Jackson_Slugger
$50 Site Donor 2022
Fair point and sorry but reacting and responding to others....
Worst Soviet Fighter
- Thread starter Jackson_Slugger
- Start date
Jackson_Slugger
$50 Site Donor 2022
But right back atcha' Sir; Have you ever flown a Soviet/foreign nation fighter type aircraft and what did you think if so?
Jackson_Slugger
$50 Site Donor 2022
Like the Mig-28:
No, I haven't flown one, but I've seen, and studied, some of them up close.
A good friend did his Test Pilot Thesis on the MiG-29.
The 4th generation Soviet fighters are effective, lethal machines. We can pick at their radar performance, but the AA-10 series missiles (Vympel R-27) are long range, lethal threats.
We can pick at the cockpit design and ergonomics of the SU-27/35, or MiG-29, but they have multi-spectral sensors built in with an IRST and radar. The radar and sensors work, even if more cumbersome to use.
A good driver in a SU-35 has a very good chance of killing a good driver in any other 4th generation fighter. That's really the key - how good is the pilot?
You cannot argue with the flight performance of the SU-27. It's formidable. Everyone talks about Pugachev's Cobra as being an airshow stunt, and it is, but it shows some outstanding low speed, high AOA, handling. The canards and thrust vectoring make for an impressive airplane at high AOA. The airplane itself can turn with the best western airplanes - so the fight comes down to who is driving, and who makes the fewest mistakes.
So, the SU-35 engines don't last as long - so what? They were designed to be changed quickly, and the thrust is impressive.
So what if the MiG-29 is short range - that's what it was designed for - point defense. The lower fuel fraction gives it impressive flight performance. It can't take the fight to a distant enemy and it can't stay a fight for a long time - but it doesn't need to. If we face a MiG-29, that airplane is playing defense to our offense, and it is in its element, supported by Air Intercept radars, nearby basing, and other fighters.
It's a formidable threat in that context.
We could beat the MiG-23 every time - and I am certain that I had one on radar once in the Gulf War - but don't downplay the performance of their 4th generation fighters. They're formidable airplanes. A US airplane needs to be flown smartly, to its best advantage, to beat one.
Jackson_Slugger
$50 Site Donor 2022
Excellent, thank you sir!
Is the F-5 one of the best close in dogfighters or at least the aggressors some of the best warfighter pilots? Many say so, but of course the pilots flying it are very well seasoned just like the US OPFOR guys (not to go back to tanks) may be one of the best land force units in existence simply because they regularly fight together over the course of months or years...
Is the F-5 one of the best close in dogfighters or at least the aggressors some of the best warfighter pilots? Many say so, but of course the pilots flying it are very well seasoned just like the US OPFOR guys (not to go back to tanks) may be one of the best land force units in existence simply because they regularly fight together over the course of months or years...
Let me add that I am talking 4th gen v. 4th gen when I say that they're a formidable threat.
The performance of the 5th gen, particularly F-22, is so ridiculously overmatched to a 4th gen airplane, that it will hammer the SU-27/35 or MiG-29 every time. There is a reason that we built the F-22 and a reason the Russians are trying to match it.
The performance of the 5th gen, particularly F-22, is so ridiculously overmatched to a 4th gen airplane, that it will hammer the SU-27/35 or MiG-29 every time. There is a reason that we built the F-22 and a reason the Russians are trying to match it.
The F-5 is a great little fighter. Flew a couple of back seat sorties in one. Simple. Easy to fly.
It's lightweight, and hard to see, visually. If you let that thing get into the visual arena, he can point his nose at you and be very hard to see. It has good low speed handling.
But the top speed is nothing great, about 1.2 Mach, and turn performance is mediocre. He has one great turn, and then he is slow. Easy enough to beat with a 4th gen airplane. Turn once, get him slow, go vertical, kill him from above, but don't lose sight in all that - or he might get you first...
Jackson_Slugger
$50 Site Donor 2022
Of course, and I think we're working on maybe 5.5/6+gen, as are the Japanese and Europeans because basically you can't put the F-22 back into production without spending more than making a whole new one. Of course the use of drones in Ukraine is far surpassing what anyone has envisioned prior. I think before the war, the image of US infantry sending up a drone was "that's cute but not essential". Now they drop bomblets into tank hatches and more importantly are invaluable for artillery correction and spotting/forward observation...
I knew a guy by the name Suad Hamzic who was a test pilot in ex-YU. He was testing RF-5 in AZ and CA in 1980 when YU was considering purchasing 40 RF-5s. He stated exactly that. Compared to MIG-21, very good at low speeds, and lower altitudes, but once higher and faster, it was not anything to admire.
YU ended up with RF-5 reconnaissance pods on MIG-21!
Run it over with M1 Abrams, and it will keep shooting. Proven! Tried!The original milled AK receivers tended to crack under full auto fire. They milled it because they didn't possess the welding technology at the time to weld in the trunnions.
Once they developed better welding skills, the stamped receivers were actually better. And much quicker to manufacture, than starting out with large block of steel. Then literally dozens of machining operations later, ending up with a finished AK receiver.
Many stamped receivers weren't much lighter either. Both of the receivers on my Yugo M-70 underfolder's are very heavy. Even heavier than my Arsenal SAM-7 Milled receiver.
Russian AK-47 is generally hit or miss, as anything Russian. There is a big difference in quality between years, factory etc. Generally, their products have a good idea, and some are much better than their Western counterparts if they are working properly. Problem is that there is no consistency. From my experience, the most reliable AK-47 families were YU M70 and the Czechoslovakian version. YU M70 had one big issue, and that was shooting anti-tank grenades. The gas evacuation was not that good, and grenades could explode. So, people avoided that operation.
Russia today has a bigger issue. It does not have anything to do with arms but everything with corruption, nepotism etc. Corruption is cancer. And Russian cancer is well passed the terminal stage.
Served its purpose during Cold War of weapon that looked liked it worked but thrown together and caused US to outspend and develop the better jet.
Nah. It is perception of power. Most things in Russia were developed for perception purposes bcs. domestic politics. TU144 is classic example. It served purpose for domestic audience. Overblown scare in the West is the bonus.
So how long do you think the Putin regime lasts?
Huh. Had pretty interesting conversation last week with one guy that is actually familiar with things in Russia. His take: they are absolutely insane. But vultures started to gather around smelling blood.
Who knows. It is not exact science. My worry is chaos following collapse of regime and they have 5,800 nuclear warheads.
And he might just be replaced with another putin or stalin.... in fact, I would be very surprosed if that would be the end of the expansionism drive for very long.
Nikolai Patrushev is worse. But, it seems he is not close to Putin as he was.
It is way iff the topic, but they are way to deep in this for things to stop with leadership change.
But getting rid of Putin would give them the perfect way to withdraw while saving face and blaming the whole thing on him.
Not really. You are thinking from an American perspective. This is a much deeper issue. Timothy Snyder argued that this is the final stage of the collapse of the USSR. The only thing that ANY leadership in Kremlin can stick to is the perception of being a "superpower."
But more dangerous is that Putin is a typical dictator at the stage where a. he believes his own propaganda now b. he identifies Russia with himself: Putin is Russia, Russia is Putin, therefore, no Putin, no Russia. That thinking can lead to some serious miscalculations or deliberate use of nuclear weapons.
To get rid of him in the way you think, requires ground-up people's revolution. Russia does not have the capacity for that. Before the war, 7% of the Russian population was between 18-34 yrs. Today, 8% of Belgrade are Russian citizens, and some 40% of Tbilisi, Georgia, is populated by Russians. Putin purposely allowed young, smart people to leave. They are a potential catalyst for change. 60yrs olds won't change the regime. 18yrs old change regimes. Those who don't want to leave are hardcore supporters. They might change their mind, but it takes time. A LOT of time in the Russian case. So, if he is replaced by ideologues, it might be: be careful what you wish for.
All things lately about Russia today remind me of Bosnian saying about the difference between pessimists and optimists. Pessimist says: "It cannot be worse than it is." An optimist says: "oh yes, it can."
Let's just hope it ends as deaths on both sides are many and nothing is worse than a war.
