PDA

View Full Version : Why Russian fighters got such a bad reputation



Freiwillige
06-28-2009, 03:44 PM
I'm reading a book entitled Russian Fighters of WWII. It talks allot about the complex political situation and how the engineers had to struggle to get projects forwarded.

Basically once a design is approved, one of the state manufacturing plants begins production off the plans.

During trials in 1942 it was found that the difference in speed between prototype, Pre production and production aircraft could be 60 Kilometers an hour! Example the LAGG-3 prototype was much faster than production versions. Adding to this was the fact the conopy's were of such poor manufacture that VVS pilots often flew with them open so they could see! The excess drag reduced combat performance substantually. Prop oil often obscured the windscreen on production La-5's and the bugs in that aircraft were never fully remedied until the LA-7.

Its an interesting read and a testament to the Russian people how many hardships they overcame to build a first class airforce in a time when industry was shipped East and production bottlenecks and unskilled labor were the norm.

horseback
06-28-2009, 04:06 PM
Author or authors? I think I have at least two or three volumes with that title myself.

Many of us are aware of the problems surrounding Soviet aircraft production; start with moving whole factories a thousand or more km to new locations beyond the reach of German bombers, then add an inexperienced and less than adequately trained and educated workforce. In the open. In winter.

Now surround the whole shebang with a flock of government bureaucrats whose primary expression of authority lies in the ability to stop someone else from getting something accomplished AND whose position is due solely to their political reliability...

The amazing thing was that they got anything effective produced at all. If that isn't a testament to Russian doggedness & determination, I don't know what it could be.

cheers

horseback

VW-IceFire
06-28-2009, 05:15 PM
Its a miracle that they were able to produce any top level aircraft...and yet by end of the war they had managed to in several areas.

Also worth noting is not just the planes but the pilots and the command structure that allowed those aircraft to operate effectively or not was in a very bad state at the start of the war. Stalin had a large number of VVS officers purged due to his various fits of paranoia.

Even the La-7 wasn't completely refined. Oil still got onto the windscreen and worse was the high temperatures in the cockpit and the exhaust fumes getting in there as well. Never completely solved.

Also don't get the impression that other nations didn't have some similar problems. For instance the Tempest/Typhoon shares the La-5/7 temperature and toxic fumes problem to various degrees. The F4U Corsair was also notorious for leaking oil ...thus you will see a great number of Corsairs taped up at the front along the panel lines.

DKoor
06-28-2009, 05:47 PM
Most guys that flew in WW2 probably felt very privileged and lucky in a way http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ... if you need to fight anyway, why not fight in elite forces, also chick love airmen http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

I say that because I don't think that they really thought as much of their aircraft shortcomings as much as how they will do their job in the air and will their luck run out on the next sortie.

Aircraft with stock deficiencies wasn't their business anyway... I think their mechanics did their best to patch the crates up and bring those war horses in top form http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif . That is why their part in the war effort must not be forgotten.
Many things mechanics did to their aircraft worked really good in "the field"; after all they were those who listened to the pilot complaints all the time.

I think the part of the VVS planes success (relative term) was that their fighters tended to be more simple (not the best choice of words, I know) than the contemporary air forces aircraft.

I know it isn't related but I clearly recall on Hurricane pilot speaking how he got his combat damaged fighter patched up in short time on field, whereas metal aircraft needed longer time to repair http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

WTE_Galway
06-28-2009, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
Adding to this was the fact the conopy's were of such poor manufacture that VVS pilots often flew with them open so they could see!


Early war the problem was actually the material (cellophane) which went yellow after only a few months in the sun.

One interesting thing for skinners is the fuel gauges which early war were actually mounted out on the wing into the top of the tanks. These were notoriously inaccurate and many squadron commanders had them painted over with cammo to force the pilots to calculate fuel left rather than rely on a potentially wildly inaccurate gauge.

M_Gunz
06-28-2009, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
I'm reading a book entitled Russian Fighters of WWII. It talks allot about the complex political situation and how the engineers had to struggle to get projects forwarded.

Heinkel had the same problem in Germany with his jet program even after very successful trials against the early FW.


Basically once a design is approved, one of the state manufacturing plants begins production off the plans.

During trials in 1942 it was found that the difference in speed between prototype, Pre production and production aircraft could be 60 Kilometers an hour!

And prototypes elsewhere were not faster than production models? Perhaps the difference was never so great?


