Best Fighter of the Cold War, 1949-1989

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Aussiegunneragain 11/2/2009 5:38:48 PM

We didn't know how bad the MiG 23/27 was until well after it was in service. This influenced a lot of the western development to counter the percieved threats. And subsequently western design/manufacturing raised the bar well above Soviet development.

The Mig-23 wasn't bad by any stretch of the imagination, the Israeli F-4's that the Arabs killed using it during the skirmishs in the 70's are testament to that. It was just outclassed at the time of introduction by the F-14 and F-15 which were revolutionary. So was the Mirage F-1 for that matter but that doesn't make it a bad aircraft.

Quote Reply

albywan 11/2/2009 6:07:17 PM

I stand corrected. Not a bad aircraft, with kills against F-teens, and Mirage's... It's crash record could be put down to poor maintenance/age.

Quote Reply

VelocityVector F-4 11/2/2009 6:53:14 PM

I tend to concur with Sentinel's analysis.

Now as for a lightweight, inexpensive ground attack machine I admit to being smitten by the A-4 Skyhawk. A-4 was nimble, fast, tough, carrier-capable, long-serving, aggressor training squadron-ready and its angle rate bombing system could accurately land iron bombs on target. It even killed two Migs with unguided rockets. I love that jet; the British came to hate it in the Falklands.

Eeek. Hooked by another best thread.

v^2

Quote Reply

Beryoza 11/3/2009 12:25:18 AM

The idea that the MiG-23 was a total failure and wholly uncompetitive is nothing but SP garbage. The Flogger introduced to the VVS/PVO a genuine BVR capability, as well as being the first Soviet aircraft to have its WVR AAMs slaved by radar, dramatically reducing lock-on times.

It provided a useful increase in both speed and rate of climb on the MiG-21, and used in its intended role as a battlefield interceptor with proper GCI and EW support, it would have been a potent threat. While outclassed by the F-14 and F-15, it was certainly a match for the F-4 or Mirage, and it would even pose a considerable threat to the pre-AMRAAM F-16A, which (with the exception of the CONUS-based F-16ADV) lacked a BVR capability.

I'll certainly agree that the F-4 was a far more useful all-round aircraft, but the Flogger was certainly competitive as a third generation interceptor.

Quote Reply

sentinel28a 11/3/2009 2:54:25 PM

I have to go with that as well. I read an article in AFM (Air Forces Monthly) about the MiG-23 the Israelis got when a Syrian pilot defected. They were stunned how good it was. A Kfir was dead meat against it. A F-4 had better get off the first shot. In the vertical, it could take on a F-16 with a fair chance of winning. Only the F-15 regularly handed the MiG-23 its ass. The MiG-23 had problems, but it was far from a pushover. The reason why Flogger had been Eagle and Falcon Chow over the Bekaa Valley was poor Syrian pilots and poor Soviet-style tactics. This was why heads rolled in the Soviet Air Force hierarchy when it was learned just what the Israelis had done--and why it terrified Frontal Aviation, because what the Israelis could do, NATO could do three times worse.

I was reading an article on Soviet war plans for Europe between 1985-1989. A staff study done in Moscow determined that the only way the Warsaw Pact could win a war in Central Europe was to unleash a massive tactical nuclear strike on NATO, drive for the English Channel with everyone in MOPP suits, and pray that the US didn't take the "mess with NATO, mess with us" clause in the NATO charter seriously. Without the use of tacnukes, the study predicted that the Soviet offensive would bog down short of the Rhein, American tanks would be driving on Berlin, and Frontal Aviation might not even get off the ground before they were deluged by Tomahawks and PGMs. This was after the Pact command structure was decapitated by Pershing IIs with conventional warheads, and assuming the East Germans or the Poles didn't take the opportunity to attack Soviet forces instead.

Sure did make rereading Red Storm Rising over the weekend kind of anticlimactic.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 11/3/2009 3:33:11 PM

and assuming the East Germans or the Poles didn't take the opportunity to attack Soviet forces instead.

not so much the east germans. I've been reading a bio on Ryszard Kuklinski, one of the highest placed defectors in the warpac. one of the comments he makes is that the russians had placed blue flags on both poland and czechoslovakia - they were regarded as the 2 countries within warpac that were likely to turn and go with the west. a significant cohort of polish snr staff were disgusted at the way the czechs were treated and reasoned that the russians would do the same to any of them - the ostes (east germans) were generally regarded as closely sympathetic idealoguues to the sovs - and there was a higher likelihood that other warpac countries might punch the east germans on the nose before thinking about the sovs. the romanians were also regarded as suspect by the sovs, but apparently their internal resistance was regarded as manageable.

kuklinski was one of those who thought about his country before he thought about ideology.

Quote Reply

jackjack 11/3/2009 8:23:42 PM

The Indians were at that point where heavy usage, the through life issue of kapton degradation (when everyone in the west had banned it in military aircraft after the early-mid 80's), coupled with an unforgiving aircraft when landing, coupled with a poor pilot training prog at the time - all added up to it being a widow maker.

isnt there an issue of kapton being used on our tiger, have you heard they going to be rewired ? i havent read that

as an aside, i read where a local au supplier has a loom contract for the international nh 90 market

Quote Reply

Lynstyne 11/3/2009 11:35:31 PM

The Kapton used now by EADS is not the same as the 70s Kapton. It has a different composition and (its claimed) isnt susceptable to the arc Tracking and explosive tendenies of its predacessor.

It is this varient that i would imagine is on the tiger. The older type is effectivly banned - certainly for comercial aircraft.

Myself i dont trust it, but if im honest thats because the word Kaptons in there some where, having worked with the old stuff it tends to colour your opinion somewhat.

Having handled the new stuff I can also add that unlike its predacessor gently pulling the wire wont result in the sheath sliding off the conductor.

Regards

Quote Reply

Hamilcar For once we agree. 11/3/2009 11:51:23 PM

The question what is the best fighter in the title of this thread is too hard to answer. The Cold War spanned 50 years and there was a rapid pace of development throughout, so one type or another dominated for periods of time but it is impossible to determine which is the "best" as it means comparing types inter-temporally. It would be more useful to break the period down into 10 year or generational chunks and nominating a fighter from each. Somebody else can do that if they want.

The different question raised in the body of the first post, which is the most influential fighter is easier to boil down to two types, the Mig 17 and Mig 21 as operated in Vietnam (the Mig 19 could also be considered to have played a more minor role). Their success against a better armed and trained foe proved to the world that the path that was being taken at that time of fighters that emphasized pure performance and all missile armament was wrong. This led to the revolutionary teen series designs, particularly the F-16, which emphasized features necessary to win the WVR fight such as excellent maneuverability, gun armament and frame-less cockpit hoods. The success of the Russian designs also led to the energy maneuvering revolution in fighter pilot training.

This legacy was dominant for almost two decades after the end of American involvement in Vietnam, when during GW1 modern command and control methods, and more reliable missiles were proven adequate enough for fighters to be able to rely on their BVR weaponary to a greater extent. The Mig 17 and 21's legacy does however still have an important influence on modern fighter design, training and operations.

But now that the missiles caught up with the shoot them in the face idea at the time, energy in the launch platform is best devoted to sensors, countermeasures, and the vertical fight.

Quote Reply

Hamilcar Flogger meat. 11/3/2009 11:56:55 PM

Sure did make rereading Red Storm Rising over the weekend kind of anticlimactic.

The Flogger was the Russian F-4. It was good enough.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT