Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

Forum Veteran Joined: Nov 07, 2003 - 09:12 PM Posts: 901

ACSheva wrote:

You should try to back up youre stuff next time, please.

Ironically, I don't see much convincing backups for your statements either. Shocked

PS: your tone sounds like one particular expelled member of the board.

F-16.net Sponsor

No worries Wink

. I'm a little wound up myself. I goofed up at the store and didn't look at the label on my diet cola - no caffeine Shocked

! This is day two of caffeine withdrawl and it's not that easy. I'll look closer next time before I buy what's on sale! Now when I kick my really bad habit, watch out and let me know if I'm getting a bit too grouchy Very Happy

!

Edit: Pumpkin, I think you got there a bit quicker than I did. I was typing while you were hitting submit... Note to self: type quicker!

Trust me, I know what I'm talking about Smile

Simple does not mean Inferior. In my eyes, the USAF and VVS have been pretty much neck on neck since the end of WWII. (La-7/9 was a MEAN, MEAN, MEAN Fighter, and at Low Altitude if I had to choose between that and a P-51, trust me, I'd want the La...) Even in Korea, it's only estimated now that the F-86 only had a 3-to-1 Kill ratio against the MiGs, which if you remove the Chinese and NK pilots, they're probably quite even- any Soviet pilot who survived WWII was GOOD, no question about it. Not to mention their Gunnery skills, as their weapons tended to be rapid-fire with a low ammo supply. If Russia had any money, we can only wonder what accomplishments they might've made aviation-wise.

Also, as for the Blue Angels, from watching a documentary on them (anyone wants it, PM me), they all exchanged Rides with Russian pilots. Rode in the back seats of Su-27, MiG-29, and Su-25, while giving Russian pilots from the Russian Knights, Strizhi, and Sky Hussars rides in their Hornets.

As to not providing any backup, just look at that Hud. Russian pilots still rely on keeping their head in the cockpit. Not that it doesn't work, That's how pilots have been doing it since 1914. I'd hate to be in an F-22 and have all my MFDs and HUDs go out. Ouch.

The whole Point I've been trying to make is that we've never seen a well piloted, well maintained, Eastern-equipped Airforce go up against the USAF in numbers. There were the MiG-15s, but as far as I can see they did pretty well against the sabres. Vietnam, US Planes were very badly restricted and MiGs did not operate in Numbers. If Eagles and Vipers ever meet well maintained well Piloted Flankers and Fulcrums, I wouldn't put my money on either side. Once Russia's Economy gets going again in the next 10 years, I'll not be surprised if they come out with some really nice Aircraft...

"all my MFD's and HUDs go out...." And you wouldn't be looking outside because!?!?!

Those tools do not make or break an fight. They only enhance your SA PRIOR to the WVR engangement. Once you get there, the mark I eyeball will make most of the merge. Hell, most of us just put the bad guy in the same place in the hud (symbology or not) and squeeze the trigger. After a few sorties of doing that, you stop paying 5 bucks for bad kill calls.

Cylon

All the F/A-22's Gauges to my knowledge are on it's MFDs. You'd be flying completely blind.

Doesn't matter... weapons can still be used...

Cylon

I'd think it would still be very difficult. Can you still get a tone with the sidewinder? Can you still fire an AIM-7 in Flood mode, or Pitbull an AIM-120? Or, do you just have your cannon?

That's not to say, an MFD is any more susceptible to malfunction than normal Gauges. I don't trust gauges more than I do the mk1 eyeball, for sure,

Also, when you said you just place the bad guy in the same place in your HUD and fire, do you ignore your Gunsight? After all, they say deflection shooting is only 10% aiming. When I <b>play</b> IL-2 Sturmovik, I can't hit a dang thing if I use the K-14 Gyro site with the P-51D/F-80A. I just point my noise and shoot, and more often than not I hammer the bandit, but of course, distance and speed is generally much faster in a Jet vs Jet Dogfight. I've never been in a dogfight, so I don't know exactly how much they affect things.

Quote:

Even in Korea, it's only estimated now that the F-86 only had a 3-to-1 Kill ratio against the MiGs, which if you remove the Chinese and NK pilots, they're probably quite even

The whole Point I've been trying to make is that we've never seen a well piloted, well maintained, Eastern-equipped Airforce go up against the USAF in numbers. There were the MiG-15s, but as far as I can see they did pretty well against the Sabres

You forget one point: even if you believe the 10:1 ratio stated by the US or the 3: 1 stated by the Russians, there is a small detail. There were about 150-200 F-86 facing around 800-900 Migs...

Quote:

(La-7/9 was a MEAN, MEAN, MEAN Fighter, and at Low Altitude if I had to choose between that and a P-51, trust me, I'd want the La...)

If you want a "MEAN, MEAN, MEAN" Russian fighter with good low altitude behavior, then you shud check the performances of Yak 3.

Quote:

If Russia had any money, we can only wonder what accomplishments they might've made aviation-wise.

