Post 'em, F100Ds and such are welcome here too
>>42012366"We Wuz 1000-to-1 Kill Ratio"
Polikarpov I-16, cuteness overload.
MIG Ye-152 in it's "E-166" configuration for record breaking purposes. This was what the MIG-25 was going to be before it was decided to go for a 2 engine large plane instead. Mach 2.8 capable.
Nguyen Van Coc's MIG-21PF...the most feared predator in Vietnam skies
E-8...supposed to be the MIG-23.
>>42012535>that cockpitI would not want to have to fly that thing
Tu-95MS. Contrary to popular believe it is much newer than B-52 because the MS version is a Tu-142 (first flight 1981) with bomber avionics.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-2dfEc70gU
Myasishchev M-55. Initially designed to combat high altitude spy balloons, later converted to ELINT and later to atmospheric research. 15 FAI World records all still stand today.
>>42012627It's an interceptor, not a fighter. You don't need good visibility to launch missiles.
>>42012733T-142 is a T-95 variant.
Yak-18. Warsaw Pact primary trainer during the first half of the Cold War.
>>42012857Yak-52. Warsaw Pact primary trainer during the second half of the Cold War.
>>42012839And Tu-92MS is a Tu-142 variant. Tu-95MS was produced in 1981-1992.
>>42012786Nah, only 5 stand, but mostly because it is in the turbojet class and that's a technological dead end.
>>42012865Yak-152. New primary trainer but now in doubt because it uses a German diesel engine.
>>42012876I don't think people are talking about production when they talk about what design is older.
>>42012849Underappreciated old workhorse.
>>42012839The Tu-142 airframe is considerably different so maybe it is correct to call it a Tu-95 variant or maybe not...i don't know.>>42012854That was the predecessor to the M-55. Single engine turbojet engine. >>42012878Correct for M-17 not M-55. M-55 uses 2 turbofan engines.
>>42012892>Designed by Russian engineer Vladimir RaikhlinThere's literally nothing that stops him from just producing it in Russia in case the west tries to mess with his business.
Czech L-29 Delfin. First Warsaw Pact jet trainer. Won competition against Yak-30.
>>42012911>The Tu-142 airframe is considerably differentHow so? Larger wings and elevators, and different landing equipment? If so, then the super hornet is a completely different plane than the hornet.
>>42012937What's so controversial about the fact that YF-17, F-18 and F-18E are different aircraft?
>>42012935It's successor L-39 Albatros. First jet trainer with turbofan engine.
>>42012958The F-18E is a variant of the F-18, factually. Anything else is controversial.
Ceaușescu's attempt of building a romanian fighter that was killed by the lack of funding for such a large project.
Very unfortunate that these are just decaying.Very early MiG-23.
>>42012923Aircraft was designed from ground up to be equipped with German "Red A03" engine and Russian alternatives require significant changes.https://red-aircraft.com/products
>>42012937The "guts" of the airframe is significantly improved. And the Super Hornet is significantly more modern than the "old" Hornet.
>>42012892>diesel aircraft enginesWait, is that a thing?
>>42012974And Tu-95MS is a variant of Tu-142.
>>42013004Yes, just as a F-15E is updated and improved over the C. It's still an F-15.>>42013034Tu-142 is a variant of a Tu-95, therefore Tu-95MS is a variant of the Tu-95.
>>42012937Not same anon, but Tu-142 have completely different fuselage than Tu-95MS, to the point where there's less than 15% of hull structure panels that are interchangeable between these two. Also wings of Tu-142 were fully re-designed and optimized for long low-level flights (fun fact: most of the new design were based on old Miashishtev M-4 Bison, which was Tu-95 competitor) to the point that NK-12 engines must been modified to fit a new mounts.
>>42012979IAR-93 Vultur. Romanian fighter-bomber intended to replace the Mif-15 and 17 in the figher-bomber role. This was built in Yugoslavia under the name of J-22 Orao
>>42013077>Not same anon, but Tu-142 have completely different fuselage than Tu-95MS, to the point where there's less than 15% of hull structure panels that are interchangeable between these two.There is less commonality between the super hornet to the hornet. Comparatively speaking, far more has changed for the hornet to super hornet.Its still an F-18 though.
>>42013055Huh, okay. I've never thought about that even being possible, I always associate diesels with low-RPM high-torque applications.