Example the LAGG-3 prototype was much faster than production versions. Adding to this was the fact the conopy's were of such poor manufacture that VVS pilots often flew with them open so they could see! The excess drag reduced combat performance substantually. Prop oil often obscured the windscreen on production La-5's and the bugs in that aircraft were never fully remedied until the LA-7.

It would be great to hear more on this since it had been shown years ago that such problems were supposed to be fixed
and that the pilots did fly the planes with canopies closed. How often was often? More than half?
We know that there were manufacturing runs of different planes that were bad but we also know that steps were taken to
correct those problems including plant managers guilty of substituting cheap materials and pocketing the difference
being shot. In the absence of complete information in a book I usually think that the author did not do all the checking
that should have been done but I don't have your book, only words like often that don't say how often, the qualifier.


Its an interesting read and a testament to the Russian people how many hardships they overcame to build a first class airforce in a time when industry was shipped East and production bottlenecks and unskilled labor were the norm.

Probably the biggest reason that Russian planes got a bad rap is because of the Cold War. I remember the big surprise
when the MiG-29's went to the British airshow! What I had been told was true of all Russian warbirds turned out to be
mostly BS. The fun part is that the attitudes that fostered the misinformation of the past are still alive today.

Waldo.Pepper
06-28-2009, 06:38 PM
Neither this ...


Originally posted by Freiwillige:
it was found that the difference in speed between prototype, Pre production and production aircraft could be 60 Kilometers an hour!
nor this ...
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
Prop oil often obscured the windscreen

was a feature unique to Soviet Aircraft. The oily windscreen is a small part of the reason why the British favored twin engine aircraft for their Night Fighters. This also happened with F4U's as well.

WTE_Galway
06-28-2009, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Probably the biggest reason that Russian planes got a bad rap is because of the Cold War. I remember the big surprise
when the MiG-29's went to the British airshow! What I had been told was true of all Russian warbirds turned out to be
mostly BS. The fun part is that the attitudes that fostered the misinformation of the past are still alive today.

Wasn't there a famous propaganda case of russian EMP resistant valve technology for frontline fighters in the 70's being touted in the popular western press as examples of how primitive the soviets were "still using valves" .

Bearcat99
06-28-2009, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Probably the biggest reason that Russian planes got a bad rap is because of the Cold War. I remember the big surprise
when the MiG-29's went to the British airshow! What I had been told was true of all Russian warbirds turned out to be
mostly BS. The fun part is that the attitudes that fostered the misinformation of the past are still alive today.

I agree 100%. With all their faults the Russians were making some pretty hot birds and by the end of WWII they definitely had an airforce that was a contender.... Most Americans just never heard anything but Mustangs,Corsairs,Lightnigs,Hwks,Spitfires etc.. Most of us even knew more about German aircraft than Russian... a direct result of cold war propaganda.

R_Target
06-28-2009, 10:03 PM
The problem with early Corsairs was leaking cowl flap actuators, which was resolved by redesigning the mechanism and permanently fairing over the top two flaps.

The gun-port tape on the noses was not to stop oil leaks, but fuel leaks as the bags tended to get a little sloshy.

Waldo.Pepper
06-28-2009, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
The problem with early Corsairs was leaking cowl flap actuators, which was resolved by redesigning the mechanism and permanently fairing over the top two flaps.

The gun-port tape on the noses was not to stop oil leaks, but fuel leaks as the bags tended to get a little sloshy.

"Visibility already hampered by the long nose, was further hampered by hydraulic fluid leaking from the cowl flap actuators and by engine oil from the valve push rods."

Corsair - The F4U in WW2 and Korea. Barett Tillman page 9.

Kettenhunde
06-28-2009, 11:54 PM
The VVS ended the war with some of the best aircraft in service anywhere in the world, IMHO.

The Yak 3 is a great example and every bit the equal to the premier fighters of other Air Forces in the world.

I recently did a performance analysis of the Yak 3 using data posted by forum members. Unfortunately the discussion deteriorated as they often do here and I did not bother to post the results. I had some big misconceptions about this aircraft so in that sense it was not a waste.

I thought it would have with much in common with the Spitfire in design philosophy and concept. I couldn't have been farther from the reality. IMHO, it is closer in design philosophy and concept to the P51 and Focke Wulf series.

The plane is a great example of good design work and deserves its place among the great air superiority designs of the war. It takes a very low CLmax airfoil with a very high stall speed and through appropriate power turns the aircraft into a load factor pulling monster.

The Clark YH was probably chosen for its very low Coefficient of Moment. I would be willing to bet the aircraft had some very good stability and control characteristics as a result. This would have helped the pilot maneuver the aircraft under load.

The high stall speed is hardly a handicap as the design is firmly on the upper end of the scale for sustainable load factor. There is no reason for a Yak pilot to be coming near his stall speed in a dogfight.

All the best,

Crumpp

horseback
06-28-2009, 11:59 PM
Same paragraph, next page:

"This problem was easily solved. Beginning in December (1942, before the F4U deployed for combat), F4U-1s were built with a different flap actuator and the top portion of the cowling was permanently faired over."

Note that the tests took place in sea trials during late September of '42.

The difference between US production and Soviet production was that in most cases, a commisar was not involved in the decision making process. Vought's engineers got the complaint, examined the aircraft, and determined the cause.

Then they fixed it and had the fix introduced on the production line in less than three months. Without a single self-criticism session, or a politically correct explanation to FDR.

The other big difference between western and Soviet aircraft production was the workforce; the core of the western workforce was composed of prewar trained workers of high skill levels who never suffered a political purge like the one that swept through the USSR just before the war. In the west, including Germany, competence was the primary determining factor to getting and holding a job in aircraft production early in the war.

It is my understanding that it took a while for Stalin to accept that kind of standard, and that he was never really happy about it.

cheers

horseback

Waldo.Pepper
06-29-2009, 02:12 AM
From the Jolly Rogers By Tom Blackburn, James B. Stockdale page 46 ...

"Each of fourteen cowl flaps had its own baby hydraulic cylinder to open and close it. These tended to leak. In addition, until the maintenance crews became expert, the big radial engine tended to throw a lot of oil. The combination rapidly coated the windshield and seriously decreased the airplane's inherently limited forward visibility. We all became expert at quickly locating rain showers through which we could fly in order to wash away the oil."

Quoted at greater length here ...

http://www.acepilots.com/planes/f4u_corsair.html

This would seem to be at odds with the opinion of Mr. Tillman when he suggested is was easily solved during trials, and did not impact operational units.

Your turn. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

M_Gunz
06-29-2009, 02:15 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Probably the biggest reason that Russian planes got a bad rap is because of the Cold War. I remember the big surprise
when the MiG-29's went to the British airshow! What I had been told was true of all Russian warbirds turned out to be
mostly BS. The fun part is that the attitudes that fostered the misinformation of the past are still alive today.

I agree 100%. With all their faults the Russians were making some pretty hot birds and by the end of WWII they definitely had an airforce that was a contender.... Most Americans just never heard anything but Mustangs,Corsairs,Lightnigs,Hwks,Spitfires etc.. Most of us even knew more about German aircraft than Russian... a direct result of cold war propaganda. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes Bearcat, but from both sides plus the information blackout of the iron curtain.
Still there was that fighter fly-off in Italy before things went hostile that the Yak-9DD won, from what Oleg showed.

M_Gunz
06-29-2009, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
There is no reason for a Yak pilot to be coming near his stall speed in a dogfight.

Unless he is online flying DF, flaps down and looking to turn the tightest radius regardless of sense.

M_Gunz
06-29-2009, 02:38 AM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
From the Jolly Rogers By Tom Blackburn, James B. Stockdale page 46 ...

"Each of fourteen cowl flaps had its own baby hydraulic cylinder to open and close it. These tended to leak. In addition, until the maintenance crews became expert, the big radial engine tended to throw a lot of oil. The combination rapidly coated the windshield and seriously decreased the airplane's inherently limited forward visibility. We all became expert at quickly locating rain showers through which we could fly in order to wash away the oil."

Quoted at greater length here ...

http://www.acepilots.com/planes/f4u_corsair.html

This would seem to be at odds with the opinion of Mr. Tillman when he suggested is was easily solved during trials, and did not impact operational units.

Your turn. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

After watching some of the Roaring Glory videos and some others it's apparent that a lot of those warbirds had their own
hazards that if not handled right and lacking emergency crew could leave a burning plane before takeoff or just a non-
starter until repairs. It's not like walking out to your vintage-60's car and working the gas right for a smooth start.

Once they faired the two top cowling flaps over though, that should have cut a lot of the windscreen fouling don'tcha think?
Same as getting the flaps "fail-safe" taken out, a problem that didn't stay a problem.

But I do think you've kicked a hornet nest to even suggest what you did http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif let alone back it up with an account.

rnzoli
06-29-2009, 03:22 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
The difference between US production and Soviet production was that in most cases, a commisar was not involved in the decision making process. Vought's engineers got the complaint, examined the aircraft, and determined the cause.

