What best distinguishes American vs Russian aeronautical engineering?

What are their most notable hallmarks?

Attached: 16-27.jpg (777x832, 158K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vadim_Shcherbakov
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Russians have limited budgets. Yanks can fart money out of their asses for better or worse.

making fast bois that don't cost a small country's GDP for 10 years.

Attached: 1552153544667.jpg (2900x1672, 3.33M)

MiG 25 Project cost fuck tons of cash given the usual Soviet budgets though.

American stuff is better but you pay a premium for it, Russian is 75% of the performance at 80% of the cost. Also Russian engines are.....okay, I guess, better than chink/pajeet ones and nations that can't make jet engines at all, but need something like a 300% more overhauls per life cycle and increased maintenance hours per flights hours.

It also had an incredibly narrow mission set so they only had to design something that could carry big missiles and fly really fucking fast in a straight line.

That's a MiG-31 you sperg
the 31 has an entirely different fuselage, cockpit, instruments, combat-link system and had a phased array radar.

The thing weighs like 40 tonnes and can still land on grass runways for some reason.

The k/d ratio mostly.

>claim US planes have a broader mission set
>Still operate over 12 different fighters, bombers and interceptors

Given how Pajeets don't even dare to intercept stuff with the domestics they produce. Honestly minor nations that managed to produce their own aircraft probably had better engineers than Pajeet let alone Russians.

In general their planes have worse electronics and worse engines, but better aerodynamic performance. In general. Though there are exceptions, like MiG-31 which had a very advanced electronics suite.
In general Russia is a shadow of Soviet Union. Not that their planes are bad, but they still haven't put out a 5th gen fighter in service, and PAK-FA/Su-57 is a disappointment by all accounts.
Soviets spent as much as Americans did during Cold War, and they even had higher spending at some points.
Of course, these are estimates. In USSR, you didn't have money involved, in the sense that all industry was state-owned.
Of course, economic laws still apply, but details aside it was easier for them to shit out weapons, plus they had a conscript army which is a lot less expensive (though that led to other problems).

US shit is like 20% better and 150% time more expensive

Russian planes are prettier

Come at me

based factposter

Attached: l-39s-of-the-new-great-game-former-soviet-l-39-albatroses-over-russia-the-caucasus-central-asia-and- (763x427, 231K)

based and aestheticpilled

>L39
That's Czechoslovakia

Distinguishing traits

>US
Stealth
Cutting edge
combat proven/performance

>RU
Maneuverability
In some ways more creative
budget prices

>Czechoslovakia
It's a soviet plane

The only foreign plane ever used in soviet service.

That was the magic of the post-WWII and Cold War era. Ever since Vietnam the US has steadily been cutting down its specialized airframes in favor of multiroles.

F-4, F-16, F-18, and F-35 basically killed off numerous airframes in their successive generations.

yes, based subjective aestheticposter

Attached: download (1).jpg (1021x580, 69K)

>Cutting edge
They are more new, but being new by itself is not a quality

>combat proven/performance
Fighting low amintance 50's mig is not combat proven

VVS and VPVO still use the L-39 for training and aerobatics.

American jets are Ferraris and Porches, Russian planes are Fords and Chevys

L-29 was also used by the Soviet Airforce

And what's a super-tucano? Some form of motorbike?

Networking, electronics, air frames, materials are all things that the US pushes the envelope on. Id argue there are many Cutting edge features about the F-35. Or the FA-XX, ect.

>Fighting low amintance 50's mig is not combat proven
Pls stop.

based delfin czechnologist

Attached: Aero_L-29,_Киев_-_Антонов_(Гостомель)RP36161.jpg (1200x800, 396K)

yeah true, forgot about that

>What's the problem in being combat proven agains militians with ak-47 and rpg7?

US air force has the goal to expend money, anyone that plan to use air power in pratice buy Russian/Chink shit

Russian aircraft are like that 1974 Ford F-150 in your old man’s garage that needs a tune up once a year.

American aircraft are like your neighbor steve’s 2003 Dodge RAM. Needs a tune up once every 4 years.

that cheap import your friend bought when all of you were getting into dirt bikes and he couldn't afford a Yamaha or a Kawasaki

You buy Russian/Chinese if you don't have the money or are embargoed by the US.

Pretty much every country that's gone to war with an exclusively Soviet/Russian air force hasn't fared very well.

Don't talk so bad about it, it's the only modern plane with diving bomb capacities

Can you name a single country with a Soviet/Russian air force that wasn't fighting an air force 10 times bigger?

Also, despite what K/D autists here tell you, while their planes were arguably worse in qualitative sense than American and some Western designs, that doesn't mean they were shit.
Their designs were made with Soviet doctrine in mind, which means stuff like narrow roles (this plane and pilot does this, this one does this, little training for other missions), heavy reliance on ground-controlled interception, focus on anti-air artillery and SAMs (they had VERY developed air defense system), easiness of use (not in comfort sense, but complexity sense), ability to operate in rough conditions, limited build complexity and so on.

Only relevant experience we have of Soviets and Soviet planes in combat is Korea (they did okay, and mostly Soviet pilots), Vietnam (Vietnamese did okay, but US ROE and other bullshit kinda skewers the picture), and Arabs vs. Israel/Iran/Coalition. Rest was Soviet planes vs. Soviet planes or very limited actions.

Now Arabs ranged from barely adequate to horrifically bad, but then again Arabs didn't use their Western aircraft any better, when they had them, so it wasn't just due to aircraft.

Now of course some autist here will post Rimon-20 and call people vatniks for ''defending cummunizm'', but objectively USSR had a very potent military, especially until late 80's (when NATO technological advantage and USSR internal problems erased the gap in conventional capabilities).

People really fail to understand Soviet military mentality: they focused on the big picture, and they paid less attention to tactical level (in principle). Operational level and strategy was what they focused on, and they built their forces with the aim of fighting a massive and possibly nuclear conflict with NATO.

They weren't retarded (in military sense), and technological limitations were real, but one must always keep in mind that their designs conformed to these ideas. So it's somewhat childish to compare their planes and tanks and rifles and cannons and ships.

Jew wars-- US aircraft did well against Russian aircraft.
Iranian Tomcats did well against Russian aircraft.
US did well against Russian aircraft and IADS In Vietnam.
US aircraft did well against Russian equipment in Serbia
US Aircraft did well against Saadams Russian IADS in the Gulf war.


The list goes on and on.

> what is kosovo
> what is mali
> what is israel
How can one poster be so wrong?

training matters, a lot.
Compare the M1A1 track record with US crews and saudi/iraqi crews, they have a significantly different combat performance.

Same applies to properly training a pilot fleet, and more importantly, giving the pilot freedom to learn. This is something germany kind of forgot to do with all their troops, and as a result the poor fucker's couldn't do anything but do bounding movement when exercising with the bundeswehr post 1989.

Heck, I bet you'd see decent performance when you arm a US fireteam with M1917 enfields.

Ok, any battle besides US vs really small country with outdated planes?

Syria.Egypt.Jordan,

Air War over Corea and Vietnam?

Do the transmissions also go out every year like they do in dodge rams?

Vietnam air force was incredble small and outdated, no big red sent their planes to vietnam

Corea was pretty fair, even if you consider USSR air forces was destroied by german 3 years ago

Jew war
Iran vs Iraq
Vietnam-- 100% had soviet pilots flying flying peer adversary aircraft and "advisors" manning IADS.

Well, F22 are famous for being more time in repair than in action

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vadim_Shcherbakov

LOL

Attached: 1550809364877.png (623x469, 118K)

Aerospace in a nutshell.

It's not just about pilots, it's about maintenance and ground crews too. Arab armies had and have severe issues on all levels.
Gauging the performance of weapon systems by how Arabs use them is just dumb.

That said, I stress again, Western planes are in general better than Soviet planes.
>100% had soviet pilots
That's absolute bullshit.

About Iran, American planes performed very well, especially F-14 which performed spectacularly, but Iranian Air Force was quite good in personnel sense, a lot better than Iraqis, even if they suffered from lack of spare parts, purges and emigration of some pilots and officers when revolution happened.

In any case Iraqis learned some shit and didn't do so bad later on, but of course they were aided by depletion of Iranian resources.

Ive yet to see any plane will better aesthetics or faster speed than the sr-71 black bird

yeah, tell that to indians, bruh

Please say "In General" more. It really lends an air of gravitas to any argument.

Attached: 20181017_184804.jpg (1186x783, 367K)

Yeah, and that's the thing. If you don't have the money to afford western planes, you generally don't have the money to support good training programs, either. Doubly so if you don't have good relations with the US, since they're the only country that runs realistic air combat training worth a damn anymore.

>That's absolute bullshit
All US intelligence said otherwise. Someone even posted a link of a man in particular.
>Colonel Shcherbakov had been named as a pilot/instructor during a Task Force Russia report in 1992/93 (TFR 18 report) Col Shchbakov was credited with 3 possible aerial victories; two US (RB/EB)B-66s and one F-105 Thunderchief (tail #59-1725)

You do realize the majority of the Indian air force are Mig-21s with some Su-30s and Mirages sprinkled in, right?

Majority of Indian Airforce are SU 30 MKI they got about 150 MiG 21s remaining

eh, I dunno, the Iraqi's had plenty of Mirages and they got BTFO as well, and the PAFV managed to put up a half decent fight (yes a lot of their pilots were Russians but this is about airframes right?), I think the final tally of air to air kills was something like 2.6 : 1 in favor of the US which isn't really the TOTAL curbstomp it's made out to be compared to the US vs DPRKAF (10:1 US)

Also consider that most countries with an exclusively Soviet airforce probably don't have the most competent pilots either. I'd bet that a MiG-29 would give an F16 trouble both pilots being equal, and plenty of F4s got shot down by MiG-21s.

Majority of their planes are Su-30s, not Mig-21. They also have sizable amounts of Mig-29 and Mig-27, more than Mirages.

>The only foreign plane ever used in soviet service.
what is the P-39 Alex?

lend lease gave the soviets lots of planes, spits and hurricanes for example, as well as p-39s

Russia innovates when necessary, but mostly repackages existing, proven technology, even if slightly dated.
USA strives to be on the cutting edge, but sometimes unproven systems cause problems.

All I will say about the 2 is that the USA defines a generation, and everyone else conforms. Atleast, up to this point in history, anyway. Hence why there is not hard definition of a 6th generation fighter; the US has not yet revealed what will set that standard.

Diminishing returns is a very real thing.

I meant post-WWII era

Attached: 1550707200067.jpg (3300x2550, 752K)

That's because every other plane has more accurate level bombing capabilities.

Attached: Nape.webm (480x360, 1.2M)

Vietnam air war numbers are very skewed by ROE. 80% of the time an F-4 was shot down by a MiG-21, it was because a MiG-21 was vectored into position from behind by ground control and the US aircraft were shot down before they even knew they were under attack. Any time the VPAF tried to directly challenge US forces they were smashed and the US ran up 13:1 Kill ratios.

ouch

F-15.

Fight me.

>God isn't that the truth
My repair department is swapping out clutches and transmissions on RAMs like no tomorrow, it's easily half the work.
What does FCA make these out of, fucking unrefined pig iron?

If those “5th & 6th” engines aren't RD-33MK ser.3 OVT engines, then the country using the MiG-29 might as retire them when 3 & 4 requires replacement.

More like american planes are Mercedes & BMW and Russian planes are Toyota and Nissan

>being in combat is not combat
>especially compared to my current gen, completely unproven Sukhois
Go home Ivan

>distinguishing traits

USA: winners
Russia: losers.

Kill ratio tells all.

Women with big boobs are much more attractive, in general.

In general, guns are more effective than fists in a fight.

Pretty much this.

Russians excel at aeronautics and have a much more mathematical approach because they have a strong maths foundation through their schooling.

Amerisharts excel at having lots of money, emphasizing software and sensor fusion, and bringing over Chink engineers to do the hard math.

Russians have been catching up with software.

Attached: Dn24oaAXcAAg2Px.jpg (594x600, 87K)

This. Sexiest plane ever built. With F22 being a distant second

>Russians excel at aeronautics and have a much more mathematical approach because they have a strong maths foundation through their schooling.

Well, that's a polite way of putting it. Russians didn't have access to super computing until it was too late. It held them back in many respects especially in Atomic development. It's hard to do maths when you are starving to death. They have only slightly closed the gap because of spying. Same way the chinks are.

Historically Russian designs have favored a homeland defense model whereas American fighters were built to wage war off the homefront. Russian fighters usually had less fuel reserves and relied heavily on ground control, to the point at which top Russian tacticians were ground control commanders that dictated where the pilots should fly/commit in a battle.

American jets generally had more fuel, better radars as they couldn't rely on ground control radar, and better avionics to allow pilots to be more autonomous. C2 exists to enhance pilot SA, but the pilots themselves are the ones conducting intercept tactics.

With the advent of 4+ and 5th gen jets Russia has adopted more of the American mindset making jets with better avionics and autonomous capability though.

starship/10

Attached: 1538614398459.jpg (1920x1080, 240K)

The engine is soviet. The rest was developed by the czechs.

anything regarding rockets EW mayyyyybe submarines too and aeronautical design russians are in front
they also have a good aesa radar package but the last time i heard about the rest of the avionics systems they were still in development

>Ivan come home to farm for solyanka babushka make.

This
>Replying to bait
Don't bother, it always devolves into "Amerimutt vs Vatnik" circlejerks.

American: overpriced
Russian: overhyped

Russian FOD resistance features aren't only for reliability, or conscripts; it's 80% due to shitty Soviet concrete technology that flakes and cracks nonstop. Not even joking.