>>42013070Tu-95MS is a variant of Tu-142, and Tu-142 is a variant of Tu-95. Tu-95MS has different dimensions, wing area, aspect ratio, weight, engine power output, speed, range, payload, wing loading, takeoff distance, armament, avionics.>It's still an F-15.It's a variant of F-15 with its own development cycle, first flight date and characteristics.
>>42013133Saying that Tu-95MS is still Tu-95 is like saying F-18E is still YF-17.
Is this Soviet?
>>42013195YEP, upgrades will change characteristics.Its still a Tu-95. Much like a F-15E is still an F-15. A F-18E is still an F-18, and a Su-35 is still an Su-27.
>>42013218Yes, Il-38 is a Soviet aircraft.
>>42013213Incorrect. You would be right if i was calling the Tu-95MS the same as Tu-95/I.I am not.
>>42013229You are confusing aircraft families for its "founders". All Su-27 are Flankers, but not all Flankers are Su-27.
>>42013249Wrong, since Tu-95MS is a variant of a variant.
>>42013261I am not. Flanker is a NATO reporting name anyways.
>>42013274Twisted logic, in that case the F-18D is a different aircraft than the F-18B because it is a variant of a variant.
>>42013229>A F-18E is still an F-18They only superficially look similar, they're completely different aircraft
>>42013314They are not, design wise the super hornet is a variant of the hornet. Commonality is pretty irrelevant.
Tu-126 Moss. First Soviet AWACS. Introduced 1965
MIG-23MLD (NATO: Flogger-K) the most capable of the MIG-23 versions.
>>42013277And so is Bear. Yet Tu-142 "Bear" gets its own first flight and production dates, while Tu-95MS "Bear" is apparently non-ironically considered the same 1950s design.>>42013294F-18D is a variant of F-18B.
>>42013401The most capable mig-23 is still a mig-23 lolol
>>420133861980's newsreel of an F-15 intercepting an TU-95https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMb9OmXDj4g
>>42013412The Tu-95MS is unironically a variant of the Tu-95.Just like the B-52H is unironically a variant of the B-52.
>>42013414It was not the outdated export versions that US and Israel had to face let's put it that way. It even had what was the best short range air-air missile at the time, the R-73.
>>42013414MiG-23 is an exceptionally good aircraft.
>>42013447The plane on the bottom is pure sex. What is it?
>>42013434Wrong, Tu-95MS is a variant of the Tu-142.
>>42013490This is going in my cringe folder.>>42013458Even the R-73, as good as it was, could not save the Mig-23 from being the Mig-23. There is a good reason why it sits rusting in the VVS reserve.
>>42013509Are you armatard? You are a broken record. This is like me saying the F-16V is not an F-16 because its a variant of the F-16E.
>>42013510Why are you squealing? Is it because MiG-23 had BVR capability way before F-16 or because MiG-23 wrecked the living shit out of F-14 in Iran-Iraq war?
MIG-25 taking off. Most likely the RBS radar-reconnaissance version.
>>42013543>because MiG-23 wrecked the living shit out of F-14 in Iran-Iraq war?Just because a plane shot down another plane does not mean diddly for its use. A Sopwith camel could shot down a F-22, does not make it the greatest fighter ever.
>>42013543Holy shit it is armatard!
>>42013570Yeah, but Iraqi MiG-23 shooting down a couple dozens Iranian F-14 does mean that it wrecked the living shit out of latter.
>>42013631There is not. Mig-23 knocked out about 2 F-14's to about 58 Mig-23's lost to F-14's.
>>42013631Source is the amount of F-14 that Iran lost during the war.
>>42013656Lost during the war =/ shot down by Mig-23. Get a grip.
>>42013644>58 Mig-23's lost to F-14'sAccording to the most chilling stories of Iranian pilots who totally downed 3 MiG-23's with once missile, but just couldn't remember the date when it happened. Sure thing, buddy, please tell me more.
>>42013664So prey tell me where did all these F-14 disappear then?
>>42013490It would've been had the avionics not been so anachronistic.
>>42013683Literally anything other than a Mig-23. AAA, Sams, manpads, other fighters, friendly fire, accidents, etc.
Antonov An-22. Strategic airlifter, introduced 1967. Uses NK-12 turboprop engines like Tu-95
>>42013674Yet here you are claiming the iranians lost more aircraft to the Mig-23 than they did throughout the entire war.
