America's planes

[Lomik]

Can you please explain this to me… how does the pilot error reflect on the maneuverability of a MiG?! This should be interesting...

[Pucara70]

I agree with you Lomik, that was a pilot error, although we must admit that the MiG-25 it is not a very agile and manoeuverable plane.

[avon1944]

> Uncle_Sam <
> that MiG-25 who landed in Japan, but nothing good was found <
A lot was learned about how the Soviets solved problems when they did not have the sophisticated technology of the West!
A good example is many people laughed when they found out the MiG.-25 used a lot of vacuum tubes instead of transistors. Well there a reason, the Soviet Union was ten to fifthteen years behind America in making integrated circuits/semiconductors. They could not make complex digital circuits so they had to use less precise analog.
The MiG.-25 was designed to shot down American bombers and if in the process an atomic explosion occurred, even if the MiG.-25 was a long ways away, the EMP could fry the circuitry. The high tech solution is to make radiation hardened semiconductors because high radiation turns a transistor into a three way short circuit! So the Soviets came up with a great solution, all of the circuitry that could be made "hardened" would be placed deep inside the aircraft in a small area where shielding against could be made and not cost to much weight. The circuitry outside this area would use vacuum tubes!! Vacuum tubes are more than ten thousand times more resistant to EMP than transistors are! So the Soviets had the last laugh after all.
Soviet designers/engineers have less support from manufacturing and production than their Western counter-parts. So they use good imagination to come up with a workable solution that is suitable for them.
A very good example is the F-16A, the Soviet Union wanted to make a plane like that. One fuel efficient, light weight and, powerful engine but none of their engines filled the requirements, so their "light weight" fighter was heavier and had other penalties. When all is said and done the MiG.-29 is a mighty fine aircraft. Now, is it the "air to ground" machine, can it project power like the F-16 or F/A-18 can no but, within its limits it is a very good aircraft.

> F-117 was shot down, unfortunately (to me, I don’t know about you), another <
> superb aircraft has fallen into the Russian hands <
The Russians got their hands on the materials/composits that comprise the F-117. What is needed the msot and what cost the most in stealth is to design how to manufacture some of the geometries that are required to make the aircraft work as expected. EXAMPLE;
The leading edge of the B-2 bomber looks like a straight line, it is not! It is an arc with a radius of 2,475 feet! (I did the calculations) The leading edge of the wings must be manufactured from the outside in!! It is the only way you can build the leading edge to spec (physically) and meet all the stealth requirements.

> I don’t know what to think about “Raptor”, some say he’s bad, some say <
> he’s superb…. <
The F-22 Raptor has exceeded all of its specs!!!! Many people don't like it because of its price. The price cited is the price for block #1 of aircraft. Later blocks will cost less because of things learned in building the aircraft that will cut its price. If you ajust for inflation, the F-14 or F-15 were not much cheaper!! Thirty to forty-five million dollars back in 1972 is worth a lot more money than one hundred million dollars is now!

> the "Raptor" is plane old more than 15 (from some data shows 1981) years <
> and the MiG-1.42 isn’t more than 10. <
The USSR desolved which became the CIS and now just Russia. Look at the relative efforts the countries have been able to put into the projects. The MiG.-1.42 was never designed to go into production, it was another test vehicle. The MiG.-1.42 or 1.44 are not true stealth vehicles! The Russian Air Force has already stated for the record, their first true stealth aircraft will not be fielded until after the F-35 becomes operational.


> FoverF <
> How about having helmet-mounted sights with off-boresight missiles while <
> the USAF was still flying F-4s? <
Yes but they got the specs for what was needed from the USAF's AIMVAL/ACEVAL testing that went on for a year to determine many things about future aircombat.
For the record.... the project to develope helmet mounted display systems (HMDS) was started by the USAF and IDF/AF. The USAF lost faith in it and figured that with a good missile to go along with it would take many years, so they withdrew from the project. The US Army decided to enter the project and fielded the first HMDS on the AH-64 Appache Helicopter!

> The first past Mach 3? (Oh, ONLY mach 2.8 while fully armed? That's still <
> 600 mph faster than any other fighter) <
Where do you want to place the SR-71?
Other Soviet inventions are the afterburner and the "coke bottle" shape of many aircraft of the late 1950s

> How about engines that require NO MAINTENANCE for 800 hours+? <
What is the level of maintenance required then? The West has a different philosophy, does more periodic maintenance but, the engine core last longer before it has to be completely replaced.

> that Russia has made a lot of amazing technological advancements, and has <
> made aircraft that were the best in the world for their time, just like <
> America, France, England, Sweden, etc have all done. <
The East and the West have differnt requirements for weapon systems. The Soviet Union has had two World Wars and the conflicts were brought to their borders. The USA has been in two World Wars and "exported" the war! So what is considered necessary by the two different countries is vastly different.
Now, compare the F-4 Phantom II and the MiG.-21. Both operated in the same span of time, both had very high volumn of production (over five thousand aircraft each), both with good performance but in different ways.

> the USAF/USN outnumbered the NVAF by more than 100 to 1. <
Not in theater at any one time! Now, the NVAF did not rotate its pilots like the Americans did, so the apparent number of people who saw combat on the American side was a lot higher.

> The very few other aircraft capable of flying this fast while armed are <
> also going to fly in a very straight line. <
All of the super fighters can, it is just your lightweight fighters that have to be clean in order to do their best.

> Oh, certainly the MiG-25 isn't as good as the west made it out to be. <
It had the potential. LDSD radar and missile would have made it far more formidable than you give it credit.

