How come the Russians never made an air frame as versatile as the F-4 until the MiG-29?
>>27770989
Because the US has always been ahead in aviation, generally speaking. I blame Stalin for having all the smart Russians killed.
>>27770999
This, he would kill aerospace engineers or throw them in gulags.
Because quantity has quality on hi own. Also most Soviet fighters are an extension of land control.
>>27770999
That seems like a bit of a cop-out though to be honest.
It just seems odd that Soviet fighter bombers of the era had substantially lower payloads in particular.
Because different doctrine I guess. Plus the MiG-23 was plenty versatile, once the teething problems were fixed.
>>27770999
The Soviet Union had an edge as far as air power went up to the 70s, maybe 80s, USA didn't have off boresight capabilities until the 2000s, didn't have the BVR capabilities of the MiG-31 with its advanced radar, nor did they have engines that could match the Russian MiG-31 engines. (Of course except for the super ultra secret squirrel shit like the SR-71, I'm talking about regular jet fighters. The USA matched the MiG-31's engine with the F-22, 10+ years after the end of the soviet union.)
What they did have, was better AWACS, better airframes in general, better cockpits and better BVR missiles - the Russian AA-10 Alamo wasn't good enough.
>>27771112
Is this a joke?
The F-15 came out before the MiG-31 and is superior to it in terms of radar and maneuverability. Meanwhile practically every NATO fighter had superior radar and performance characteristics to their Pact counterparts.
>>27771112
I disagree.
We had the Tomcat, and the Phoenix missile, which came well before the MiG-31. Engines yeah: curse you bomber generals, but the problems were fixed quickly through the introduction of the F100-220 and the GE-F110
Off boresight is a tad meh, it was never used against us so we can only assume it wasn't on export MiGs.
>>27771129
The MiG-31 is a lot faster, and it has data-linking. Other than that, the F-15 is better overall.
>>27771150
>The F-15 doesn't have data linking
>>27771129
>and is superior to it in terms of radar
Not. The MiG-31 had (has) a superior radar system to all F-15s except the AESA upgraded F-15C's.
>and maneuverability.
No shit, comparing an interceptor to an air superiority fighter.
>>27771140
The Phoenix missile is about as good as the Russian R-33. Which is to say, not much.
>>27771150
The MiG-31 got data link with the BM version in 1999, far too late to matter.
>>27771189
Well it didn't until a vast upgrade effort in the 80s, afaik, but still by the 80s the soviet union was dead in the water.
>>27771140
Also about off-boresight... it's not "meh". It's a huge advantage especially in a world where ROE blocks you from pulling BVR shots, that's why the US scrambled to match the (very simple) soviet off-boresight technology.
It was avaivable on east german MiGs.
>>27770989
The Phantom was originally designed as a fleet defense fighter for the Navy, but since deck space on a carrier is limited and the F-4 is a big plane with huge engines it included the ability to haul around air to ground ordinance. As is often the case with U.S. fighters, large engines, large airframes led to versatility in designs that weren't necessarily built for it at the outset.
>>27771261
>cold war getting hot
>not having free ROE
I don't even
>>27771437
>couldn't have free ROE against nations with easily counterable air forces
>still got more friendly fire through BVR than effectiveness
>wants free ROE against a nation with a comparable air force
It's like you WANT blue on blue to happen every fucking day.
Su 17 was versatile.
>>27771201
only in terms of power.
>>27771112
>didn't have the BVR capabilities of the MiG-31 with its advanced radar
MiG-31 radar capabilities are nothing special. AWG-9 beats it in detection range, AN/APG-71 had absolute overmatch in the range. Only good thing of the Zaslon it can simultaneously engage multiple targets in wide scan area.
>>27771474
>couldn't have free ROE against nations with easily counterable air forces
5% probability of wrong ID by friend-or-foe system.
100 friendly planes in the air
1 enemy plane.
You kill 5 friendly planes and one enemy. Bad.
100 friendly planes in the air
100 enemy planes.
You kill 5 friendly planes and 100 enemies. Good.
>>27770989
Different combat doctrines.