>>42013690How anachronistic were the avionics of F-16 that didn't have BVR capability until way after MiG-23?
>>42013683Lack of spare parts
>>42013696Too bad none of that happened, but your futile attempts to damage control out of how badly American hardware dot wrecked in Iran are sure showing.
Antonov An-225. First flight 1988
>>42013712So where did their f-14 disappear then?>>42013735That will happen to you if you begin to try to repair something shot down by MiG-23.
>>42013740So, literally every other thing that could have happened to the Iranian F-14's didn't happen, and the ONLY losses were to Mig-23's.Classic armatard. Classic.
"P-42"...stripped-to-the-bones version of the Su-27 for record breaking purposes.
>>42013722Design intent. Mig-23 was anachronistic to other BVR fighters.
>>42013722The difference is that the F-16's got a fresh set whereas they just started replacing the MiG-23's.
>>42013543>MiG-23 wrecked the living shit out of F-14 in Iran-Iraq war?Please, one single credible source this time slavtard.
I am the guy who made this >>42013458 post and im going to have to tell that the F-14 performed very good in the Iran-Iraq war to the point that it was a semi-embarrassment to the Islamic regime since the F-14 program was used as an example of the Shah's megalomania and submission to the USA.Few F-14s were shoot down, after intense and successful action in the first part of the war they were sent "to the back" so to speak because of lack of parts, missiles and other such things. Their powerful radar was also an useful asset that played a big part in this decision.
>>42013722Don't see many MiG-23s around these days, while there are plenty of F-16s.Almost like one of them was a developmental dead end, while the other became the standard all other "light" multirole aircraft are compared to even today.>>42013753>That will happen to you if you begin to try to repair something shot down by MiG-23.You do not repair shot down aircraft, damaged possible, shot down no.Put down the krokodil for a while and the world will start to make more sense again armatard.
>>42013759No, so MiG-23 shot enough F-14 to consider the latter wrecked.
>>42013914Jalil Zandi is the highest scoring ace of the Iran-Iraq war and the highest scoring ace F-14 pilot ever. Iranian government gave 8 confirmed kills but declassified US intelligence documents say it is likely 11 kills.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jalil_Zandi
>>42013937>When armatard gets so mad he becomes incoherent.
>>42013458>It even had what was the best short range air-air missile at the time, the R-73.Very few MiG-23s were ever fitted with the firecontrol updates for the R-73, let alone carried them in service.They also lacked the helmet sight which is a large part of the reason the R-73 was so ahead of its time.Just like most other things Russian/Soviet it was vaporware for the first 5 years of its "operational service" and after that the 23 was already well on the way out, because even Russians realize you can only polish a turd so much.
B R I G H TLUE
>>42013937So, have you learned to tell the difference between MLA and MLD and the difference between R-23 and R-24 yet?
>>42013414What made it such junk?
>>42014268imagine the maint cost of the F-14 with none of the avionic and maneuverability advantages.Went fast in a straight line though.
>>42012596I was a little dissapointed on Ken Burns's doc on how there's no mention of the NVA Air Force.
I'll always be impressed by this jet.SR-71 was made with all the top materials of the time, using the most sensible tech and it managed to supersonic speeds with no sweat.Meanwhile in Igor's plant they just took some sheets from melted tractors and put two fuckyouimbigboy engines and said "Da, thiz vill vork" and it did.... kinda.
>>42014268Interceptor pushed to perform frontline aviation duties because the Soviet Union already had way too many different types in service to fund a dedicated fighter as well. (Got to keep all those designers and factories running)It was designed to match and exceed the F-4 in combat (Which it did, if only barely with the early versions) but by the time more advanced versions went into full service in enough numbers to matter western aircraft were already into 4th gen, and most were relegated to ground attack duties for the later part of their service life.It was almost impossible to intercept in the low level deep strike mission though, and could be equipped for the "special munitions" delivery. (Tactical nukes, mostly for low altitude tossbombing)
MiG or Sukhoi?
>>4201449050s-80s? Sukhoi, reliable workhorses.Today? Eh, MiG-29 with avionics update or Flanker+++ with a ricer bodykit, hard to pick
>>42012426mig-15 was probably the height of soviet air power, since soviet pilots were able to get 1.1:1 against the famous sabre when it had well trained pilotsits probably one of the closest ties
>>42014490Sukhois are much more reliable, specially the Su-27 family.I see shitholes operating those with next to nothing of money for maintenance and they still kickass.
