Charleslp From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 336 posts, RR: 0 Posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 24834 times:
According to various sources, I heard that the MiG 1.44 and the S-37 Berkut are superior to the F-22, or at least that is what their designers claim. I also heard that some Russian aircraft could pretty much outdo American aircraft in a dogfight. Is this actually true, or I'm I just being paranoid?
Racko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4857 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 24767 times:
"I also heard that some Russian aircraft could pretty much outdo American aircraft in a dogfight."
That's correct, but just in the dogfight. The German MiG-29 squadron in Laage has practiced against pretty much any NATO aircraft, including the USAF and the Swiss Air Force with F-18s, and has ourperformed them in the dogfight due to its high agility and the R-73 missile which is superior to the AIM-9M. This btw led to the decision to develop the IRIS-T missile. However, as PPGMD said, they have to come close to win. The radar and the AMRAAM of the modern western jets is better than the MiG's. They even lost against the F-4Fs of the Luftwaffe...
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 24701 times:
If you look at pictures of the MIG 1.44 you will see panels that don't have a very good fit along with large protruding fasteners. Not exactly conducive to having a stealthy aircraft. Another thing about the MIG 1.44 or Sukhoi S-37. They are tests beds that may never see production while the F-22 will. So even if (and that's a big if) they are superior to the F-22 it's probably a moot point.
If memory serves me correctly the Luftwaffe said of the MIG-29 "impossible to navigate and an inadequate fire control system." As you already know the product support for the MIG-29 left a lot to be desired. Hats off to the technicians of the Laage based MIG-29. Once the AIM-9X comes on line the MIG-29's off axix missile advantage will be negated.
Rwalsh1348 From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 5 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 24693 times:
On the topic of Luftwaffe Mig-29s vs USAF aircraft, here's what the pilots on both sides have to say. The F-16 was giving the 29s a run for their $$ 8 years ago. I'm guessing they've improved more over time. Some pretty good commentary although the article is pretty old:
Racko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4857 posts, RR: 20
Reply 12, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 24689 times:
Here's a good article about the pro's and con's of the MiG-29, from Johann Koeck, commander of the Luftwaffe MiG-29 squadron.
""The radar is at least a generation behind the AN/APG-65, and is not line-repairable. If we have a radar problem, the aircraft goes back into the hangar. The radar has a poor display, giving poor situational awareness, and this is compounded by the cockpit ergonomics. The radar has reliability problems and lookdown/shootdown problems. There is poor discrimination between targets flying in formation, and we can’t lock onto the target in trail, only onto the lead. We have only the most limited autonomous operating capability."
""But when all that is said and done, the MiG-29 is a superb fighter for close-in combat, even compared with aircraft like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18. This is due to the aircraft’s superb aerodynamics and helmet mounted sight. Inside ten nautical miles I’m hard to defeat, and with the IRST, helmet sight and ‘Archer’ I can’t be beaten. Period. Even against the latest Block 50 F-16s the MiG-29 is virtually invulnerable in the close-in scenario. On one occasion I remember the F-16s did score some kills eventually, but only after taking 18 ‘Archers’."
http://www.fabulousfulcrums.de is the Homepage of the JG73 MiG-29 squadron. Under press, you can find articles (unfortunately only in German) from a Swiss newspaper about MiG vs. F-18 dogfights, "Against the MiGs, our Hornets didn't have a sting". There are articles about the Agile Archer in the USA last year, however they don't mention results. But on a German TV show, "n-tv Take Off" they mentioned last year that the MiGs won the pure dogfights, but lost badly bvr against AMRAAM-equipped F-15/F-16s.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 16, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 24570 times:
Berkut is a technology demonstrator. Unless it's changed a lot since rollout it didn't look stealthy at all to me. Far too many sharp edges etc.
It IS quite agile, which might present a problem for the F-22 if it lets the Berkut in close.
MiG i.44 never went anywhere, though ideas from the model were used in the later MiG jettrainer (which also didn't survive AFAIK).
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8018 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 24543 times:
I think one HUGE advantage for USAF and US Navy pilots is the fact they have very realistic air combat schools like Top Gun and Red Flag to hone their skills. With that type of training, American fighter pilots can outfight a MiG-29 or Su-27/30 fighter.
It should be noted that once the US Navy started the Top Gun program in the late 1960's F-4 pilots flying from US Navy carriers by 1972 had an amazing 14 to 1 kill ratio--pretty good considering the F-4 was nowhere near as manueverable as the MiG-17's the North Vietnamese AF pilots favored in air combat.