The soviets and Russians always prioritized performance, whereas American doctrine wanted the absolute best sensors and user interface stuff they could manage. In short we waged information war by having accurate stuff, they went for raw measures of performance.
>>27771201
R-33 is inferior to AIM-54A in every aspect.
>>27772008
>The soviets and Russians always prioritized performance
Nah they just can't into big powerful planes with wide area performance until Su-27 and their electronics were bulky unreliable shit.
>>27772022
I still don't understand why the AIM-54 was retired. Is it because the US wanted to start switching to stealth fighters and the Phoenix was considered too fat for internal weapons bays?
>>27772041
It died with F-14. And collapse of Soviet removed need for capable fleet interceptor so Navy was ok with lol F-18.
>>27772067
Is there some reason that you can't launch AIM-54s from a Hornet? The AIM-54 was very effective against fighters in addition to being able to kill bombers. I know people will say "it was only designed to kill bombers" but the Iranians used them to kill MiG-25s.
>>27771977
>numbers out of your ass
baka senpai desu
>>27772097
haha no it wasn't. MiG 25s have the maneuverability of a BUFF.
it's a semi-active missile which means it needs to be guided all the way til the terminal phase of the intercept vs an AMRAAM which is active. this means when the seeker goes active the aircraft can turn around and stay out of the target's f-pole.
>>27772041
>>27772022
They're both useless missiles that would catch only slow fat planes.
>>27772097
>The AIM-54 was very effective against fighters
never proven to be effective against fighters, hell, every time it was used IT FAILED while AIM-120's and AIM-9's found their mark.
There is a reason it's not in use anymore.
>>27772122
>it's a semi-active missile which means it needs to be guided all the way til the terminal phase of the intercept vs an AMRAAM which is active. this means when the seeker goes active the aircraft can turn around and stay out of the target's f-pole.
As opposed to the AIM-120, which is a fire and forget missile. I got it now.
>>27772134
>They're both useless missiles that would catch only slow fat planes.
>MiG-25
>Slow
>>27772122
Ehr, no. The AIM-54 has active guidance like the AIM-120.
>>27772144
It couldn't even catch a MiG-23 reversing its course, so I don't know its chances against a MiG-25.
>>27772136
well it's fire and forget when you use it properly and support the missile. still a lot better than any other radar missile in the US inventory.
>>27772153
terminal phase instead of midcourse guidance.
>>27772163
>terminal phase instead of midcourse guidance.
You have no idea.
They're both active on the terminal phase. They both receive midcourse updates after launch.
All active radar missiles are active only on the last moments because the limited size of the missile head allows only for so much radar use.
>>27772159
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj43DHOSIbo
Skip to 20:00 if you want to get straight to the point, but the AIM-54 is mentioned as being a very effective missile throughout the video. And yes, it did kill a few Foxbats.
>>27772176
>It couldn't even catch a MiG-23 reversing its course,
Pro-tip: all AA missiles have pathetic rear-aspect engagement ranges especially against low altitude targets.
>>27772202
>And yes, it did kill a few Foxbats.
Sources. Because everything on the web says that the Phoenix never worked.
>>27772338
Dude, I literally gave a source by actual pilots in the post. Watch the video. But if you need more, then here goes:
>“The AIM-54 was truly a deadly system,” says Farhad, a former pilot. “During the testing in Iran, we tracked an AIM-54A at Mach 4.4 and 24,000 meters [15 miles] before it scored a direct hit on the target drone. This large and hefty missile had no snap-up or snap-down limits, and could maneuver at up to 17 Gs.”
>Just six days later, the first AIM-54 kill followed: Major Mohammad-Rez Attaie shot down an Iraqi MiG-21 while he was patrolling an area over which Iraqi reconnaissance aircraft had been especially active in previous days.
>“When the missile [phoenix] hit the lead MiG, it disappeared from my radar along with his wingman. The MiG-23 was not the fighter the Iraqis had hoped for. It could not outmaneuver any of our fighters and we have had very little respect for them on a one-to-one basis.
http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/persian-cats-9242012/
>>27772389
nice meme
>>27772640
>Documented historical event
>HURR DURR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!!!!!!!!!
>>27772389
>target drone
>lol Iranian claims
Do I really need to remind you how much value can I put behind "Iranian claims", anon?
>>27772754
If there was any real factual evidence the AIM-54 wouldn't have been killed off after it totally failed to work in US hands.
>>27771291
Yet the Soviets built much larger aircraft that were incapable of carrying even half the load that the F-4 did.
>>27772817
>>27772817
>It didn't happen.
>Why not?
>CAUSE I SAY SO SHUT UP
>>27772838
Do you believe >>27772808 is a top secret stealth fighter?
If you do, I have nothing else to say.
If you don't, then you realize why unbacked Iranian claims are worth less than the shit out of my anus.
>>27772852
It looks like a model or something. It has nothing to do with the Iran-Iraq War, though.
>>27772861
It has to do with how reliable are unbacked Iranian claims.
>>27772914
>First Hand Accounts
>Unbacked
>>27770989
They didn't need to have such all around aircraft, more specialized worked just fine
>>27772833
>Yet the Soviets built much larger aircraft that were incapable of carrying even half the load that the F-4 did.
The Soviets only wanted to defend their airspace. America wanted to bomb other countries. That's the difference.
>>27773003
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Air_Forces#Soviet_Air_Force_inventory_in_1990
>>27772926
My first hand account is that today I took a supersonic shit and downed an F-117 somewhere around Area 51.
It's first hand, and on the internet, so you gotta believe it anon.
>>27772926
Actually they were backed. And not just by iranians, but by best source of all - their enemies.
http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/country-by-country/Iraq.htm
Iraqui pilots were literally scared shitless of Phoenixes.
Also, go read Osprey's " Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat ".
>>27773051
You're right. All those MiG-25s just exploded on their own. The AIM-54 had nothing to do with it.
>>27773034
BTFO
T
F
O
>>27773072
10 may have been shot down. Weapons or aircraft used aren't confirmed. 3 have been shot down for sure.
>>27773058
Thanks. I understand now that I was pretty stupid for claiming that the Phoenix was never used in a war where one side was using Tomcats. That is like claiming that the GAU8 was never used in a war that involved lots of A-10s.
>>27772249
How the hell does this make sense
Why would the maximum range be at an altitude above the launching aircraft?
I know BVR missiles loft, but surely it can coast downwards again and still maintain delta-v for manouvering simply by virtue of trading altitude for speed.
>>27772389
Dude, the Iranians claimed they destroyed the Iraq air force like twice over.
Iraq did the same.
Record keeping is a bitch when people just make numbers up.
India-Pakistan air war losses are even more hysterical.
>>27771112
>>27771261
The West had, and was studying, off-boresight missiles either before, or at least, in a very close timeframe to the Soviets.
Examples of which include the AIM-82 and AIM-95 from the USA. I believe there was a British missile as well, I just can't remember it's name... (SRAAM or something?)
As I understand it, priority got pushed back on them because the West, at the time, didn't feel they were as urgently needed as other systems.
>>27773172
I'm sure there are some inaccuracies, but claiming that the AIM-54 was never used, or that it never got any kills, is just ridiculous. If the AIM-54 hadn't been effective, then Iran wouldn't have tried so hard to get more.
>>27773003
Virtually every NATO deployed aircraft no matter what nation had a much larger combat radius that Soviet designs. Soviets never had a successful naval aircraft either, and range is rather important there too.
>>27770989
Because at the time a lot of people were still in the mindset of one airframe one role. Truly multi-role aircraft weren't really a thing and usually had a primary role and a secondary they could do in a pinch but generally sucked at more than an aircraft dedicated to it.
It's not really a point against or in favor of anything unless you want it to be, it's just a different doctrine.
>>27773058
This is actually the proper way way to check the shootdown claims.
You don't just check kill scores or reports of vctorious pilots - there's high chance that they were - purposefully or not - overstated as hell.
So you check the opposing side raports about loses. Everyone inflates their kills, but loses reporting are generally speaking, mostly accurate.