>>42014419>Meanwhile in Igor's plant they just took some sheets from melted tractors and put two fuckyouimbigboy engines and said "Da, thiz vill vork" and it did.... kinda.[This is what discovery channel audience actually believes]Here, actually watch something informative about these engineering marvels instead of shitposting retarded memes.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pxtQhOFqAUhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L-FBWPmQcw
>>42014268American state propaganda trying to cover up to how butthurt they were about their Top Gun fighter getting slaughtered by it.>>42014284>with none of the avionicYeah, in pre-mid-70s models.>and maneuverability advantagesMLD was competing 4th gen aircraft in maneuverable training flights. No wonder 3rd gen junk like F-14 got slaughtered so hard by Iraqi MS/MF.
>>42014619>MiG-29 with avionics updateThat's MiG-29SMT. Modern Fulcrums are more than that.
>>42012426You realize it were Americans in the peak McCarthyist russophobic hysteria who launched a state propaganda campaign that claimed they had 10:1 k/d ratio against MiG-15, which later turned out to be 1.3:1 or something like that?
>>42017548They make no such distinction in the west and just call them all "bombers" in spite of the fact that Tu-95MS can't carry gravity bombs without some considerable modifications.
Here's some rare pics of MiG-19 being used as Tu-95K payload during tests of Kh-20M suspension, engine, control and navigation systems.
In particular, they solved the problem of starting the engines after a long flight at high altitude with a significant overcooling of the power plant.
The missile used a combined radio command guidance using programmable missile autopilot and radiometric equipment of the carrier. After reaching a given point with a distance of 600 km from the target, the missile was launched with the engine already afterburning. After 46 seconds of flight the missile was to start gaining altitude. After 221 seconds upon reaching 15000 m, the missile was to stabilize its flight altitude and connect to the radio command control. At 50 km away from the target, the control was to switch to autopilot and the missile was to a dive with an angle of 60° and at the altitude of 500-1000 m the thermonuclear warhead was to detonate. The cumulative range of the K-20 missile system (bomber+missile) was 7000 km.
The most capable maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare aircraft of the Cold War, and with the latest MZM upgrade likely nowadays as well.
>>42012366Su-24 titanium armor
>>42017938It's from Su-34, not Su-24.
>>42013507Polish F16 with conformal fuel tanks.
>>42014016>>42013860>>42013759IIRC, Mirage F1's managed to shoot down an F-14.
>>42017972Are you sure ?
>>42018078Yes, I'm sure as I'm yet to find a single source that has ever suggested Su-24 had any sort of titanium armoured cockpit, while such a thing on Su-34 is mentioned pretty much everywhere.For instance, here's an interesting article going into details on how it is being welded (in Russian, use google translate):https://uacrussia.livejournal.com/60069.htmlPic unrelated, but since we're talking about armour here's an armour scheme of Su-25 that also uses titanium.
>>42013164props want that torque tooits just that diesels fall off in performance with altitude
>>42012969Still being used for CAS by Syria, one of them was shot down recently with a MANPAD
>>42017464>MLD was competing 4th gen aircraft in maneuverable training flights. No wonder 3rd gen junk like F-14 got slaughtered so hard by Iraqi MS/MF.
Is there a Soviet plane which doesn't have a negative kill ratio?
>>42012426>ywn be a faggot in a fagot
>>42019261The MiG-25, probably, guess it pays off being able to run away at Mach 3 at 70,000feet.That and it is apparently very hard to tell the difference if it is just scanning or actually guiding missiles at you, sort of like with the Tomcat making Iraqi pilots shit their pants and run away as soon as a F-14 turned its radar in their direction.Is there a missile diving in at me at Mach 4 or is he just letting me know he sees me?Better to not be where the missile (if there is one) expects you to be when it goes terminal guidance just to be safe.
>>42019261Is there an American plane which doesn't have the majority of its kill ratio compiled of victories over 20+ years old jets?>>42019390MiG-23 shot down 26 aircraft in Iran-Iraq war alone. Typical western propaganda, I bet the rest of the chart is the same bullshit.
>>42019514>Is there an American plane which doesn't have the majority of its kill ratio compiled of victories over 20+ years old jets?yes
>>42019500>Soviet plane>Iraqi pilotsSo Iraqi plane then.
>>42019524>Soviet plane>So Iraqi plane then.
>>4201956520+ years old 3rd gen Soviet produced Iraqi interceptor with Iraqi maintenance and Iraqi pilots with Iraqi training. Still shot down "cool" and "shiny" american 4th gen multi-role.
>>42019520None that aren't younger than 40 years though.
>>42019500>the Tomcat making Iraqi pilots shit their pants and run away as soon as a F-14 turned its radar in their direction.Nice fairy tale, did you hear it at Discovery Channel or read in some totally valid memoirs book of some random balding F-14 pilot?
>>42019590More like 50+, F-15/16 still mostly shot down MiG-21.
>>42012673Fucking animal, if one's work needs a long description it's not good.
>>42019616I think most vatniks just seethe at the unfairness of it, Russia's weakness is literally just being poor.
>>42019597Well, my claim is just as substantiated by sources as yours.Stay mad slavtard.
>>42019646The point is not fairness or unfairness, the point is F-15 having favourable k/d ratio against MiG-21 is not a good indicator of F-15's capabilities, and neither does it say anything about Soviet Air Force and their aircraft. USSR operated the largest air force on the planet, and American F-4, F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-18 would have not been met in combat by 45 MiG-21 and 19 MiG-29 without IFF systems.
>>42019712So you just literally made it up. Ok.
>>42019390I was waiting for that image and armatard to ruin this thread forever
>>42019728No, i just haven't provided any sources for my claim.And neither has anyone claiming MiG-23 blasted F-14s out of the sky.>>42019737Just can't win against the slavtardation.If you argue against a brick wall at least the wall will erode over time, slavic retardation not so much.
I think the Su-27 and derivates have a positive kill rate. Though they were only shooting down other old Soviet shit. >>42019590>Russian officials admitted that most MiG-29 fighters in the Russian Air Force were incapable of performing combat duties due to poor maintenance. The age of the aircraft was also an important factor as about 70% of the MiGs were considered to be too old to take to the skies.Makes me wonder why.
>>42019784I already pointed out why, don't be obtuse >>42019646
>>42019784>I think the Su-27 and derivates have a positive kill rate. Though they were only shooting down other old Soviet shit.True, the Su-15 might be up there too, if you count civilian airliners and cargo planes as valid kills.Then again one Su-15 was lost ramming said cargo plane and another maneuverkilled by a Swedish recon plane over the Baltic.
>>42020887Isn't that a Bielorussian Su-25k?
>>42020907It's a Bulgarian roundel. Belarusian ones have their flag.
>>42019514Im sure they shot down plenty of things, Arma.. i mean anon
>>42021222Who the fuck is this Armatard you clown? If you're not going to add anything worth my time, then sit the fuck down ami.
>>42021654Armatard is the patron saint of slav posting, anon. Like a singularity formed from AIDS and delusions of grandure, he is able to derail even the most mundane of threads into nothing but homosex, butthurt and whataboutism through shotposting alone. The man never rests and keeps getting banned, but the combined strength of Krokodil, AIDS and a lacking father figure keeps him coming back. Because he's the shitposter that /k/ deserves, but not the one it needs right now. Npt even /pol does. So we'll expose him. Because he cant take it. Because he's no one's hero, not even his Babushka's. He's a loud retard. An intense shitposter. An Armatard
>>42012626>E-8It's a Ye-8, designed as a replacement for the Mig-21, bits of it eventually were incorporated into the Mig-23.Unfortunatly, during test flights, the new engine built for the project on one of the prototypes exploded while in mid-air while it was going mach 2.1. When one of the newly liberated fanblades decided to join him in the cockpit the test pilot was injured, so when he'd gotten the plane under mach 1.8 he ejected.
>>42014018The MiG-25 and 31 were never really my favorites but I like that paint scheme.
>>42012366BAF, Afghanistan. '03
>>42019720>point is not about fairness>wah its not fair to...Cope
>>42012974>The F-18E is a variant of the F-18, factually.A convenient lie made up by the Navy to get the plane approved by congress, nothing more.
>>42012596>counts 2 spy drones as kills for himselfreally nigga
>>42026339a lot of ww2 aces get their kill counts by slaughtering more or less defenseless planes
>>42026419Not exactly the ace's fault that barely any of them fought back. IL-2s were especially bad in that they'd fly straight and level even under fire, in the early war at least.