> the Iraqi airforce's inability to outfight the Iranians had very little to <
> do with their equipment, and more to do with a general lack of ability. <
Saddam wanted an AF to show and, keep down his internal enemies in line. Not an air force that is good at aerial combat.


> Uncle_Sam <
> Anyone interested of hearing how F-117 was shot down (for me it's tragedy, <
> I don't know about you), a few days before it was written in the newspaper, <
> now I have an official version, and it's all CIA-s fault they should'ev <
> be more carefull <
It was simply a case of the USAF arrogance, they felt they could do whatever they wanted and nothing would happen. They caused an F-117 to fly directly over a mobile radar unit. Detection was no problem, the kill be a SAM was easy.


> Pucara70 <
> The F-4 was bigger, with more fuel capabilities, and more payload and <
> range; the MiG´s are smaller, but, in case of the Flogger, faster and in <
> case of the MiG-21 more manoeuverable. <
Only under certain parameters. The swing wings have to be set maunally so in a dogfight envirement at certain speeds and altitudes the wings must be adjusted and while in a turn and burn fight this is not always possible.
The MiG.-21 is very maneuverable in the horizontal plane not the verticle plane. This is its advantage over the F-4 Phantom. The F-4 had the advantage in the verticle plane. This is what Top Gun taught Navy pilots during the bombing halt of 1968. Teaching pilots how to take advantage of their strengths and not play into the strengths of the enemy is what Top Gun did that caused a reversal of the kill ratio for the remainder of the Viet Nam Conflict.


> USA pilots were more experienced and better trained <
Now they are. Back during the Viet Nam Conflict The USAF Ace Steve Richie was in his second tour of duty before he ever had any dissimiliar combat exercise. He had to learn terms like rolling scissors, high yo yo, Immelman, etc.


> the air duel between Lt. Randy Cunningham and RIO Willy Driscol, against <
> the MiG-17 of Col Toon, or Tomb as mentioned sometimes!!!!!!! <
Now Viet Nam denys the existence of a Col Tomb (Toon, etc.). Before the encounter with Lt Cunningham North Viet Nam had photographs taken of all their aces and supposedly Col. Tomb was among them!

> In fact I think taht the AA-2 Atoll and the primitive Sidewinder were <
> very equal. <
The Atoll did have the advantage of not spending much time in "captive carry" situations. Especially the missiles fired by the Navy, how many carrier take offs and landings did the missile have to endure be fore being fired.


> jerre <
> it's actually a mistake to believe that the air battles above vietnam were <
> against MiG21s. Most of the Vietnamese Airforce planes were MiG17 and <
> MiG19, both second-line fighters in the '60s and '70s. <
The US Navy comming in from the east faced mostly MiG.-17's and MiG.-19's. The USAF comming in from the south and southwest faced mostly MiG.-21's.
Gen Robin Olds tired of the silly way Washington was conducting the war came up with "Operation Bolo."
On January 2, 1967 Gen Robin Olds used Operation BOLO they flew F-4 Phantoms in the same formation used by the F-105's with F-4 Phantom escort. When the MiG.-21's of the 921st Fighter Regiment broke through the clouds they found all the aircraft were F-4's. In one of the largest dogfights of the war, twelve F-4 Phantoms shot down seven MiG.-21's and two probables! The NVAF had to "stand down" for two months while replacement aircraft arrived and new pilots were trained.


> motorhead_6 <
> The Mig25 is so manuverable that it lost a dogfight with an EF-111 in <
> desert storm. <
You have the MiG.-25 mixed up with a Mirage F.1EQ. The EF-111B dove close to the deck to get away from the Mirage. The Mirage fired a missile at the EF-111B but, it impacted behind the Raven. So the F.1EQ dove down to get right behind the EF-111B and either did not pull out of the dive or was very low behind the EF-111B and flew into the ground, for it did not have terrain avoidance radar.


> Lomik <
> how does the pilot error reflect on the maneuverability of a MiG?! <
The pilot not flying an aircraft well translates in a dogfight into moves not being made in a timely maner. EXAMPLE -In this case had the attacker been a MiG.-25 it should have reduced its altitude to five thousand feet. If your radar still has trouble with lock-on then back off and increase the slant range. In a MiG.-25 you do not want to get down into the dirt following an F-111 or Tornado.
The other option is to report the actions of the low attacking aircraft, have them project a course, use your speed to get abeam or ahead of the target and attack from there.

Adrian

[caveman123456]

When comparing Soviet and American aircraft, the thought comes to mind that the Soviets built fairly large quantities of aircraft, whether based on their Western counterparts' designs or original, with two ideas in mind: 1. Quantity - I've never worked around Russian military a/c but I have worked around a few types of civil and troop/cargo a/c. The quality of the a/c leaves something to be desired, but they are, for the most part, extremely low maintenance. 2. Cost Effective - There is no way the West was ever able to match the Soviets for the number of aircraft they built for the prices they built them for.

Yes, as far as the quality is concerned, the U.S. won, but if I'm not mistaken, the Soviets had quite a big step ahead of the Americans in their technological ideas. Captivity tends to do wonders for the human mind - we'll never know just how many ingenious ideas were cooked up by their scientists behind the Iron Curtain.

[Super_Sabre]

do you think that the F/A-18 is more manoverable than the MiG-25? then explain the f-18 that was shot down by the MiG-25

[bradusa_2003]

sorry got in on this late where was the fa-18 shot down by a mig-25?

[SchlagRIO]

There is some evidence indicating that Scott Speicher's hornet was shot down by a MIG-25, vice a SAM as was originally suspected.