Then they fixed it and had the fix introduced on the production line in less than three months. Without a single self-criticism session, or a politically correct explanation to FDR.

This is probably wrong. Political decisions were mostly related to introduction to new types, manufacturing quotas, priorities regarding rare materials. However the Russians usually had a no-nonsense approach to maintenance and operational issues, and they handled them straightforward also. The factories have sent their personnel to the frontline to help introduction of new equipment, and the in the beginning of the war, frontline pilots also visited factories to deliver worn-out planes and pick new ones.


The other big difference between western and Soviet aircraft production was the workforce; the core of the western workforce was composed of prewar trained workers of high skill levels who never suffered a political purge like the one that swept through the USSR just before the war.
This is quite an important point, but I would focus it on then white-collar people in design and manufacturing, where purging was the real threat. Next to the assembly lines, the purges didn't have such a big impact (on personal level yes, on the overall maufacturing process, no)

R_Target
06-29-2009, 06:09 AM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
From the Jolly Rogers By Tom Blackburn, James B. Stockdale page 46 ...

"Each of fourteen cowl flaps had its own baby hydraulic cylinder to open and close it. These tended to leak. In addition, until the maintenance crews became expert, the big radial engine tended to throw a lot of oil. The combination rapidly coated the windshield and seriously decreased the airplane's inherently limited forward visibility. We all became expert at quickly locating rain showers through which we could fly in order to wash away the oil."

This would seem to be at odds with the opinion of Mr. Tillman when he suggested is was easily solved during trials, and did not impact operational units.


The time period Blackburn is referring to was the Spring of 1943, when they were training in North Carolina, and about six months before they were sent to the Solomon Islands. I have seen some photos of F4Us in forward areas with the full set of cowl flaps however.

Xiolablu3
06-29-2009, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Probably the biggest reason that Russian planes got a bad rap is because of the Cold War. I remember the big surprise
when the MiG-29's went to the British airshow! What I had been told was true of all Russian warbirds turned out to be
mostly BS. The fun part is that the attitudes that fostered the misinformation of the past are still alive today.

I agree 100%. With all their faults the Russians were making some pretty hot birds and by the end of WWII they definitely had an airforce that was a contender.... Most Americans just never heard anything but Mustangs,Corsairs,Lightnigs,Hwks,Spitfires etc.. Most of us even knew more about German aircraft than Russian... a direct result of cold war propaganda. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely, exactly the same here in the UK. We learned 'nothing Russian could be as good as Western Stuff'

I knew nothing of Russian birds until I started playing this excellent sim!

CloCloZ
06-29-2009, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
Wasn't there a famous propaganda case of russian EMP resistant valve technology for frontline fighters in the 70's being touted in the popular western press as examples of how primitive the soviets were "still using valves" .

I think you are referring to the Mig 25 Foxbat pilot desertion case.

In 1976, after a Russian pilot defected to West landing in Japan, many "experts" after a brief examination of the bird started laughing at the plane because of its "primitive" valves and the fact that it "went rusty" since it wasn't entirely made of titanium.
Some of them mocked the plane calling it "rusty eagle".
They went on laughing just until one well-advised guy pointed out that "Well, this plane does many things our interceptors aren't able to, and does them at half of the cost of ours" ...

Russians very often surprised Westeners, since the age of Peter the Great, thru napoleonic wars to WWII (e.g. with their T-34 tanks).

alert_1
06-29-2009, 10:56 AM
Well, this plane does many things our interceptors aren't able to, and does them at half of the cost of ours" ...
MiG 25 was strategic bomber interceptor, it was singel role fighter. After using mx. speed its engine had to be completely renovated or changed...

R_Target
06-29-2009, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Most of us even knew more about German aircraft than Russian... a direct result of cold war propaganda.

Wildly inaccurate Luftwaffe hagiographies in the Tolliver/Caidin mold didn't help much either

CloCloZ
06-29-2009, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by alert_1:
MiG 25 was strategic bomber interceptor, it was singel role fighter. After using mx. speed its engine had to be completely renovated or changed...

It seems its max operative speed (in loaded configuration) was about Mach 2.8, a speed no interceptor in the West could reach (SR-71 is not an interceptor ...).
It was a well-designed plane for its goal and in my opinion the losses it suffered in Middle East battles could be ascribed to poor pilots training and poor ground radar support as much as to better characteristics of more recent USA fighters.

