Why do American planes always look so much cooler than commie planes?

choose your fighter

Attached: 31279375103.png (2266x910, 1.55M)

Because they're more effective

Demonstrably false

Attached: WAZbfp0.jpg (3300x2550, 728K)

>Mach 5
Mig with telepathic weaponry control

Attached: Mig-Firefox-Aviationist.png (1280x973, 861K)

The domestic models of Soviet/Russian aircraft have never really been tested in combat, just export versions so they're a big question mark.

What is the Jow Forums consensus on the Blackbird?

Attached: SR-71 Blackbird.jpg (1920x1080, 211K)

This is I want to win

Attached: eurofighter-typhoons-at-gioia-del-colle-1534.jpg (1543x1080, 218K)

>pic not related

bretty cool

We purchased three MiG-29s from Moldavia in the 90s and checked them out. We know the sorry truth, Boris.

hi

Attached: jsdf f2.jpg (275x183, 6K)

You came to terms that you lose to commies in designs most of the times?

Why are Chinese fighters even mentioned at all? They're just poor quality copies of Russian ones.

There has not been a single MiG that shot down more American fighters than got shot down itself. That's the unfortunate facts. Aerodynamics aside, the engines, radar, avionics, and everything else are much inferior to our planes.

This is such a misleading picture.

It's not the planes that win engagements, it's the pilots who have a bajillion more flight hours because the American Air Force has all to money in the world to get planes into the air for training, and the officers who know how to plan and execute sorties without getting their pilots shot down by every scrublord with a SAM.

If the Americans used soviet planes, they'd still clown everyone else, because they're just better all around.

Attached: P562AoB.jpg (1024x905, 173K)

Fighter jets are overrated in today's day and age. It's highly unlikely any modern jets will ever engage anything but ground targets that aren't defended at all. Iran's is pretty sexy looking though if they ever get it in the air.

Attached: 262_79807_734359.jpg (950x1425, 274K)

Don't forget their planes get more and better maintenance because, you guessed it... burgers have all the fucking money

t. Ardashir

Nah it just looks sleek as hell. I'm certain it's not practical but it's aesthetic.

Real talk though you don't need billion dollar plane programs to blow up Mohammeds in mud huts.

Attached: 919455_424.jpg (1000x666, 431K)

Function>looks
American industrial complex robs americans every year to produce barely functuonal tech that looks and sounds nice

What?
Really loved the Tomcat when I was a kid, but the Mig 29 is pure sex.

Attached: 0436789.jpg (1580x996, 596K)

...

I get what you're saying but a shitton if not the outright majority these kills were by Israelis (who, to be fair are probably at least as good as American pilots) and in the case of the F-14, Iranians.

You realize this thing is a literal prop right? The cockpit is made up of off the shelf MFD's, the idea that Iran could indigenously develop a 5th generation fighter is laughable, Japan's the 3rd largest economy on the planet and even they've given up on doing it alone.

Attached: Kahir313_Kokpit.jpg (1600x811, 265K)

I did say it wasn't flying yet, yes. Maybe it will someday.

Iran can't even use the 1970s American fighters they have sitting in warehouses for 40 years for lack of spare parts.

But they do use them? Theyve managed to procure or produce the parts needed to keep them airborne.

Except that Soviet fighters have an absolutely terrible record against American fighters and the plane in the pic (MiG-29) has an especially awful one. Maybe try having the slightest clue what you're talking about next time

Attached: Operation Mole Cricket 19.png (1433x2287, 384K)

Then again, nobody ever said that Arabs were good at war.

True. Although the Soviets themselves didn't fare any better.

Attached: commies_0.png (315x373, 13K)

During the Afghanistan conflict, the Soviet army had major logistics problems and fuel getting stolen. Corruption in the officer corps was widespread.

Dunno

Mig 29 looks cooler.

>Wikipedia battle result screenshots can be used as evidence of superiority of US planes over Soviet ones

Attached: z.png (309x527, 19K)

One thing that's not in that statistic as well is which planes shot down which. Of course an up-to-date super-fighter is going to shoot down an average fighter from the previous generation. Same thing if a dogfighter is getting blasted by missiles.
And the particular tactical and strategic circumstances decide success or failure more often than not, rather than just individual performance of plane or pilot.

>Fighter jets are overrated in today's day and age.
They're the deciding factor in skirmishes just below the level of "hot war", and in wars which are not nuclear.

>looks like it's made out of wood and thin fiberglass
>random "remove before flight" flags on an inaccessible part of the fuselage
t..tick t..tock israel

>platform that displays information can be used to display information
Yes. It can. Glad to see we're on the same page here. Either way Israel didn't have air superiority throughout each of the Arab-Israeli conflicts because Arab pilots were afraid of heights. They had to win it everytime, which they did.

Attached: 1494622061720.jpg (396x1640, 156K)

> In wars which are not nuclear

So basically between increasingly irrelevant shitholes. No country worth a shit is putting planes in the air if there's any risk they'll be shot down. Everyone has too many long range missiles for that shit. They're literally just on building demolition duty. China, Russia and Nato will never ever actually attack each other.

I thought North Vietnam did pretty well in the Vietnam War with aerial combat, although that was mostly because LBJ was an idiot and only let American planes fly over Hanoi at the same time each day so they'd be ready with SAMs.

But it's got two (2) car radios, can you say the same about American fighters?