That would be Su-27
Russians have started to build the PAK FA
- Thread starter Alex Y
- Start date
- Status
Lancer1978
New Member
lets see, in the field of fighter design Russia is rivaled only by the US. below are some examples
1. Il-16 Rata- was first monoplane to enter service, introduced what at time revolutiony features such as retractable landing gear, enclosed cockpit, heavy canon armament.
2. Mig-15 Fagot- was many in ways superior to its main rival the F-86 Sabre, its poor combat record against the F-86 was do to ecxellent training and tactics of Americans. As well as poor training amongest Chinese and North Korean Pilots.The better trained and more experienced Russian's did much better against the Americans.
3. Mig-17 Fresco- superior to late model F-86 Sabre's, in Vietnamese hands it proved a worthy foe to a later generation of US jets, such as the F-4 and F-105
4. Mig-19 Farmer- far superior to its US rival the F-100 Super Sabre, It may have been the first supersonic fighter to enter service, both the USSR and US make this claim. Had a long career, proved deadly to be a dogfighter in Vietnamese and Pakistani service, capable defeating far more avanced aircraft!
5. Mig-21 Fishbed- the most produced supersonic jetfighter ever! At least 10,000 made in Russia, 700 in India and still in production in China! Has been used by more Air Forces then any other jet fighter in history. The best dogfighter of its generation, it outfought the best US fighter of its generation the F-4 Phantom, during the Vietnam war. Other then the F-4; no US fighter of time was an even match for the Mig-21. Upgraded models such as the Mig-21 lancer C and Mig-21/93 Bison can hold their own vs a G-4 aircraft.
6. Mig-29 Fulcram- excellent light fighter, if flown by well trained pilot, should be a better dogfighter then its chief rival the F-16.
7. Su-27/30/33/35 Flanker family- simply the best fighter of the 4th gen. enough said!
Thank you
Last edited:
dh19440113
New Member
Mig Ace
The top scoring aces of Vietnam and Korea are Mig pilots.
If you don't believe than conduct you own research.
Just to show that a skill pilot in the most important factor to a plane's success.
The top scoring aces of Vietnam and Korea are Mig pilots.
If you don't believe than conduct you own research.
Just to show that a skill pilot in the most important factor to a plane's success.
Although we can't compare these 2 planes,cause we don't really have the one,we can't just obliterate the manufacturing possibilities of Russia.This country has produced in the past many small technology miracles as far as aircrafts are concerned.It's not always cheap and bad,expensive and good,sometimes,it's cheap cause it's made with fewer costs or it's not "advertised" like a super-super weapon ....
like a super-super weapon ....I would not think that flying an aerodynamic demonstrator by that date would be impossible. It does not have to be true PAK-FA anymore than EAP was Typhoon. It just has to look like one. Thus, in Russian media at least, Russia gets credit by developing a fighter aircraft within crash schedule...My perspective too.
Mvh,
Jon K
Much better than the Chinese & N. Koreans, but still soundly beaten. The old American claims of up to 14:1 kill ratios for F-86 over MiG-15 are clearly wrong (& long ago dropped from official US accounts), but the real ratio still seems to have been at least 4:1, maybe as high as 6:1, after deducting erroneous US claims & adding some misattributed US losses to the air-air tally. Deduct Chinese & the relatively few (because they did little) N. Korean losses from that, & their relatively few kills, & it's still at least 3:1 over the Soviet pilots who did most of the fighting.
One problem the MiG-15 had was that its armament was designed for destroying bombers. Very destructive if it scored a hit on an F-86, but difficult to hit a fighter with - heavy shells with a low M/V & rate of fire. The F-86 armament was also not ideal, but better against fighters than that of the MiG-15. The MiG-15 also had an inferior gunsight, IIRC.
indian bull
Banned Member
It will be jointly developed by india and russia not exported to india.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #29
India will pay for some research works, but will not reaserch by her own.
2 Lancer1978 you have forgotten to mention MiG-25/31 with their outstanding for a combat aircraft speed and altitude, Su-25(T or evenTM), Ka-50/52 (no words) and Tu-160
Considering MiG-15 it has a powerfull weapon and it is placed more rational than on F-86, MiG by it firepower braked Superfortress off in pieces in seconds
And the F-22 is overpriced mostly thanking to its 25 years developing program, during which several times it was on the edge of closing. Such a long time was needed for Pentagon to decide does the USAF need this aircraft. Lets see what country will decide that she needs a 100 million fighter with pretty limited (by its capasition) strike potential
2 Lancer1978 you have forgotten to mention MiG-25/31 with their outstanding for a combat aircraft speed and altitude, Su-25(T or evenTM), Ka-50/52 (no words) and Tu-160
Considering MiG-15 it has a powerfull weapon and it is placed more rational than on F-86, MiG by it firepower braked Superfortress off in pieces in seconds
And the F-22 is overpriced mostly thanking to its 25 years developing program, during which several times it was on the edge of closing. Such a long time was needed for Pentagon to decide does the USAF need this aircraft. Lets see what country will decide that she needs a 100 million fighter with pretty limited (by its capasition) strike potential
All this talk about Russian fighters being superior! Can you tell me of a single engagement / conflict / war since WWII where Russian fighters have had the edge over Western fighters? I can’t think of a single encounter.