While there might be some attempts at understating your loses for propaganda purposes, its generally much harder to hide that plane with hull number no. 331 flown by pilot Muhamabukhtar Shakalaklakalawi are gone from the squadron, that to claim "yeah, our glorious airforce we totally scored 5 BVR kills today"
>>27773492
The reason for the overstatement almost always revolves around a pilot seeing an impact either by cannon or missile and moving onto the next target or maneuvering before confirming they see the plane crash, so many that are recorded as being shot down were actually just damaged due to the vagaries of war.
>>27771112
>The Soviet Union had an edge as far as air power went up to the 70s, maybe 80...
lol, no. The last time they "had an edge" against the USAF was with the MiG-15 v F-86, and that is still very debatable.
Off boresight targeting is something that they did better, but the ONLY reason we didnt develop it was because we correctly prioritized BVR over WVR. Hence, the AIM-120 which came from ACE/AIMVAL.
Russian jets were cheaper and quicker to make, I guess thats an advantage. But really, you can only have so many fighter jets operational anyway. Having 7,000 fighter jets is not useful if you can only support 3,000 of them. Otherwise they just sit and rot in fields and shit. Oh, wait, thats exactly what happened.
>>27773950
It's perfectly reasonable to say that wartime records are often inaccurate. It's not reasonable to say that people who were actually there are wrong without providing any relevant evidence. Honestly, the exact numbers don't really matter. As long as you acknowledge that at least one Iraqi fighter was killed by an F-14 Tomcat using an AIM-54 missile, we're on the same page.
>>27773213
I'm pretty sure the AIM-54 was used, and that it did achieve some kills, but I'm not sure it's the wonder weapon the Iranians and later writers often proclaim it was.
>>27774417
>I'm pretty sure the AIM-54 was used, and that it did achieve some kills
That's the important part.
I posted this like 4 days ago but here I go again.
The AIM-54 was designed to be able to hit targets pulling around 7-8 g. Thats more than enough to kill anything out there.
>YEAH WELL FULCRUMS PULL 9 g
Yeah, 9 g instantaneous, but it can only sustain that at very low altitude. It can sustain no more than like 6-7 g at medium to high altitude. Not that it matters, an AIM-54 is not an SA-2, you cant fucking see them anyway, not when they are gliding down at you from 80k ft doing mach 4. The thing is like a foot in diameter and maybe 10ft long, good luck spotting that one hawkeye. You arent going to be able to see it, wait till it gets close, and pull across or around it like dodging an old SAM. You better time your 9 g pull pretty fucking good there Ivan.
The USN's Phoenix shots missed because:
- One was fired outside of range turn and run, and surprise, a foxbat turned and outran it. Hardly the missile's fault.
-One supposedly wasnt pre flighted correctly, and just dropped into the ocean after launch.
-The last one failed because the rocket motor was like 30 years old and crapped out. Dick Cheny and his hornet mafia + no USSR = no monies for tomcats or their missiles. Same reason the tomcats had to choose between the AMRAAM or the LGB sniper pod kits. Keep feeding the tomcat money, and it would have kept being ready to rock. But, ultimately, Darth Cheny was right. With the USSR going down for the count at the start of the 90s, a shit hot expensive heavy fighter was not seen as a necessity, for the foreseeable future. A cheaper, do it all multi role would work fine, and turns out the hornet did.
>>27774485
But it is really unreasonable to think that the phoneix didnt get kills with the Iranians, despite their historic lack of candor. It would be one thing to doubt its performace against front line soviet jets with russian pilots, but with muslim pilots? I mean come on, look what the Israilis have done to them with Vipers and eagles. For fucks sake, most of the "monkey model" russian jets had no, or at least extremely bad, radar warning receivers. Save for maybe the Foxbat. With the AWG-9's TWS mode,the enemy pilots would only be able to tell that a tomcat was there, not whether or not they were being actively engaged. Oh, see an F-14 on your RWR? Have fun guessing whether or not hes already fired at you. Hope you are not inside of ~40 miles or so. These motherfuckers would not even know an AIM-54 was inbound until the bitch goes active 10 miles away, still doing ~ mach 2-4 . Once again, good luck dodging that one Mohammad.