By the way, the new Matra/BAe Meteor missile that is now in advanced development could probably be carried on the F-15C, F-16C, and F/A-18E in addition to the planned installation on the Eurofighter Typhoon; this gives the ability to engage targets probably as far as 80 miles away! I don't think the Russians have any missiles that are carried on the MiG-29 and Su-27/30 that can hit a target that far away.
PPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 24483 times:
There were four non-Amraam kills during the Gulf War. The first was the 2 choppers downed by the A-10's main guns, which were the first two air to air kills of the war. The other two were at the end of the war, one was another chopper hovering that had a LGB / KLGB), USA - California">LGB dropped on it by an F-15E on strike mission. The final one was a trainer that was used to attack a settlement in Northern Iraq, he saw the American fighter jet behind him, said something to the effect of "Oh shit" and punched out. The fighter pilot was credited for the kill by the higher ups.
Credit: Most of it Every Man a Tiger by Tom Clancey and Chuck Horner.
LY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 24500 times:
The were no AMRAAM kills during the Gulf War as the AIM-120 did not enter service until right after the war was over. The AIM-7 was still the workhorse back then. The Fulcrum and Flanker families of aircraft were designed to carry such missiles as the AA-10 and (later on) the AA-12, which roughly correspond to the AIM-7 and AIM-120 respectively.
Petertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3379 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 24380 times:
Are BVR missiles still usefull? For as far as I can see the the allies let the adversaries come in closer in order to make a positive identification. They no longer shoot at everything that may be bad in order to prevent friendly-fire.
If this is true, I might be wrong, then having medium range missiles will do. Manouverability (spelling?) would be nice as well.
Another advantage of the Russian planes is that they can operate from rough field. I do not believe that a F16 can take off from a mudfield. A mig-29 can when the field is reasonably level. Apparently maintenance is also easier because they were designed to be maintained by conscripts???
Charleslp From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 336 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 24374 times:
I guess when it comes to aircraft, most Russian fighters were made to take off from highways or even a spot where there is NO pavement at all, like in a dirt field or something. Besides, I'm sure that if the U.S. wanted to produce aircraft with excellent maneuverability, I'm sure it could. But as of right now, the U.S. is developing something that has stealth and speed with fairly good maneuverability, which is basically planned for roles such as fast deployment and such.
: BTW, just wanted to point out that various modifications of the Fulcrum (and others) family that came out in the mid to late 90's (but have seen littl
: To my knowledge, the only American aircraft to have been exported in large numbers (400+ worldwide) is the F-16 Fighting Falcon and maybe the F-18 Hor
: Ignore that photo isnert in the last post. I was trying to insert this:
: Do we really have to get into the history of Soviet shipbuilding and discuss why this is not much of a threat? They were designed poorly, and were for
: Interesting post...but that is where combined force options become important... First you have to have the intel assets to let you know what is coming
: Okay, maybe my topic was a little far-fetched. It was more a "What if..." question anyway.
: I find nothing wrong with a "what if" topic. Gets us amatuers thinking a little. Perhaps the scenario cited above is too far fetched. But what about t
: Countries like Russia etc can build aircraft carriers, but they are almost worthless without the Battlegroup. The US Aircraft Carrier battlegroups fea
: Listen guys what the Soviet Union had in 1991 before it broke up was as good as any western plane if not better. However, after the breakup the financ
: Ahhh, Soviet, I think you are wrong. There are quite a few Russian built a/c flying that could be potentially considered a threat today. If we all tho
: How is the western system more flexible. Every shot has to be accounted for these days to prevent friendly fire. The same was the case at the time by
: The western system of command and control has always allowed more decision making throughout the chain of command. Certainly rules of engagement take
: Okay, so maybe some MiGs and Sukhois are much faster, maneuverable, and probably much cheaper than American aircraft. And maybe Russian aircraft can p
: Charles- You are trying to make it too simple. As noted above there will be issues with command and control, levels of pilot training, the rules of en
: 2912n - I know that there are plenty of Russian aircraft flying right now that are a threat and that are great aircraft. I never said every russian pl
: The Russians have always been able to build and design excellent aircraft, but they have always lacked the technological refinment. Take a look at wha
: Soviet- I think you got my messages crossed...more of my comments were directed to Charles. The problem with discussing a USSR vs US/NATO conflict is
: Fortunately, the USSR no longer exists. Although Russia still has formidable aircraft, it would be kind of silly to think that they are a direct threa
: PPGMD - The USSR was indeed a little behind the US technologically but not as to have caused the US to have "spanked" them. F-117? Gimme a break. That
: Sovietjet - you clearly make the point that the former Soviet Union was clearly in the "catchup and react" position throughout the cold war, as oppose