Arab – Israeli conflict – NO
Korean War - NO
Vietnam War - NO
Gulf War I & II – NO
Balkans conflict - NO
Secondly if Russian fighters are so good why is it we are seeing more and more former Eastern Block countries seeking to buy Western designs (Gripen, Typhoon)?
Arab – Israeli conflict – NO
Korean War - NO
Vietnam War - NO
Gulf War I & II – NO
Balkans conflict - NO
Secondly if Russian fighters are so good why is it we are seeing more and more former Eastern Block countries seeking to buy Western designs (Gripen, Typhoon)?
Last edited:
Lancer1978
New Member
There where numerous individaul encounters as you put it when Russian fighters, downed a westen aircaft during the cold war. To list them all I would need to start a new thread.
Korean War- both sides greatly overclaimed, it is almost impossible to tell what actually happened. However Russian flown Mig-15's more then likely downed as many total UN/US aircraft as they lost. Russian Mig-15's put an end to daylight B-29 raids. Both sides claim victory, in reality it was most likely a draw!
Vietnam War- the Vietnamese claimed to have downed 4,181 US aircraft, the US admits losing 3,720! While the US claims to hvae downed 193 VPAAF aircraft, the VPAAF only admits losing 134 to all causes. There 16 known Vietnamese Aces! and 320 comfirmed kills. Thats a defeat of the US by North Vietnam, deal with it!
Gulf War II- no air combat took place!
Balkens- results disputed by Serbs and Russians, anyway only minor air combat! too small a sample.
Luftwaffe Mig-29's and Romanian Mig-21 Lancers have held there own against other NATO fighters in simulated combat.
The Indian Air Force, defeated the US in large scale simulated combat. IAF Su-30MKI, Mig-29, Mig-21/93 Bison and the Mirage 2000 all proved able to defeat US aircraft.
lets see how about NATO, the EU, the political need to buy westen fighters and of course both the Tyhpoon and Gripen are excellent fighters!
Thank you
Last edited:
dh19440113
New Member
Don't forget, Mig-31 intercepted sr-71 nears its airspace and put an end to soviet flyovers. nfloorl:
SR_71 may not be a fighter but it is cutting edge and was intercepted at very high altitude.
nfloorl:SR_71 may not be a fighter but it is cutting edge and was intercepted at very high altitude.
Based on these statistics -"Vietnam War- the Vietnamese claimed to have downed 4,181 US aircraft, the US admits losing 3,720! While the US claims to have downed 193 VPAAF aircraft, the VPAAF only admits losing 134 to all causes. There 16 known Vietnamese Aces! and 320 confirmed kills. That’s a defeat of the US by North Vietnam, deal with it!" You would think the North had air superiority!
Still does not answer the question why are former Eastern Block countries buying western designs.
Still does not answer the question why are former Eastern Block countries buying western designs.
As far as I understand it, having had a little insight into a few of the acquisition programmes, by far the biggest two drivers have been (a) political and (b) a requirement to become fully NATO compatible.
In regard to political: Many of the former East Block countries are trying very hard to become independent of their Soviet era masters - Russia. Buying military equipment from the West is a way to at least become independent in one area.
The second point is quite obvious - several East Block countries have already joined NATO and are now required to update equipment in order to be fully NATO compatible. This rules out Russian aircraft to a large extent, unless extensive modifications are made which not only include things such as the weaponry they can fit onto the aircraft, but also logistics and maintenance cycles. In some cases, buying Russian would almost require a full re-design of the airframe, engines and systems. Of course they have found ways to sort-of comply in the meantime (Romanian Hinds and German MiG-29s at the time are two good examples) - but in the long run it is much easier purchasing equipment that is already NATO compatible.
Note that in countries that do not have these two constraints, Russian equipment do become much more viable. India and China being just two such examples. The same goes for many African countries.
Lancer1978
New Member
No, I would not go that far. Whenever US aircraft went North, they were flying into heavly defended airspace. Over the course of the war; North Vietnam's intergrated air defense which consisted of thousands of AA guns, hundreds of SAMs and 200 or so Mig-17/19/21's took a toll on US air forces.
Ok as I said the former Eastern block countries; have joined or want join to NATO and the EU. Therefore they need purchase NATO standard fighters such as the F-16, F/A-18, Refale, Gripen and Typhoon. Purchasing new Migs and Sukhoi's are not politcally exceptable to them at present. Also the Gripen and Typhoon are excellent aircraft, it does not hurt that BAE and SAAB have excellent offsets and a solid rep. for support!
thank you
New, sure. Upgrades? Of course acceptable.