And despite /k/'s opinion, the F-14 and F-15 were basically identical in performance during the ACE/AIMVAL trials.
tl;dr the F-14 would smoke the fuck out of F-4's and MiG-23s and their ilk.
Fuck, its no escape zone HAS to be something like 20nm, and thats for a tail on running fighter.
>>27771112
>The Soviet Union had an edge as far as air power went up to the 70s, maybe 80s
Wrong. The US had the F-14, F-15, F-16, all by the late 70s and F/A-18 ready by 1980; wel before Gen-4 Soviet aircraft. Until the Su-27 and MiG-29 in the mid-80s, Soviet fighters were totally outclassed.
The MiG-25 was super fast, but that's all it could do. The MiG-23 was comparable to the F-4. The MiG-31 is impressive, but it's only looking at numbers; has it ever been deployed in combat?
Also, I question the commonly-believed superiority of MiG-21 over the F-4. Bad training made it look bad in Vietnam, and better training on the Navy's part remedied that. Furthermore, people often overlook Israel's success with the F-4 against MiGs.
Off boresight capability is the only useful thing (emphasis on "useful") the Soviets/Russian Federation had over the US.
>>27773136
>Why would the maximum range be at an altitude above the launching aircraft?
Because air density and air drag are smaller at higher altitudes.
>>27775165
>>27773136
This is why the phoenix had such insane range, because in its long range attack profile, it would launch, pitch up, and then do its best space shuttle impersonation, climbing to around 80k ft, then glide down in the thin air towards the target, at very high mach.
The reason the new D model amraam has so much more range than its predecessors, despite not having much more propellant, is because it is designed to be launched from high altitude by super cruising stealth fighters. The missile takes a higher flight profile, and now with a longer lasting battery, it can now go very, very far. Close to 100nm, or so they say.
>>27770999
>the US has always been ahead in aviation
Except they were getting their asses handed to them by the MiG-15 until they rolled out the Sabres
Blame Britain for giving the russians the RR Nene
>>27775399
That's why I said "Generally Speaking." There are differently times where the Russians were ahead. But when that happened, the US usually got its shit together and came back pretty soon.
Example:
>Soviets: First Man in Space
>America: SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTT
>*several years later*
>America: First Man ON THE MOON!!!!!!!!!
>Soviets:.................how?
because it requires making decent aircraft and not just funneling money to your dachau
>>27772097
The AIM-54 is overkill for a fighter in terms of payload and range.
It was a standoff weapon to keep bombers away from a fleet.
You need a plane with a special radar to guide it, which is why it only worked on the F-14.
However in a couple cases Iranian F-14 got fighter kills.
In at least one case, one AIM-54 took out multiple targets flying close to one another.
In one case, two Mig-23s had already gone back over the border to Iraq. An Iranian pilot shot a single AIM-54 at about 80 miles range. The missile locked onto one Mig but the explosion and shrapnel took out both.
>>27772097
It takes a crazy powerful radar to use the AIM-54 and specialized systems, something the Hornet just doesn't have.
>>27772134
To be fair, the AIM-54 was almost never used and performed acceptability in test. It's likely mostly bad luck that it suffered technical (not performance) problems the few times it was fielded.
>>27772122
>>27772136
The guidance wasn't seen as a huge problem, given the remarkable range they could be fired from to wipe out, let's be frank, the dreaded backfire swarm that everyone thought would be a carrier killer in world war 3. Tomcat's had a weapon operator who's whole job was pretty much to drive the missile home.
We never got to find out how well it worked.
AIM-120 is a very nice weapon, however.
>russians
>quality
pick one
>>27775399
What really made the MiG-15 so successful was that combat in Korea played to its strengths. It was an excellent interceptor thanks to its climb rate and heavy armament, but range was lacking and it was considerably less sophisticated than the F-86 (which notably had a radar gunsight).
