Worst Soviet Fighter

We tend to be somewhat overly critical of Russian armament and aircraft. Using words like "cheap", and "subpar", etc. The AK-47 is constantly knocked and criticized in this manner. It's often called a, "cheap stamped metal bullet hose".

Russians do things differently. They tend to design around doing one specific thing. Then build that unit as cheaply and rugged as possible...... And build A LOT of them. They don't often embrace the term, "multi role".

...

No. The Soviets had some world class, excellent examples of aviation. The Mig-21, Su-27, and the aircraft that followed like the Mig-29 were mostly good though sometimes limited by Western standards on things like range, endurance or avionics. This aircraft has a bad reputation unlike the others mentioned. It was cheap in that it was affordable and offered Third World countries certain capabilities. But its troublesome design became apparent in sustained conflicts...
 
The Su-35 is kind of a masterpiece, so...

Probably a very good aircraft, but when you have to tape Garmins to the dash because your GPS sucks, well... And the Russian Air Force's fixed wing assortment hasn't given a great account of itself over the Ukraine and is hardly ever actually over the Ukraine and seems to be either a Potemkin force with some nice aircraft-jewels in the crown suffering from poor training, corruption and lack of operational doctrine; or they're holding back as a strategic reserve against NATO. I tend to think more the former...

The Su-35 design is also still firmly based in the Soviet era, though it has been modernized to the fullest extent it can go...
 
Probably a very good aircraft, but when you have to tape Garmins to the dash because your GPS sucks, well... And the Russian Air Force's fixed wing assortment hasn't given a great account of itself over the Ukraine and is hardly ever actually over the Ukraine and seems to be either a Potemkin force with some nice aircraft-jewels in the crown suffering from poor training, corruption and lack of operational doctrine; or they're holding back as a strategic reserve against NATO. I tend to think more the former...

The Su-35 design is also still firmly based in the Soviet era, though it has been modernized to the fullest extent it can go...
Oh, this is gonna be good. Pray tell, in what realistic and actually relevant ways, is it a masterpiece?

:coffee:

Most of what you're talking about Jackson, is poor training and logistics, not actual capability. The massive amount of easily portable ground to air missiles we've been pumping into Ukraine limits the use of both fixed and rotary wing aircraft. The did swat down the entire Ukrainian air force basically. It's a fourth gen fighter in every sense of the word, from cockpit display to avionics. The soviet era lasted well into the fourth gen fighter era, which is what the Su-35 is.
The PAK50 is it's successor, but the Russians are too poor to build many, though I did hear they were going to deploy them over Ukraine soon.

tyman, it's currently one of, if not the most maneuverable fighter aircraft ever made. Despite it's poor showing from the Russain airforce, we have enough intel on the systems to know it's very capable, from engines to radar. Just because they can't use a tool correctly doesn't mean it isn't a good tool. We don't even know how many they've deployed to Ukraine. Most videos I've seen have been Su-27s and 30s.
 
Most of what you're talking about Jackson, is poor training and logistics, not actual capability. The massive amount of easily portable ground to air missiles we've been pumping into Ukraine limits the use of both fixed and rotary wing aircraft. The did swat down the entire Ukrainian air force basically. It's a fourth gen fighter in every sense of the word, from cockpit display to avionics. The soviet era lasted well into the fourth gen fighter era, which is what the Su-35 is.
The PAK50 is it's successor, but the Russians are too poor to build many, though I did hear they were going to deploy them over Ukraine soon.

tyman, it's currently one of, if not the most maneuverable fighter aircraft ever made. Despite it's poor showing from the Russain airforce, we have enough intel on the systems to know it's very capable, from engines to radar. Just because they can't use a tool correctly doesn't mean it isn't a good tool. We don't even know how many they've deployed to Ukraine. Most videos I've seen have been Su-27s and 30s.
lol

maneuverability is literally the only thing it has going for it. It has extremely crappy stealth capabilities, radar is sub-par, poor avionics, etc. do not pass go. do not collect $200.
 
