-25s kills were against F-4 Phantoms which didn't have an RWR capable of detecting the MiG-25's missile launch.
David Foster
FFS MONKEY MODELS PILOTED BY MONKEYS
Jose Cruz
Hard to say when the majority of US blow up either outdated or shit vatiant aircraft. The battle of attrition was the only fair fight but it was basically israeli veterans fighting noobs fresh out of flight academy
Grayson Gomez
Thats literally what happened with the USN, the navy air force got its shit together
Xavier Evans
He isn't wrong. Russian engineers aren't any dumber than their American counterparts, but they did have to work with much tougher constraints.
Xavier Bell
>refusal to use AWACS
What did he mean by this?
James Morales
Persians arent quite as inbred and tribal as arabs
Tyler Evans
>Forgetting about dozens of "disappeared" Fail-14s
MiG-23 wrecked the living shit out of Fuckup-14 in that war, lol.
Leo Gonzalez
>MiG-23s
>wrecking anything but their own pilots
Daniel Moore
>Dumbfuck ami pilots
>Desperately trying to pilot aircraft without proper maintenance and spare parts, because ami maintenance teams are high on moonshine
Where are all those "disappeared" Irainan Fail-14's, ami?
Isaiah Hernandez
I'm not saying the claims made in the air war by Iran and Iraq aren't highly suspect. I'm saying the MiG-23 is an absolute piece of shit.
Lincoln Evans
Good that what you are saying is irrelevant.
Adrian Ross
Source?
Joshua Powell
>Vietnamese
Those were pretty much all Russian pilots
Anthony Gomez
I would disagree with it. But it's all relative.
>USSR builds 12 Tu-124 planes in the 60s
>Builds 40 A-50 Mainstays from the 70s until 1992
>cancelled carrier-based version along with the CATOBAR carrier after end of Cold War
>A-100 in development on common IL-76 airframe
hardly a "refusal," but compare that to NATO
>232 EC-121s
>68 E-3s
>new 737 platform being built and improved
>75 new E-2D advanced Hawkeyes built/building on top of older models already in service or retired
Nicholas Kelly
An Iraqi Mirage got "shot down" by an electronic warfare plane with no offensive weapons. Pic related.
>Iraq in a nutshell.