Wow! I wonder... LOL

The Yak 3 is nasty and mean as well, especially Yak 3 P with 3 ShVAK 20mm Cannons. The La-5/7/9/11, IMO, are better. The normal Yak had firepower comparable to a Bf109G-6, 2 UBS 12.7mm, 1 ShVAK. What made the La's so nice was that they had lots of Cannons all in the nose. No Convergance, just shoot and watch target get pulverized.

As far as the MiG-15s go, only a 1/3rd of them were piloted by Russian pilots, and only in the Beginning. The "Honchos" were all WWII aces that had survived years against Germans with a HUGE amount of experience. After that, they sent all the Rookies to Korea. The MiG-15 had slightly higher performance with a much shorter range. That's what made the F-86 so great, was that it could go all the way into china. Wasn't a rare occurance for F-86s to buzz antung to try and get migs to come up.

It seems here are some IL2:ForgottenBattles players around....

@Cru: Check your numbers pls!

@Cru: Check your numbers pls!

And what would be the real numbers?

Dammerung, the very good performances of the Russian fighters at low altitude was the result of the type of engageimnts on the Eastern front: tactical, small-range, low altitude. The Russians optimized the performances of their planes to these conditions.

On the other hand, in Western Europe, the fighters should go higher to attack (defend) bombers. A P 51 or a FW 190 D had to fight at altitudes that a Yak or a LaG would never had a chance to reach.

This was the first 29 I got to touch, another piece of "Mig" work... And this tub is Mach 2 capable with this "trash" hanging out in the slipstream...

The antenna on the tail is, “opaque yet vivid”.

YGBSMBM!

The Eastern front was almost entirely tactical. No real strategic bombing. Pe-8 was ok, Heinkels, Dorniers, and Junkers medium bombers just couldn't cut it. As for the low altitudes battles were faught at, that's why the P-39s performed so well. Russian props just didn't go very high, with the exception of the MiGs. I don't know much about the MiG-1(I-1 Cool

or MiG-9, but the MiG-3 was great above 15000 feet. Unfortunatly, there wasn't much action up there.

In western Europe, the main focus was on allied bombers, which, according to one German pilot, was a form of controlled suicide to attack. Fw190's performance dropped off High, so came the Fw190D, and eventually Kurt Tank's Ta-152... which saw almost no service. The P-47/P-51 were also strictly high altitude fighters. The 109s were a little more of a jack of all trades, but they were just too old. There are other German fighters I just don't know much about... WWII isn't really my forte when it comes to Air Combat History, I like Korea/Vietnam a bit better.

Really nice Pics JR...

parrothead wrote:

The US was first, however, to the moon. As far as I know, we're still the only ones to have gone there. Let's also look at aircraft. Name me an interceptor that could catch the SR-71. Sure, the MiG-25 can go mach 3, but for how long and will the engines be useful afterwords? The Blackbird CRUISED above mach 3. It went even faster in some cases where it was warranted and airframe and engine life after the flight were of less concern than more immediate issues.

This is a pretty interesting paragraph. I often wonder if it was the cart that led the horse or the horse that led the cart in terms of force projection strategies the USSR adopted during the Cold War.

The USSR was largely a defensive force even in it's heyday incapable of protecting as much power as rapidly as even one CVN battle group. The MIG-25 which you mentioned was, as I am sure we all know, in response to the development of the XB-70.

The MIG-21, MIG-29 relatively short range, cheap fighters able to get to the fight quickly after being directed by GCI, try to knock a few fighters down and RTB.

Russians live with an institutional paranoia of being invaded that goes as far back as Napolean. They lost almost 20 million citizens during WW2.

I'm not saying that I don't remember a time when it seemed highly plausible that a soviet shock army with T-72's would pour through the Fulda Gap and I'm also not trying to be a Soviet apologist.

What am I saying is that in broad strokes were the Russians incapable of closing the technological gap or were the pouring their energies into other areas that more closely fit with their political and military model?

The projection of conventional military force globaly to enforce a de facto pax americana never seemed to be the mirrored by the soviets military model.

They didn't need to design and create extremely sophisticated aircraft (SR-71, B-2, F-16, F-15) they just needed to create a lot of aircraft with multiple designs to fit a specific niche. Mig-25/31 point defense high altitude interceptors. Mig-29 short range, high thrust to weight ratio, manuverable intended to operate with 150km of the front lines etc. etc.

When the cold war ended and the the Russians found themselves competing with airframes such as the F-16, F/A-18, F-15E then they start hanging bombs on airframes like the Mig-29 which is a dubious bomb truck even in it's latest variants. In this case, economy not a military model is determining aircraft specifications based on perceived market need.

Sorry for the longish post and i am quite possibly incorrect in some of my assumptions. But I just thought I'd throw out there that next gen tech, bigger, better, faster, newer, may be the answer for NATA/US but it wasn't neccesarily the answer for the cold-war USSR and the belief that the sov's built a lot of junk and were incapable of producing anything better might not always be the right assumption.

Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

MiG-29 vs F-16