M_Gunz
06-29-2009, 05:53 PM
USAF testing
YF-12A

During flight tests the YF-12As set a speed record of 2,070.101 mph (3,331.505 km/h) and altitude record of 80,257.86 ft (24,462.6 m), both on 1 May 1965,[8] and demonstrated promising results with their unique weapon system. Six successful firings of the AIM-47 missiles were completed. The last one launched from the YF-12 at Mach 3.2 at an altitude of 74,000 ft (22,677 m) to a JQB-47E target drone 500 ft (152 m) off the ground.

Frequent_Flyer
06-29-2009, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by CloCloZ:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by alert_1:
MiG 25 was strategic bomber interceptor, it was singel role fighter. After using mx. speed its engine had to be completely renovated or changed...

It seems its max operative speed (in loaded configuration) was about Mach 2.8, a speed no interceptor in the West could reach (SR-71 is not an interceptor ...).
It was a well-designed plane for its goal and in my opinion the losses it suffered in Middle East battles could be ascribed to poor pilots training and poor ground radar support as much as to better characteristics of more recent USA fighters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would it be a fair statement , based on your opinions above - the pilots opposing the Mig 25 were better trained and more skilled ?

Saburo_0
07-05-2009, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
The difference between US production and Soviet production was that in most cases, a commisar was not involved in the decision making process. Vought's engineers got the complaint, examined the aircraft, and determined the cause.

Then they fixed it and had the fix introduced on the production line in less than three months. Without a single self-criticism session, or a politically correct explanation to FDR.

This is probably wrong. Political decisions were mostly related to introduction to new types, manufacturing quotas, priorities regarding rare materials. However the Russians usually had a no-nonsense approach to maintenance and operational issues, and they handled them straightforward also. The factories have sent their personnel to the frontline to help introduction of new equipment, and the in the beginning of the war, frontline pilots also visited factories to deliver worn-out planes and pick new ones.


The other big difference between western and Soviet aircraft production was the workforce; the core of the western workforce was composed of prewar trained workers of high skill levels who never suffered a political purge like the one that swept through the USSR just before the war.
This is quite an important point, but I would focus it on then white-collar people in design and manufacturing, where purging was the real threat. Next to the assembly lines, the purges didn't have such a big impact (on personal level yes, on the overall maufacturing process, no) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would suspect that like Japan the USSR suffered from and underdeveloped industrial base, relative to the USA at any rate. So quality of sub-components as well as manufacturing quality control issues would be an issue. Thought I do hold that Cold War ideology had a direct impact on evaluation of Soviet A/C. Also American pilots expected a certain level of office comfort which neither German nor Soviet pilots did. Doctrine also effected evaluation. That is American pilots flying from the UK into Germany placed a high priority on instrument flying, range, altitude performance etc. Naturally...While these were less important in other air forces which had different missions.

M_Gunz
07-06-2009, 12:28 AM
The USA had just begun to climb out of the Great Depression when the war started. It was the war that really kicked
the USA into high gear, things were not so great here in 1939 if you check compared to 1940-41. What really made so
much possible was political action and not being bombed or having having workforce drain in the early years.
The generation of the time did know hard times prior on average. Don't go by movies.

Bremspropeller
07-06-2009, 01:57 AM
Would it be a fair statement , based on your opinions above - the pilots opposing the Mig 25 were better trained and more skilled ?

Israeli pilots flying F-15s.
USAF/ USN pilots flying F-15s and F/A-18s.

Note, there's a generation-gap between the MiG and the american fighters.
Foxbats were completely safe from F-4Es when fyling recce-missions over Israel.

The F-15 was designed to counter the Foxbat.

K_Freddie
07-06-2009, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Would it be a fair statement , based on your opinions above - the pilots opposing the Mig 25 were better trained and more skilled ?

Israeli pilots flying F-15s.
USAF/ USN pilots flying F-15s and F/A-18s.

Note, there's a generation-gap between the MiG and the american fighters.
Foxbats were completely safe from F-4Es when fyling recce-missions over Israel.

The F-15 was designed to counter the Foxbat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
you're fishing aren't you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I'll bite

Let's go back a bit, and discover the Mig29 Fulcrum.. which so out-flies the F14, F15, F22, Saab, Eurofighter, Grippen... I cannot remember the whole list.. and it's such and old plane and costs half or less. The Russki's eclipse the world once again...

And as Stalin truefully once said... 'There's a quality in quantity' .. or something to this regard
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

M_Gunz
07-06-2009, 01:10 PM
MiG-25 is older than the MiG-29 Freddie.