Last edited:
Russians build cheap loose heavy junk because it's what they can afford and the post war brain drain was very real.

And FYI... the pen story is BS marketing. We didn't use pencils in space because floating graphite particles are a very bad idea. I
 
lol

maneuverability is literally the only thing it has going for it. It has extremely crappy stealth capabilities, radar is sub-par, poor avionics, etc. do not pass go. do not collect $200.
Why are you judging a fourth gen fighter, which btw are in wide use around the world, including by the United States, by it’s stealth capabilities? It was never intended to be stealth, just like the F-16 and F-15, it’s peers. By what measure are you saying it has a subpar radar and avionics suite?
You can’t compare it to an F-22 or F-35.
 
Why are you judging a fourth gen fighter, which btw are in wide use around the world, including by the United States, by it’s stealth capabilities? It was never intended to be stealth, just like the F-16 and F-15, it’s peers. By what measure are you saying it has a subpar radar and avionics suite?
You can’t compare it to an F-22 or F-35.
Maybe he's confusing it with the Su-57
 
Most of what you're talking about Jackson, is poor training and logistics, not actual capability. The massive amount of easily portable ground to air missiles we've been pumping into Ukraine limits the use of both fixed and rotary wing aircraft. The did swat down the entire Ukrainian air force basically. It's a fourth gen fighter in every sense of the word, from cockpit display to avionics. The soviet era lasted well into the fourth gen fighter era, which is what the Su-35 is.
The PAK50 is it's successor, but the Russians are too poor to build many, though I did hear they were going to deploy them over Ukraine soon.

tyman, it's currently one of, if not the most maneuverable fighter aircraft ever made. Despite it's poor showing from the Russain airforce, we have enough intel on the systems to know it's very capable, from engines to radar. Just because they can't use a tool correctly doesn't mean it isn't a good tool. We don't even know how many they've deployed to Ukraine. Most videos I've seen have been Su-27s and 30s.

Agreed. Some good designs get lost in the sticky wheels needing to be greased. I think one commentator said it looked like The Russian Air Force was designed for stunt flying to impress politicians more than to fight a near peer enemy...

My only contention is that the Ukrainian Air Force is still pretty active if limited, no one expected after one month much less one year...

I recall reading a while back that it was supposed to be the other way around as far as SAMS and MANPADS go. Russia was to have an initial firepower advantage in any conflict with NATO as they could restrict NATO sorties and Western reliance on airpower and overmatch Western artillery, at least at first. It seems so long ago that RAND so feared the 'little green (bogey) men" sacking the Baltics...
 
Why are you judging a fourth gen fighter, which btw are in wide use around the world, including by the United States, by it’s stealth capabilities? It was never intended to be stealth, just like the F-16 and F-15, it’s peers. By what measure are you saying it has a subpar radar and avionics suite?
You can’t compare it to an F-22 or F-35.
Russia tries to bill it as a 4.5+ gen fighter and it was introduced in 2014. When compared to 5th gen, it's pretty meh. When compared to 4th gen, it's decent. "Masterpiece" not found. The F-22 is a masterpiece. A Leopard 2A8 is a masterpiece. A Virginia-class submarine is a masterpiece. An Su-35? Not even close to a masterpiece.
 
This thought process was carried out to the simplest detail. In their space program they didn't bother designing a pen that would write in zero G.... They simply used pencils.

Some 40 or 50 years ago I can remember seeing both Russian and US space capsules in the London Science museum. The contrast was startling. Compared to the US capsule, the Russian one looked crude as if it had been knocked up using a Meccano set. I don't doubt a deliberate policy of simplicity but it really looked rough.
 
Some 40 or 50 years ago I can remember seeing both Russian and US space capsules in the London Science museum. The contrast was startling. Compared to the US capsule, the Russian one looked crude as if it had been knocked up using a Meccano set. I don't doubt a deliberate policy of simplicity but it really looked rough.
Even looking at aircraft and ships/submarines built during the Cold War, elegance was not a high priority.
 
Back
Top Bottom