Even with all of that, the fact that the Russians were only able to create such a competitive design with the help of foreign engines tells you the state of their aerospace industry. All the aerodynamic work in the world (which TsAGI was actually quite good with) can't make up for poor engine development, and thus for pretty much the entire history of the Soviet Union we see Russian engine development lagging (often leaving them dependent on foreign engines).
>>27775532
>Soviets:.................how?
I expect they knew how.
>>27771099
>It just seems odd that Soviet fighter bombers of the era had substantially lower payloads in particular.
Soviets tend to be bit more realistic when it comes to payload and didn't care about flexibility as much as west did. Soviet maximum payload is usually very close to typical combat load, not a ferry configuration with huge amount of drop tanks.
>>27773179
>The West had, and was studying, off-boresight missiles either before, or at least, in a very close timeframe to the Soviets.
South Africa was first to develop and deploy HMS. In Angola Cubans that were doing some subcontracted diplomacy with MiG-23's encountered Saffie Mirages with HMS, after being shot with off boresight IR-AAM's they made 1+1 and Soviets started crash program to develop tech. Subsequently they put in everything with IR-AAM's.
US studied helmet mounted sights earlier than Soviets, but never deployed 'em in wide scale, just as upgrade to Phantoms. It was seen as something that could compensate for Phantoms lack of agility... so tech never made it to more agile newer fighters. A slight oversight.
>>27774485
>The AIM-54 was designed to be able to hit targets pulling around 7-8 g
If the target was relatively close to the launch aircraft, sure.
>>27771112
>The Soviet Union had an edge as far as air power went up to the 70s, maybe 80s
With tanks? Sure.
Ground armies? Sure.
But Air power? Lolno.
Enjoy your planes with:
>shittier loadouts
>shittier airframes
>shittier avionics
>shittier radar
>shittier missiles (The R-27 has a confirmed hit ratio of 4%)
The Soviets have never had an edge since the Mig-21 days.
>>27774642
This.
>>27774642
Vietnam problems in addition to training stem from two things, rules of engagement and the fact that missiles weren't mature technology. Fast forward few years missiles now worked.
F/A-18 was introduced in 1984.
>>27774485
Modern aim-9x can pull 60 Gs. 17 Gs is not impressive for a missile.
>>27780064
>had an edge since the Mig-21 days.
>thinking Mig-21 had edge
Their edges were MiG-15 and Su-27/Mig-29.
>>27780116
Even Sparrows have performed quite well since their last major upgrade in the 80s. Though as a rule, SARH on aircraft is shit.
>>27779859
>Soviet maximum payload is usually very close to typical combat load, not a ferry configuration with huge amount of drop tanks.
It wasn't uncommon for F-4s to go out with a larger payload than the max payload of soviet airframes
>>27772808
Iran wasn't always a complete joke.
>>27780123
>17 Gs is not impressive for a missile.
It was for that point in time.
>>27781256
>6000 lbs of bombs AND fuel tanks AND sidewinders
>>27771140
> the Phoenix missile
was a POS. There I said it. Look up its record with both the USN and the Iranians. For both users it did piss poor. There a reason why we did not upgrade, because it was better to start work a completely new missile.
>>27782751
The USN barely had any opportunities to actually use the Phoenix. You're making a very big judgement from a very small sample. At least one of those misses happened because the pilot fired beyond the missile's maximum range. That's not the missile's fault. That's user-error.
And as far as the Iranians go, it seemed to work very well for them, because they tried to get more. If the missile performed awful, why would they try to get more?
>>27775532
>America: SHIIITTTTT
Al Shepard was ready to go a month before Gagarin but Von Braun wanted to do the monkey test. Shepard went up three weeks after Gagarin, it's not like NASA came out of nowhere because of Gagarin.
>>27783646
Shitbrained politics really fucked the early space game for America. MISS, Vanguard, Mercury, etc. were all given such low priority, among other things, that I seriously can't understand how it was a shock to our politicians that the Soviets got a satellite and man into space first. (I'm not sure if the X-15 flights were before Gargarin's flight though...)
Fuck politics/Congress sometimes, seriously...