TS_Sancho
07-06-2009, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Would it be a fair statement , based on your opinions above - the pilots opposing the Mig 25 were better trained and more skilled ?

Israeli pilots flying F-15s.
USAF/ USN pilots flying F-15s and F/A-18s.

Note, there's a generation-gap between the MiG and the american fighters.
Foxbats were completely safe from F-4Es when fyling recce-missions over Israel.

The F-15 was designed to counter the Foxbat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
you're fishing aren't you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I'll bite

Let's go back a bit, and discover the Mig29 Fulcrum.. which so out-flies the F14, F15, F22, Saab, Eurofighter, Grippen... I cannot remember the whole list.. and it's such and old plane and costs half or less. The Russki's eclipse the world once again...

And as Stalin truefully once said... 'There's a quality in quantity' .. or something to this regard
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, I'll bite too.

The Mig29 outclassing its western counterparts in anything but cost is complete fantasy.

I'll correct that, its pilot ejection system seems to work pretty well and has been quite thouroughly tested.

The Mig25 was designed to counter the high altitude mach 3 B70 Valkyrie.

The U.S. FX which became the F15 program was well under developement when an Egyptian Mig25 made the famous mach 3 run over Israel and outran an Israeli F4 sent to intercept it.

Western defense analysts freaked out and attributed a bunch of hypothetical capabilities to the Foxbat which was the final justifacation for putting the very expensive F15 into production.

In 1975 a russian pilot named Vicktor Belenko defected to the west with Foxbat. After thourough examination the U.S. returned the aircraft to the U.S.S.R. in crates as the Soviets were throwing a fit and demanding the return of the aircraft.

The final analysis was that the Mig25 was a competent point defense high altitude bomber interceptor and that was it. In any other role the aircraft was a sky pig as has been demonstrated by its combat history.

The F15 is unquestionably the most competent modern air to air platform blooded in actual combat. It has a proven combat record of over 100 to 0.

The F22 is in a class by itself and will remain there for quite some time. Before anyone jumps in with super manueverability and the SU37 dont bother. 3 diminsional thrust vectoring looks great at airshows and thats all its worth.

This isnt vietnam era avionics we are dealing with and though the U.S. chose to include a gun on the F22, modern aircombat is all about beyond visual range and in that enviorment F22 is untouchable.

Sorry but all nationalistic flag waving aside (yes, I am an American) these are facts and its just the way it is.

Mig29 as a deployable system has proven to be a disapointment for any nation involved.

Bremspropeller
07-06-2009, 02:37 PM
+1 Sancho.

BTW: the Gripen is made by Saab.


Luftwaffe has done testing and proven that the Tiffie outperforms the Fulcrum anywhere by roughly 10%.
So much for "outflying" more modern fighters.

Xiolablu3
07-06-2009, 02:43 PM
I was gonna say, I would be surprised if the Mig29 outflew the Typhoon 'in all areas'.

Italy, Germany and UK are not exactly novices in aircraft production and deployment.

I would also think that if their aircraft was not going to keep up with the premier 'communist' fighter then they would scrap the design and buy some F15's and F16's from the US.

However I'm not so sure about super-manouveribilty not being useful in combat - People have been declaring the 'end' of dogfights for decades and that guns should be deleted from fighters. Each time its been a big mistake and dogfight capability has been important.

In the Falklnads war RN Harriers with sidewinders still ended up in dogfights with the Argentinien planes. Sharkey 'Mr Sea Harrier' Ward has diagrams showing how each of his dogfights progressed at the end of his book. He declared horizontal turning ability to be extremely important in a fighter even today.

Bremspropeller
07-06-2009, 03:04 PM
It's not that much turning capability per se.
It's the ability of pointing your nose into some direction and squeeze off a T/V-heater.

BTW: The Sea Harrier is not the best aircraft to come up with "horizontal maneuverability" in the first place.
From what I know, the only reason why a Harrier (first gen) would be a threat to a fighter was it's small size.
It's NOT a particulary well turning aircraft.

It has, however, a good acceleration/ deceleration-potential.

Keep in mind, the RN has had a lot of advantages in the Falkland-War.

Trefle
07-06-2009, 03:21 PM
All modern fighters are more or less comparable nowadays in term of performances... some have slight plus over the others but they are all comparable

The real difference between them is ... electronics and pilot training mainly .. at least that's why a real military pilot told me

The cost of the plane and ease/cost of maintenance/upgradeability plays a Huge part of the decision to acquire this or that plane for some countries , for instance Russia especially , but also USA wins easy at this that's why they sell so many airplanes in ME , Asia etc.. , not only through political influence and additional protection/economical deals , but also because their industry is so large and produce so many planes that the costs are low for their Migs or F16/15 etc.. )

Also , let"s imagine you have a fighter a bit outdated , let's say a MiG fighters, but you have 4 times more fighters than your ennemy because they cost 4 times less, supported by hundred of awacs , satellites , and brand new classified efficient ground radars , plus you invested heavily in pilot training etc.. it's not easy to predict which side is in the best position IMHO

Bremspropeller
07-06-2009, 03:37 PM
There is no sane reason for buying a MiG other than it looks kewl - for a week.
Maintenance is gonna cost you more and more.
And the Russins only send replacement for hard cash.

Luftwaffe has seen this debacle with our MiG-29s, and this was the final reason for Germany deciding FOR the Eurofighter (initially aiming to bail out of the consortuim for cost-reasons).
We just had a hard time fixing our jets.

There were no single engine-components - they just sent entire engines.
Same for gear-components.

A flight-hour had to be weighed-against at least 80 maintenance-hours.
We had to derate our engines by 10% to get more flying-time out of them.

Now imagine youre some p1ss-poor country, trying to defend your borders and drop an occasional bomb on insurgents.
Those aircraft are gonna eat your defense-budget for breakfast.

You'd better take an F-16 for ~20 milloin $ each and build an airforce around those, if you're low on budget.

Trefle
07-06-2009, 03:55 PM
Are you sure of that Brems ?

I ask you cause i know nothing about costs of maintenance of modern stuffs , but i had read many African , Asian countries , even large countries like India went for Russian jets , which suggested to my mind that perhaps the cost was one of the main reason .

I also read that Eurofighter turned out to be far more expensive than planned which created some problems like severe delays , being grounded because of faults in braking , lowering its ground attack capability , lowered commands etc..

You are probably right as i know very little about this and you know surely better , but i'm surprised to hear that a MiG would cost a lot of money compared to its competitors

Bremspropeller
07-06-2009, 04:36 PM
Most countries in you'd mention aren't flying MiG-29s and they aren't trying to meet NATO-standards.
Many countries are still flying F-7s, which are chinese copies of the MiG-21.
Some are ugraded, some aren't.
Generally, those countries have somewhat different expectations of their fighters than NATO countries for example.

Many countries in Africa have airforces that are virtually non-existant or in a very bad condition.
No money to fix the old stuff, no money to buy new stuff.

India also only partially flies russian a/c.
Then again, India has a pretty good home-grown aviation-industry and has poretty good relations to russian design-bureaus.
But note that they lately went for Sukoi, instead of MiG.


I also read that Eurofighter turned out to be far more expensive than planned which created some problems like severe delays , being grounded because of faults in braking , lowering its ground attack capability , lowered commands etc..

Well, it was initially planned as cold-war fighter.
Yet the cold war was over and thus, it had to be develloped into a multirole-fighter, which has gone pretty well.
Keep in mind, that ANY western aircraft of today is a great leap forward in aircraft design.
It's not surprising me that costs have skyrocketed.
But that's gonna decline, as more and more experience is being made with those new fighters.
Currently, maintenance-required per flight-hour is declining across the EF-fleet.


You are probably right as i know very little about this and you know surely better , but i'm surprised to hear that a MiG would cost a lot of money compared to its competitors

Not when just buying it, but when you're trying to fly it for an extensive amount of time, russian fighters will actually cost you more than western fighters of the same capabilities.

The point is, that most western fighter-deals have some kind of a "relax"-package with them, including missiles or all other kinds of sub-deals and contracts.
You won't get those deals from Sukoi or MiG.

Trefle
07-06-2009, 04:40 PM
Thanks for taking the time to answer Brems , was interesting http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Woke_Up_Dead
07-06-2009, 06:37 PM
You'd better take an F-16 for ~20 milloin $ each and build an airforce around those, if you're low on budget.

That's the approach that Poland took recently and from what I read it's not looking too good for them, for similar reasons you brought up against buying MiGs including low reliability and high maintenance costs. Plus the US (and Russia too I imagine) is not always willing to sell what the buyer wants; Poland apparently got a much older and less advanced version of the F-16 that they were initially hoping for.

There are many different versions of each fighter plane, many "options" that can be excluded or included in the package (modern electronics, avionics, weapons system), the seller may offer different warranty programs, the seller may be more or less reliable than his competitor (eg: not a good idea to buy MiGs from Russia in the early nineties when the USSR was breaking up and not able to afford to fly its own planes)

TS_Sancho
07-06-2009, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by Woke_Up_Dead:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
You'd better take an F-16 for ~20 milloin $ each and build an airforce around those, if you're low on budget.