Poland : 26 MiG-29 NATO-modified by Germany, MLU by Poland
Slovakia: 12? MiG-29 MLU with NATO avionics/systems (by MAPO MiG)
Hungary: 14 MiG-29 MLU with NATO avionics/systems (by RSK-MiG)
Bulgaria: 20 MiG-29 MLU with NATO avionics/systems (by RSK-MiG)
In Hungary's case, the upgrade competed with a F-16 lease, and won on cost grounds.
Quite a lot of Eastern European nations were still buying fighters and trainers from Russia post-Cold-War, in the mid to late 90s (like Slovakia).
Absolute Rubbish. The Mig31's were never used to intercept SR-71's - they didn't exist then. The SR-71's were under congressional review in the early 70's. The Mig31 wasn't operational until 1979.Don't forget, Mig-31 intercepted sr-71 nears its airspace and put an end to soviet flyovers.
SR_71 may not be a fighter but it is cutting edge and was intercepted at very high altitude.
It was never intercepted at altitude. The SR-71 had a 20,000ft ceiling advantage over the Mig31, and it never encountered Mig31's as it had been pulled for use over Vietnam - Ferret missions over Russia were done by satellites and had been done so some 5 years before the 31 was even operational
Be that as it may the US was still running ferrets right through to the late 70's. Over 90% of their recorded flight time was at Mach 3 sustained. The Mig25's and 31's could not and still cannot sustain mach3 as their engines cannot run protracted mach 3 flight.
In all the time that the A-12's and SR-71's did ferret runs, the soviets tried over 3000 missile intercepts - not one got close, even when they tried to volley the shots.
The reason why SR-71' were pulled was because Satellite mapping was far more robust, covered far more area in the same pass, and was immune to intercept. It was cheaper to run satellites that covered over 400% more area than to run a short squadron of SR-71's.
To quote Stockton:
"The U-2 was known to be vulnerable in 1960- "Oxcart" was well under way then. Altitude presents the problem of range, but very high speed presents a much more complicated challenge. The "virtual immunity" of high speed has more to do with basic distance, time and geometry than simply being too fast to outrun. High speed manoeuvres entail great distances- as a result very small changes of course can require a great deal of cross-range capability that is not generally considered practical for very high speed and altitude missiles. The scales involved are not mere exaggerations of existing scales- they are in effect an entirely different regime.
The Soviet pilot who defected in a MiG-25, (1976) Viktor Belyenko, commented that SR-71s were virtually impossible to intercept because of this: side-on, they passed in and out of range too quickly to acquire, track and fire; from behind, it was impossible to accelerate up to a matching speed and still be in range- and in the unlikely event of being forewarned and approaching head-on, the closing speeds were to great for the missiles to react to cross-range manoeuvres: in short, there were windows of opportunity to a priveleged manned, (compared to a missile) agile high speed and altitude platform, but they opened and closed far too quickly to be exploited.
By the late 1970s, SA-10 and SA-12 surface to air missiles posed a threat to SR-71s on the level of MiG-25s, but were also subject to the same limitations. Staying on the edge of Soviet airspace and using SAR appears to have worked as far as they were concerned. In any case, after the Powers incident, direct manned overflights were ceased (I think) as a matter of policy as well as tactics and oblique observational methods were used. It is not impossible to shoot down a very fast vehicle; it is however, extremely difficult."
MiG-15,25,29, su-27-30, SR-71
my my, so many history lessons.
If the US precedence is anything to go by, the PAK-FA will be a very expensive platform (in relative Ru terms), the development part might get a littile easier with a 30~50% financial Indian participation and the level of involvement in recent time between Ru and In can translate into effective participation in the later production and sales stage of the platform.
And i am more than sure that the rest of the russian industry is busy in developing a some what new class of weapons as compared with the current ones, any indications or announcments anywhere in the media regarding this?
my my, so many history lessons.
If the US precedence is anything to go by, the PAK-FA will be a very expensive platform (in relative Ru terms), the development part might get a littile easier with a 30~50% financial Indian participation and the level of involvement in recent time between Ru and In can translate into effective participation in the later production and sales stage of the platform.
And i am more than sure that the rest of the russian industry is busy in developing a some what new class of weapons as compared with the current ones, any indications or announcments anywhere in the media regarding this?
Being built for it doesn't mean that it could do it.
Belyenko was actually a Mig 25 pilot. Read his own reports. The US deconstructed the Mig25 - they knew its capability.
The Mig-31 never went near the SR-71 as it was built after the Soviet ferret missions were cancelled due to Satellite ISR being cheaper to run, and covering more area in the same pass. The Mig-31 was still 25% degraded on altitude comparisons.
You can't rewrite history just becasue you'd like to get a better outcome.
Quite frankly, the reports and opinions of a Soviet pilot who actually flew Mig 25's holds a lot more substance. Add in the fact that the Soviets never intercepted any of the SR-71's, and that the Mig 31 was never in the region because it never existed at the time reinforces it.
Coulda Shoulda Woulda means zip if it never occurred in the first place.
- Status