There are certain aircraft that hold the same role and are very similar:
>F-111 and MiG-27/Su-24
>Yak-38 and A-6
>B-1 and Tu-160 (Arguably just a copy, though)
>Su-25 and A-10

However there are aircraft that are quintessentially part of the differing doctrines between Soviet and American styles
Quintessentially American:
>F-16 light multirole as a do-all interceptor, CAS, and light strike aircraft
>F-15 heavy multirole (E) and air superiority (C and J) as the "found-fucking-everywhere, mission-is-really-important enemy air killer"
>F-18 as the Navy's F-16/15
>F-117 as the "this has to die but no one can know and we don't want to send a full squadron" Paveway shitting device
>B-2 as the "nuclear war but the niche scenario where we want to start nuclear war without being detected" plane
>F-14 as the "our CIWS doesn't really work so please just don't let them get anywhere near our carrier group" plane
>F-35 as the "sensor fusion but so much sensor fusion we're going to make you feel like YOU ARE THE AIRPLANE"
>F-35 C as the "we're not sure if AEGIS works yet so put these fuckers on the aircraft carriers too"
>F-22 as the "1995-2018 don't even bother sending up fighters, we will just shoot them down" air superiority fighter

Quintessentially Russian:
>Tu-95 "let's go say hi to Alaska!" AKA "give us 6 hours and we can level you with these ancient bombers, but we have more of these than you have AMRAAMs and Sidewinders combined"
>Su-27/35/37 "supermaneuverable bomber escort that would do super fucking great in dogfights, if anyone actually got in dogfights anymore, blyat" AKA "does a Kulbit, gets nailed with an AIM-54"
>MiG-21 "World's most economically efficient fighter, world's least situationally aware fighter"
>Su-34 "What if the pilots need to bomb someone and shit at the same time"

both are inferior to their Chinese counterparts

Attached: Chengdu J-10 (1).jpg (640x563, 37K)

cont.
>MiG-25 as the "you ARE the missile" interceptor and "you better be fucking sure you hit them on the first pass"
>MiG-31 as the "If we want to shoot down U-2 we have to make it BIGGER and FASTER" interceptor
>MiG Project 1.44 as the "sell this shit to China, I'm tired of looking at it"
>Su-57/T-50/PAK FA as the "Sukhoi, please make us something cool to put in Ace Combat games"

Basically American doctrine dictates that you'll always be fighting with air superiority either locked down or contested, you'll have strong logistics to maintain every airframe you deploy, and you don't have to worry about RTB. Your main worries are going to be russian tonks and AAA or SAM sites so lead with SEAD. heavy systems integration means you'll have ground units marking targets, USAF and USMC combat controllers guiding gun and bomb runs, EA-6Bs and EA-18G's jamming, Apaches and A-10's running CAS, and AWACS and C4ISTAR constantly updating you on the situation, where you have a large degree of freedom to complete objectives. If any one of those links fails, the situation tends to degrade rapidly.

Russian doctrine dictates you'll usually be fighting without air superiority or it will be heavily contested, logistics may or may not be there, you may or may not be jammed, but you'll have a fuckton of tanks, ZSU-23-4's, 2/9K22's, 9K33's, and BUK's. Losses are heavily expected and you're at the mercy of tac air control to guide you to where you need to be and tell you what you need to do. Almost zero systems integration means almost no one know's exactly what's going on, but in the event everyone's jammed, you're less likely to be terminally confused.

>If only we were friends and allies
We could have super maneuverable airframes, with incredibly powerful engines and the latest and greatest EW suites.

(((That should never happen)))

>both are slightly different and probably better than designs stolen and patched together by china, like J-10 (JAS-39/Typhoon), J-11 (Su-27), J-15 (Su-30), J-20 (MiG Project 1.44/F-35), and J-31 (Mitsubishi X-2/F-35)
FTFY

And the Czechs at the time were part of the ______ _____. I know you know this user

Warsaw Pact?
They weren’t part of the Soviet Union.

Historically, Russian aircraft are more "robust" if you wanna call it that. They're meant to take off from shitty, hastily prepared airfields, so they have BEEFY undercarriages and tires to accomodate this.

The US has far more reliable and long lasting engines (GE engine on F-16 goes 3x as long between overhauls compared to MIG 29 engine) in part to the massive af aerospace industrial complex and advanced machining in the US.

Lately, US fighter aircraft are putting more eggs into the datalink basket than anyone else. Its in a way like a repeat of the missile craze for the F-4 Phantom and Century series in the late 50s, only now its actually possible thanks to tech maturation.

Attached: 27d.jpg (638x768, 62K)

t. increasingly nervous whitu piggu

Attached: J-20-bays.jpg (1770x1218, 92K)

Czechoslovakia was never part of the soviet union, dumbass.

holy shit you're one retarded fucking stupid idiot
Warsaw Pact, dumbass

Not gonna lie the Mig 21 does surprisingly well for how old it is