That's the approach that Poland took recently and from what I read it's not looking too good for them, for similar reasons you brought up against buying MiGs including low reliability and high maintenance costs. Plus the US (and Russia too I imagine) is not always willing to sell what the buyer wants; Poland apparently got a much older and less advanced version of the F-16 that they were initially hoping for.

There are many different versions of each fighter plane, many "options" that can be excluded or included in the package (modern electronics, avionics, weapons system), the seller may offer different warranty programs, the seller may be more or less reliable than his competitor (eg: not a good idea to buy MiGs from Russia in the early nineties when the USSR was breaking up and not able to afford to fly its own planes) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article15.html

According to to the article linked above Poland were sold 48 F16 block 52's with all the goodies.

They dont get any more modern than that.

At a quick glance it looks like there have been a half dozen news worthy events involving Polish F16's since they began to take delivery in 2006, none involving pilot injuries or lost aircraft.

TinyTim
07-06-2009, 07:08 PM
Which version of the MiG-29 are you guys talking about? The 25 years old, downgraded export 9.12A and the most modern MiG-35 or -29M2 are lightyears apart.

Woke_Up_Dead
07-06-2009, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article15.html

According to to the article linked above Poland were sold 48 F16 block 52's with all the goodies.

They dont get any more modern than that.

At a quick glance it looks like there have been a half dozen news worthy events involving Polish F16's since they began to take delivery in 2006, none involving pilot injuries or lost aircraft.

You might be right, I admit that I don't follow that story too closely. I just read the headlines, and since the purchase of the F-16's was a pretty big political decision in Poland I bet that there were a lot of negative headlines written by press that was not sympathetic to the government that made the purchase.

Still, I'm guessing the arguments I made in the second paragraph of that post are still valid.

Bremspropeller
07-07-2009, 02:17 AM
The press is always against new fighters.
Just look into our papers and read what they're writing about the Tiffie.
Granted, the newspaper-guys don't now sh1t about aircraft.

Poland wanted an aircraft that had a good price/ performance ratio and that was avaliable.
They got it.
They're gonna have sligtly higher mishap-rates due to the single engine (AFAIK no Block 52 Viper has crashed for engine-reasosns so far, though), compared to some other aircraft that were in the competiton.


Which version of the MiG-29 are you guys talking about? The 25 years old, downgraded export 9.12A and the most modern MiG-35 or -29M2 are lightyears apart.


They surely have made a large leap forward and the tech gap has somewhat closed.
But still, all new sales are Sukois, no MiGs.
Kinda speaks against the NG-Fulcrum as a package.
It still has short legs (compared to western counterparts) and the engine-servicability hasn't improved.
The MAIN-reason against the MiG is still up:
MX-costs.

HellToupee
07-08-2009, 03:47 AM
Originally posted by CloCloZ:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by alert_1:
MiG 25 was strategic bomber interceptor, it was singel role fighter. After using mx. speed its engine had to be completely renovated or changed...

It seems its max operative speed (in loaded configuration) was about Mach 2.8, a speed no interceptor in the West could reach (SR-71 is not an interceptor ...).
It was a well-designed plane for its goal and in my opinion the losses it suffered in Middle East battles could be ascribed to poor pilots training and poor ground radar support as much as to better characteristics of more recent USA fighters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They actually performed very well in the middle east relative to the other fighters its users had, even in the gulf war they did quite well 1 kill(F-18) for 2 losses considering the superiority in air power we had.

M_Gunz
07-08-2009, 04:55 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Now imagine youre some p1ss-poor country, trying to defend your borders and drop an occasional bomb on insurgents.
Those aircraft are gonna eat your defense-budget for breakfast.

You'd better take an F-16 for ~20 milloin $ each and build an airforce around those, if you're low on budget.

Or something like F-5's and attack choppers with the main defense in careful treaty building. A base here, a port there....

HellToupee
07-08-2009, 05:56 AM
For dropping bombs on insurgents you want something like this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.defence.co.kr/bbs/data/airarms8/2-EMB-314_super_tucano4.jpg

DKoor
07-08-2009, 06:14 AM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
Which version of the MiG-29 are you guys talking about? The 25 years old, downgraded export 9.12A and the most modern MiG-35 or -29M2 are lightyears apart. Haha like that matters to them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .