10 warplanes that changed the world. Continuation

158
10 warplanes that changed the world. Continuation

Continue talking about planes that changed the war in the air and on land. In the first part, we examined the aircraft of the first half of the 20 century, now, of course, the turn for the second.

In the second part we will consider (attention!) Airplanes that had a real impact on the conduct of hostilities. I ask you to take this into account, all of these F-22, F-35, J-20 and Su-57 WILL NOT!



The aircraft of the so-called fifth generation have not yet managed to contribute anything to the tactics and strategy of warfare, except for their existence. Yes, they are, but that's all for now. Something there F-35 in Syria tried to fight in the Israeli Air Force, the rest just exist, nothing more.

Are we talking about real aircraft and real contribution to development?

1. MiG-15 and F-86


F-86 battled MiG-15 over North Korea in the first stories air battles of jet aircraft. It was here that the tactics of using jet aircraft, fighters and interceptors was born.


In general, as if the air war in Korea was so far from the ground war, we can say that it looks like the first battles of the First World War, when the military simply began to realize that there is an airplane and how to use it.

About the same thing happened in these confrontations. The troops on earth solved their tasks, the pilots in the sky. But by the way, the Americans were able to conclude that the Superfortresses that terrorized Tokyo in the 1945 year after five years became easy prey in the 1950 year and were forced to switch to night bombing when the MiG-15 were much less dangerous.

You might also think about what the Me-29 could have done with B-262, the appearance of "Super Fortresses" over Germany.

And our couple in the sky above the Korean training ground worked on the tactics of intercepting high-speed targets and counteracting jet fighters.

In this regard, these aircraft occupy a very worthy place in the history of the military aviation.

2. Tu-95 and B-52


Two more forever compared aircraft. Records for the duration of operation.



The essence of these monsters is the same - to bring death in both the conventional and nuclear formats. It was the mass production of these aircraft that prompted many states to radically revise their air defense systems and defensive capabilities.

Of course, at the beginning of the 50 of the last century, these aircraft looked terrifying weapon punishment or retaliation.

Yes, many will not agree that the Tu-95 is a turboprop and it’s not quite appropriate for him to be here. However, T-95 missiles against B-52 bombs - it's hard to say who will be easier.

Yes, B-52 fought heartily. In any conflict where the United States loomed, B-52 immediately flew in and "brought about democracy." Tu-95 gunpowder sniffed only in the 2015 year in Syria. And thank God, I never saw nuclear charges at all.

But these aircraft played a very significant role in world aviation history.

3. MiG-21


The most common supersonic aircraft in history. In the process of mass production, it was repeatedly modernized and turned into an interceptor or scout. It was used in many armed conflicts by many countries of the world.


The MiG-21 became a serious adversary for the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II during the Vietnam War. The United States was even forced to start a program for testing air battle tactics with the MiG-21, the role of which in the development was played by Northrop F-5.

Mig-21 is “guilty” of returning cannon weapons to aircraft. It was the use of the MIG-21 early series, without guns, with only missiles, that showed the fallacy of this practice. By the way, the opponent of 21, Phantom, had the same problems.

The MiG-21 was in service and was used by the Air Force in more than 65 countries. The results of the application were different, where the pilots could use such a plane, everything was beautiful and impressive (India, for example), where the quality of the pilots left much to be desired (Arab-Israeli wars), there was nothing to brag about, although even in Arab hands the MiG-21 was a weapon .

4. Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird and U-2


The program of "indestructible" aircraft for long-range strategic intelligence. The idea was very interesting, to focus on speed, altitude and maneuver, to make the aircraft unattainable for any of the methods of struggle in principle.



The aircraft were designed to operate at altitudes above 20 km, that is, in fact, in the stratosphere. The altitude at which normal interception is impossible in principle was supposed to protect the aircraft in reconnaissance flights.

In the case of the SR-71, it turned out that the plane went to its well-deserved rest in the 1998 year without delivering the joy of victory to the opponents. With U-2 this did not work, at least 6 “non-crashed” aircraft were shot down by Soviet S-75 air defense systems, and how many died in accidents ...

However, the scouts made their contribution. But this will be discussed below.

5. MiG-25 and MiG-31


Actually, the answer to B-1, U-2 and other tricks. Interceptors, which still hold some records of speed and altitude and capable of shooting down everything that flies into the affected area.



The fact that all over the world no one has created anything like this, speak not so much about a certain narrow specialization, but about the limited capabilities of design schools.

One can argue, but the defensive doctrine of our country should be supported by such aircraft as well.

6. Su-xnumx


Attack aircraft, aircraft direct support troops. He fought, perhaps, in all conceivable conflicts, starting with Afghanistan and ending with Syria. Heir and successor of the IL-2.


Today, there is full talk that the Su-34 and helicopters may well replace the Su-25 during combat operations. However, the plane played its role in history, but how! It was the Su-25 that forced many countries to come to grips with, if not the development and production of small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery, then at least its purchase.

7. Hawker siddeley harrier


Another attack aircraft, but the attack aircraft is special. This is the first attack aircraft with the possibility of vertical / short take-off and landing (V / STOL) and the only truly successful V / STOL fighter developed from the attack aircraft from many that appeared in that era.


Yes, these aircraft have not received such wide distribution, but work on the family does not stop today.

VTOL aircraft are expensive and not for everyone in technology.

8. McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle


What can be said about this plane? It is produced, it is sold and bought, it is in the arsenal of many countries and is successfully used in conflicts.


This is a very successful and solid project, perfectly implemented. Having taken its place in the market.

However, the main merit of F-15 is that its very presence in the United States and its allies organized a new round of the arms race and provoked the appearance of an aircraft, which was supposed to become an "orb killer."

9. Su-xnumx


The result of the good work of Douglas. If the Americans had not made the F-15, then there would have been no need for the Su-27.


As a result, Sukhoi Design Bureau designed and built an aircraft that not only turned out to be a good fighter, but also became the progenitor of today's modern aircraft. The Su-33 carrier-based fighter, the Su-30, Su-27M, Su-35 multipurpose fighters, and the Su-34 front-line bomber are direct and highly successful descendants of the Su-27.

It turned out a little more than ten aircraft. But the way it is, the development of aviation is going on and is not going to stop.

So we got our rating in two parts, and as predicted, it was slightly different from the American one.

And really, why should everything coincide?

Maybe, of course, I'm wrong, but, in my opinion, those planes that really became some milestones in history were included in the list. Because they were successful, they worked in their specialty and really brought something like that.

What about the F-117 and F-22? That's just what they dishonored. Projects gobbled up mountains of money, and at the exit all the same F-15 and F-16, which carry the main load in the US Air Force.

Similarly, Typhoons and Tornadoes, Mirages and Griffins, SAAB and some MiGs and Su were overboard. Yes, these are good planes, but they are just good planes. Nothing so epochal.

It is very difficult to make a normal review, there are almost as many opinions as those who read off-diagonal, but here, in fact, this is the situation.

Nothing supernatural. Yes, there are a lot of Soviet aircraft, but what to do is not the matter of patriotism, but the fact that our school of aircraft designers was really the best. Is it possible to drop at least one of the aircraft from the list?
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

158 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +14
    15 November 2019 06: 27
    Phantom II was a more advanced machine compared to the MiG-21, but for some reason did not get on the list. Why?
    And if they brought in Su-25, then why is there no colleague - A-10A? Again, like an anti-tank attack aircraft, the A-10A is better.
    1. +9
      15 November 2019 06: 38
      Yes, and Falcon has "merits" above the roof, but he apparently did not look at the Author. Well, this is his purely personal affair. Who doesn't like to publish a counter article!
      1. -7
        15 November 2019 06: 59
        Yes, and Falcon has "merits" above the roof, but he apparently did not look at the Author. Well, this is his purely personal affair. Who doesn't like to publish a counter article!

        +
        By the way, the Su-25 screen from the game Lock On FC2.)
        1. 0
          15 November 2019 17: 25
          Or maybe from DCS World
          1. 0
            16 November 2019 03: 34
            Or maybe from DCS World


            Only the angle is different.
      2. +4
        15 November 2019 09: 27
        Who doesn’t like to publish a counter-article!
        “But just saying that you don’t like it is impossible?” Immediately necessary to counter? Yes, you can’t keep up with Roman! Scribbles, like a machine gun.
    2. +15
      15 November 2019 07: 05
      Quote: Jack O'Neill
      And if they brought in Su-25, then why is there no colleague - A-10A? Again, like an anti-tank attack aircraft, the A-10A is better.

      Leave the bias to yourself. Usually weapons are put on the plane, and not vice versa, as with the "warthog" ... Comparison - "grandmother said for two," and the A-10 is not better than the Su-25. Maybe compare with the Su-39, and your opus will be zero ... The United States has no other attack aircraft yet.
      1. -4
        15 November 2019 07: 27
        Leave the bias to yourself. Usually, weapons are placed on the plane, and not vice versa, as with the "warthog" ...

        What is the "bias"?
        The A-10A pilot has more opportunities to combat technology, it is easier for him to see the target and perform a launch, while after starting the A-10A he can switch to another target.
        The A-10A can search for targets using the AGM-65 seeker, and the Su-25 only with the pilot's eyes. The Su-25's guided armament is to be used with constant illumination through the Maple, which is in its nose.
        Those. while the A-10A is free after launch, the Su-25 must guide the missile through the Klen, flying directly at it (the target), since the Klen is rigidly fixed in the nose.
        And the good A-10A can take almost two times more than the Su-25.

        Maybe compare with Su-39, and your opus will become equal to zero ... The USA has no other stormtroopers yet.

        It will hurt now.) Su-39 are a few, while A-10С - Mass modernization of A-10A.

        PS vanilla planes in the article, so neither A-10С nor Su-39 is dumb. Only Su-25 and A-10A.
        Give you a plantain? To not be so painful?)
        1. 5-9
          +8
          15 November 2019 08: 01
          Those. The best thing about the A-10 is that they used to have the UAPP fastened to it, but not really to the Su-25; And I'm even afraid to ask who will highlight the laser tank for the AGM-65 if the A-10 turns away.
          A-10 was born around a huge heavy 7-barrel fool who was not needed, was used in wars in exactly the same way as the F-16 with the same weapons ... and why then is he needed at all?
          1. -6
            15 November 2019 08: 48
            Those. The best thing about the A-10 is that they used the UAPP, and the Su-25 really didn’t, or rather they didn’t release them, missiles, in tens of thousands?

            Not only.
            For example, open source software AN / ALR-46, which is much more informative than open source software-15. This is if the first option to consider. In the future, A-10A already received AN / ALR-69.
            Also on the A-10A is a much more economical engine, which gives it the opportunity to stay in the air longer, and therefore its efficiency increases. I'm talking about the General Electric TF34-GE-100 turbojet engine. Bypass Degree 6.42 and specific fuel consumption: / kgf 0.37 kg / kgf · h
            For example, P-95Sh (dviglo Su-25, has 0,86 kg / kgf · h
            Plus, he can take substantially more bombs with missiles than the Su-25.
            And I'm even afraid to ask who will illuminate the AGM-65 laser tank if the A-10 rejects it.

            If we are talking about vanilla A-10A, then it uses AGM-65A with a television seeker, however, like AGM-65B. But AGM-65D is also used with a thermal imaging seeker. By the way, the AGM-65D GOS can capture targets at 9-12 km distances, and today it is the main A-10C rocket.

            A-10 was born around a huge heavy 7-barrel fool who was not needed, was used in wars in exactly the same way as the F-16 with the same weapons ... and why then is he needed at all?

            You tell the Iraqi.) During the exercises, the cannon pierced both the T-62 and the M-48 into the upper hemisphere.
            Is it not that difficult to imagine what will happen to the BMP / BTR and, or in general, to the trucks?
            1. 5-9
              +6
              15 November 2019 09: 07
              Fuel efficiency and a longer time / range are an undeniable plus of the A-10, which turns out to be noticeably slower. A big load .... mmm ... yes, but it’s somehow more to Murzilo pluses.
              Training in accuracy in firing a cannon at an abandoned / padded T-62 is a favorite and most popular pastime for both A-10 pilots and M1 crews :) In battle, the result of both of these is near-zero against the background of ATGM / Mayveriks or artels.

              The defeat value of the cardboard M-48 (or T-34-85) in 70's is very important for USAF :)))
              1. -10
                15 November 2019 09: 21
                Fuel efficiency and longer time / range is an undeniable plus of the A-10, turning at a noticeably lower speed

                They have the maximum difference somewhere in 120 km / h.
                This is not even recalling the refueling in the air that A-10A can produce. And the exhaust of the General Electric TF34-GE-100 turbojet engine is much colder than the P-95Sh.

                A big load .... mmm ... yes, but it’s somehow more to Murzilo pluses.

                Those. that Bolt can take rockets and bombs almost twice as many as Su-25 - is it a murzilka? oh?

                Exactly training in cannon shooting at the abandoned / padded T-62 is the favorite and most popular pastime of both A-10 pilots and M1 crews :)

                In the desert, Saddam's soldiers were driven, including tanks.

                The defeat value of the cardboard M-48 (or T-34-85) in 70's is very important for USAF :)))

                You will be surprised, but even an affected loaf has weight in the war.
                1. +8
                  15 November 2019 14: 34
                  Something not very A10 drove the Mujahideen along the gorges of Salang, unlike Grach.
                  Yes, and with the presence of tanks in the brigade Tunguska or Shell, and with the saturation of infantry MANPADS - still have to come alive.
                  Vitality on the side of Su25
                  1. -8
                    15 November 2019 15: 01
                    Yes, and with the presence of tanks in the brigade Tunguska or Shell, and with the saturation of infantry MANPADS - still have to come alive.

                    If Bolt fails, then the Su-25 is even more so, since the difference in HC range is significant.
                    And the survivability of the A-10 is no worse than the Su-25.
                    1. +1
                      18 November 2019 18: 06
                      If yes, if only ...
                      One 30mm projectile or worse, an Arrow or Needle burst next to any of the engines and a "Bolt" in the sand.
                      The opposite is not proven, unlike the Rook
                      And the hydrocarbon range in an assault on MV is a very, very relative value.
                      And where does the HC if the main weapon of the A10 gun?
                      Be nice to the sighting and effective range - max 4-km.
                      And at such a distance, a small cart and wagons are welcomed with open arms of those who wish.
                      1. -3
                        19 November 2019 06: 26
                        If yes, if only ...
                        One 30mm projectile or worse, an Arrow or Needle burst next to any of the engines and a "Bolt" in the sand.
                        The opposite is not proven, unlike the Rook

                        Probably .. photoshop ...



                        When I caught MANPADS ...

                        And the hydrocarbon range in an assault on MV is a very, very relative value.

                        Well, of course...

                        And where does the HC if the main weapon of the A10 gun?

                        Yes and no. It depends on the situation.
                        If you drive infantry and light armored vehicles with cars, then yes - the main thing. But if we are talking about tanks, then the main weapon is AGM-65.

                        Be nice to the sighting and effective range - max 4-km.
                        And at such a distance, a small cart and wagons are welcomed with open arms of those who wish.

                        Easily.
          2. -7
            15 November 2019 14: 05
            Quote: 5-9
            And I'm even afraid to ask who will illuminate the AGM-65 laser tank if the A-10 rejects it.

            Urya-patriots are probably not in the know, but all the mavericks, except for missiles with a laser seeker, belong to the "shot-and-forget". The only limitation is that the AGM-65A / B cannot be used in the dark due to the television seeker.

            By 1978, Americans riveted 35 AGM-000A / B.

            When production of the AGM-65A / B was ended in 1978, more than 35,000 missiles had been built.
            https://web.archive.org/web/20131004204811/http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-65.html

            And in the mid-80s, the AGM-65D missiles - with a matrix IR-GOS, began to come into service.

            1. +2
              18 November 2019 18: 10
              The only limitation is that the AGM-65A / B cannot be used in the dark due to the television seeker.

              Well, yes, yes ...
              on dustiness and smoke of the battlefield, on rain, on fog, the GOS TV to shove from a large belfry, only darkness ...
              And the infrared seeker also works fine in the rain on the training ground, where one tank stands in the form of a target in sunny weather
      2. -5
        15 November 2019 07: 27
        The A-10 is a serial aircraft, and the Su-39 is released in single quantities and is not in service and has never been.
      3. -3
        15 November 2019 09: 29
        In the context of "influencing the development and procurement" of anti-aircraft artillery, the Su-25 was no more influential than the A-10 or attack helicopters. So the presence of the Su-25 in the rating of "influential" is far-fetched.
      4. +7
        15 November 2019 10: 04
        A-10 is not better than Su-25.
        - so the rating is not about "better", but about "changed the world"? What are we arguing about?
    3. -3
      15 November 2019 07: 45
      And what, there is nothing about the Tornado, Gripeny and all sorts of Mirages with Jaguars.
    4. +10
      15 November 2019 07: 49
      Indeed, the author placed the MiG-15 and Saber together, and for some reason the MiG-21 allocated, the Phantom in its class is no less cool!
    5. 5-9
      +6
      15 November 2019 07: 56
      Phantom II was in the original American top 10. Is A-10 better as an anti-tank attack aircraft? A monstrous cannon that did not penetrate Soviet tanks? "Coloring book for A-10 pilots" - have you seen? :))) Well, then the Mavericks were screwed to it and began to be used as an F-16 ... and why is it needed then?
      1. -10
        15 November 2019 08: 26
        "which did not penetrate Soviet tanks?"
        It might not always pierce, but the impact on the tank was of such force that it detonated the ammunition load (see the muzzle velocity of the A-10 cannon). Fortunately, they had something to test, the Arabs "gave" so many Soviet armored vehicles to Israel, and they kindly shared it with the States.
        1. 5-9
          +9
          15 November 2019 09: 13
          Some tales of the Bois de Boulogne about detonation from a 30-mm shell, even 5-10 .... even the T-54/55/62 (there couldn’t be any other yavreys) You realize that the A-10 went to the troops at 70 when there were hordes of T-64 and T-72 under the cover of the hordes of Shilok and Arrow?
          It’s about the fact that the concept of a cannon attack aircraft was completely paraffinized even before the A-10 entered the troops, and it’s impossible to throw out this heavy fool. Without her, he would have been much better.
      2. -14
        15 November 2019 08: 52
        Phantom II was in the original American version of the top 10

        Su-27 was also in the top of the American version. What is he doing here then? And the MiG-15 / Saber were.

        A monstrous cannon that did not penetrate Soviet tanks? "Coloring book for A-10 pilots" - have you seen? :))) Well, then the Mavericks were screwed to it and began to be used as an F-16 ... and why is it needed then?

        I wrote to another person above.
        And yes, A-65A originally had AGM-10.)
      3. 0
        15 November 2019 14: 08
        Quote: 5-9
        A monstrous gun that didn’t penetrate Soviet tanks?

        laughing
    6. 0
      15 November 2019 10: 25
      Ahead. And the F4 and A10 are quite so staged cars. In general, it would probably be correct to name the topic: 10 pairs of aircraft.
    7. +4
      15 November 2019 13: 17
      Balalaika and F2 cannot be compared, different aircraft for different tasks. The A10 is a good aircraft, but there is no reason to call it "the best anti-tank attack aircraft", there is simply no basis for comparison.
    8. +3
      15 November 2019 14: 26
      I agree:
      Which is better, what is worse - A10 or Su25 is not at all the essence. real jet attack aircraft, new tactics.
      I would also add the following:
      - to pair F-15 and Su27
      - add a pair of F111 and Su 24
      A breakthrough of missile defense in the envelope mode of the terrain is worth getting into the rating.
    9. -2
      16 November 2019 10: 21
      Quote: Jack O'Neill
      Phantom II was a more advanced machine compared to the MiG-21, but for some reason did not get on the list. Why?
      And if they brought in Su-25, then why is there no colleague - A-10A? Again, like an anti-tank attack aircraft, the A-10A is better.

      Yes I agree completely with your opinion.
    10. -2
      17 November 2019 00: 15
      That is why the breakdown of reactive into generations is important: 1st, 2nd, etc.
      And then make up pairs (or triples): Soviet / Russian, American, European.
      Then there would be a place for both the Mirage and the Phantom.
    11. +2
      23 November 2019 12: 33
      And if they brought in the Su-25, then why isn’t there a colleague - A-10A? ........ yes, because no matter where in Iraq I haven’t been noted anywhere else, but oh well, that’s not the point, but that lies in the concept of the attack aircraft laid down as far back as 30-40 of the last century.
      the attack aircraft must firstly be cheap on a human-hour scale (which simply translates into a financial component), that is, to rivet it in the right quantities if necessary, the second is the requirement for maximum survivability of components and parts, the third is the possibility of basing with non-equipped ground areas with quick maintenance and preparation of the attack aircraft for departure, under these conditions, high-precision weapons are secondary
      total we set up a stencil and ....... a bolt unit costs about 19 greenbacks cartoons, one Scallop costs 3 GB cartoons, and the second, survivability is understood not only as armor protection but also flight characteristics such values ​​as rate of climb, speed and wing load ,, the third ... there’s nothing to do with the bolt on the dirt plots because of the mass, and most importantly, tactical aircraft and helicopters are more effective in controlling attack aircraft for precision attack weapons ... as a result, an expensive bolt has anti-tank sharpening and not attack aircraft. if it’s closer to the Su-25, then this is the A-6 proller
  2. 0
    15 November 2019 06: 30
    What about the F-117 and F-22? That's just what they dishonored. Projects gobbled up mountains of money, and at the exit all the same F-15 and F-16, which carry the main load in the US Air Force.

    Sectarians will worm you winked
  3. +1
    15 November 2019 06: 31
    Somewhat messy, of course, but somewhere and rightly. The only thing is that nothing is said about the F-111 and A-10.
    1. +3
      15 November 2019 08: 43
      by the way, yes, the f-111 is quite an epoch-making aircraft, and, which is characteristic, with us a mirror response. but about a-10 ... it's a fantasy plane ... the designers came off in full, in vain its author missed
      1. 0
        15 November 2019 22: 25
        If you mean the Su-24, then the answer was not very mirrored. hi
        1. +1
          16 November 2019 09: 49
          well close ... in general
  4. +8
    15 November 2019 06: 42
    I think that the author is not quite right with the F-117 and F-22. The first became not just a concept for the whole direction of the aircraft with reduced radar visibility, but also a participant in real combat operations. And the second one opened the 5th generation IFI series. They argue a lot about this, of course, but it’s worth admitting unequivocally that the F-22 is the first aircraft that combines a number of high combat characteristics: high maneuverability, speed, thrust-weight ratio, avionics and low radar visibility.
    Therefore if not biased talk about aircraft that have changed the nature of air combat, then you cannot beg the merits of these two machines
    1. -3
      15 November 2019 08: 06
      Apparently from the great "shame" at the end of the last century and up to the present times, the phrase "STEALTH technology" has firmly entered our life. New aircraft, ships and even tanks are being designed with an eye on it. And the radar takes into account the possibility of detecting "invisible".
  5. 0
    15 November 2019 06: 44
    A10 why not?
  6. -9
    15 November 2019 06: 56
    Yes, there are a lot of Soviet aircraft, but what to do is not the matter of patriotism, but the fact that our school of aircraft designers was really the best. Is it possible to drop at least one of the aircraft from the list?

    )))
    In the first place, it seemed that the author accepted the competent idea of ​​one of the commentators of the first part and began to lay out planes in pairs. But no, it seemed.

    Tu-95. This answer is rather B-36. The phrase about "bombs against missiles" speaks only of the author's illiteracy. Well, they saw in excess of missiles for the B-52.

    Mig-21, opponent of McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II. The latter was a really big step forward, although it is difficult to call it a revolution. Where the author saw the revolution in the MiG-21 is all the more incomprehensible. Yes, faster-higher-stronger MiG15, but what kind of revolution? BVB revolution?

    MiG-25, MiG-31. Partners ran into the ultra-fast and super-tall fighters much earlier, the famous widow Lockheed F-104 Starfighter

    Su-25, flew later than the A-10.

    F-15 / Su-27, brothers, why separate them?

    In essence. Missed AWACS. Not a word about counterguerrilla cars.
    1. +8
      15 November 2019 07: 55
      Quote: tesser
      MiG-25, MiG-31. Partners ran into the ultra-fast and super-tall fighters much earlier, the famous widow Lockheed F-104 Starfighter
      Starfighter at the time of adoption was already merging the Phantom, and completely. It’s just strange to compare the F-104 with the MiG-25, especially with the MiG-31
      1. -6
        15 November 2019 08: 08
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        it is strange to compare the F-104 with the MiG-25, especially with the MiG-31

        In terms of revolutionism - completely. A direct comparison, of course, is unreasonable, 20 years of difference.
    2. 5-9
      +11
      15 November 2019 08: 06
      Themselves confused, MiG-21 is just rather F-104. With F-4 they brought life, to compare them incorrectly, there is a difference in weight 2+ times ... The revolution is that they made such a supersonic aircraft that they could be plastered by a huge number. In simplicity, cheapness with more or less adequate capabilities.
      1. -9
        15 November 2019 08: 13
        Quote: 5-9
        With F-4 they brought life, to compare them incorrectly, there is a difference in weight 2+ times

        This is interesting. Especially if you remember that the Phantom is first, IS, and secondly, Joint Strike Fighter, Air Force and Navy.
        Quote: 5-9
        that they could be plastered by a huge amount

        This is already the "revolutionary character" of the Soviet military-industrial complex.
        1. 5-9
          +6
          15 November 2019 09: 17
          The phantom in general "accidentally" became successful, massive and epoch-making. He was originally a deck ship, considered as a checkpoint, they waited for the F-111 wunderwaffe, but did not take off. And the USEF one hundredth series was ordered one after another, but also unsuccessful. And then the war ...
          The forehead in the forehead of the Mig-21 and the Phantom compares this as Gripen and the Su-35S or Su-57 even ... the closest analogue of the phantom in the USSR is the Mig-23.
          1. -4
            15 November 2019 09: 49
            Don't write nonsense. "Phantom" was conceived even when the question of "Ardvark" was not raised at all.
            1. 5-9
              +3
              15 November 2019 12: 15
              Of course, the Phantom appeared much earlier, but they wanted to change it to Aardvaark .. did I really write about it? No pro became successful and massive
              1. 0
                15 November 2019 22: 08
                The F-111 is the brainchild of Mac Namara, who, for some reason, believed that one type of aircraft could cover all the needs of the Navy and Air Force. He was wrong, even if success came, the F-111B would be a good deck "bomber", but nothing more. But the F-4 "Phantom-2" became, indeed, a real multipurpose fighter for the Navy, Air Force, ILC, and even worked in the US air defense system. Therefore, I also do not understand why the Author bypassed this wonderful plane.
    3. +4
      15 November 2019 09: 34
      So this is a rating for the sake of rating.
  7. -6
    15 November 2019 07: 28
    Just one question - were the pilots of the 2nd Squadron of the 135th Fighter Aviation Regiment also bad? After all, they had MiG-21s, and they were opposed by Mirages (for some reason they were not included in the rating) and Phantoms.
    1. +5
      15 November 2019 10: 29
      Here is the Mirage just a couple by the 21st. The Phantom did not form a full pair in the USSR. In general, F4 in my opinion is much more breakthrough aircraft than is commonly believed. The first is really multifunctional.
      1. 0
        15 November 2019 22: 22
        You are absolutely right, the "Phantom" "pair" was never found in the USSR. A pair to the MiG-21 could be the Mirage-3 or the F-5.
      2. 0
        12 December 2019 22: 40
        "Para" phantom in case of conflict with the USSR Su-15.
        According to the functionality of the pair, he is 23 seconds.
  8. +1
    15 November 2019 07: 40
    Do not put Phantom ... well, I don’t know.
  9. -2
    15 November 2019 08: 21
    Roma, And where is the flying wing of the B-2? Aircraft with variable wing geometry?
  10. +1
    15 November 2019 08: 21
    However, T-95 missiles against B-52 bombs - it's hard to say who will find it easier.
    I do not agree. Not only bombs, the B-52 is also the carrier of the KR / 12 units /.
  11. -1
    15 November 2019 08: 22
    Where is the Ta-183? After all, he laid the aerodynamic scheme on which the instant 15 and the Saber were based!
  12. -1
    15 November 2019 08: 31
    Is it possible to drop at least one of the planes from the list?

    If only to add, "Warthog". what
  13. +4
    15 November 2019 09: 25
    It is already good that Roman did not say that this is the opinion of VO.
    And our couple in the sky above the Korean training ground worked on the tactics of intercepting high-speed targets and counteracting jet fighters.
    In this regard, these aircraft occupy a very worthy place in the history of military aviation.
    -
    These planes without a gyro sight, a radio range finder and an AUC would hardly change the principles of air warfare. Even with a jet engine and transonic speed.
    Yes, B-52 fought heartily. In any conflict where the United States loomed, B-52 immediately flew in and "brought about democracy." Tu-95 gunpowder sniffed only in the 2015 year in Syria. And thank God, I never saw nuclear charges at all.
    - Have you fought? May be. Tu-95 "sniffed gunpowder"? How? And what have they radically changed or introduced new in the technique of "carpet bombing"?
    Mig-21 “Guilty” of returning cannon weapons to aircraft. It was the use of the MIG-21 early series, without guns, with only missiles, that showed the fallacy of this practice. By the way the opponent of 21, Phantom, had the same problems.
    - then why in the ranking only MiG-21?
    It was the Su-25 that forced many countries to come to grips with, if not the development and production of small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery, then at least its purchase.
    - A-10 is not at all at work? Oh well...
    And what did Harrier, Eagle and Su-27 radically change in air warfare tactics? Is the Speed-Maneuver-Fire Formula a thing of the past?
    Again dubious rating on dubious arguments. Article minus.
    1. +2
      15 November 2019 11: 08
      Quote: Dooplet11
      These planes without a gyro sight, a radio range finder and an AUC would hardly change the principles of air warfare. Even with a jet engine and transonic speed.

      To be precise, the Americans had gyro sights and PPKs back in WWII, but I agree with the conclusion. New principles are already the emergence of the URVV. Especially medium and long range with radar guidance. And here the "Phantom" just appears. He is not the first in this direction, but the most famous and fought.
      Quote: Dooplet11
      And what did Harrier, Eagle and Su-27 radically change in air war tactics?

      "Harrier" - the first serial "vertical", here you can attract new basing tactics. The F-15 is the first 4th generation fighter with an emphasis on agile combat. Actually, this couple somehow pretends to be "changed". The rest is an amateurish selection from the series "the author likes them." There is no desire to disassemble in detail.
      1. -1
        15 November 2019 12: 16
        To be precise, gyroscopes and PPC in Americans appeared back in WWII

        I know. More specifically, the first gyroscopes appeared among the British and Germans. But they (sights and PPK)coupled with taxiway and transonic speeds significantly changed the tactics and pattern of air combat. And a couple of MiG-Sabers can still be mistaken for "who changed the world." URVV - yes, stage. But the next one. hi
  14. +2
    15 November 2019 10: 10
    Yes, there are a lot of Soviet aircraft, but what to do is not the matter of patriotism, but the fact that our school of aircraft designers was really the best.
    - In the list of records registered by the FAI, records of other schools are not less than the Soviet ones. This is "by the way". And in this: "really our school of aircraft designers was the best" truth no more than in "Russia - the homeland of elephants." The Soviet aircraft design school is in some ways better, in some ways worse, and at certain time intervals (it was sad ).
  15. +2
    15 November 2019 11: 06
    However, T-95 missiles against B-52 bombs - it's hard to say who will find it easier.

    Hmm ... actually, "fifteen hundred" now - the only SAC missile carrier.
    And, EMNIP, Tu-95MS on the internal suspension carries 6 missiles against 8 in the B-52N.
  16. +1
    15 November 2019 11: 15
    So-so article.
    Like a conversation between two taxi drivers in the parking lot, in between orders.
    "All these F-22s won't be here!" laughing laughing laughing
  17. +2
    15 November 2019 11: 34
    But if the name "which changed" then how can you not insert f-111 and f-117?
  18. 0
    15 November 2019 11: 53
    My ten though I am not a super specialist:
    Fokker E.I., Muromets, I-16, Yu-87, Me-262, MiG-15 * F-86, F-111, Harier, F-117, MQ-1
  19. -6
    15 November 2019 13: 09
    The same feeling - when the author of the article is much more competent than commentators))))
    The phrases "why is there a MiG-21, but not a Phantom?")))
    Guys, the cost of the MiG-21 was equal to the cost of the BMP-1 !!!!!!! For this alone, you can put a monument to designers. Manageability of the MiG - 21 went to legend, and the NATO aircraft, which could show similar controllability, turned out to be already F-16))) On MiG-21 and now put modern rockets and avionics, he will be able to click on the nose for many 4th-generation aircraft. ..
    MiG - 15 - aircraft legend. The first aircraft that put an end to screw aviation. It is no secret that the Americans would continue to use their generally good P-51 Mustangs, had the MiG-15 not appeared in the sky.
    You can even divide the era before the MiG -15 and after)))
    Just like the era before Me.109 and after, both epoch-making aircraft.
    1. 0
      15 November 2019 14: 46
      The senses are deceiving you. Apparently something is missing. As well as the author of the "rating".
      The first aircraft that put an end to screw aviation.
      The point in screw aviation has not yet been set. It will not be a revelation for you that helicopters are also rotary aircraft?
      Manageability MiG - 21 went to legend
      - These are legends. By controllability, both the Phantom and the Mirage are comparable.
      The phrases "why is there a MiG-21, but not a Phantom?"
      But why is it “touching” if the argument for the presence in the “rating” of the MiG-21 is what exactly he forced to return the gun to the fighter? But many people think that it was the MiG-17.
      Just like the era before Me.109 and after
      Bf-109 "SKY LOST". Both in the West and in the East. Epoch-making in this respect.
      1. +1
        15 November 2019 15: 44
        You are being deceived

        As I understand it - you always judge by form, and not by content - a hallmark of not our Russian people. This is a mentality and you can’t change it.
        1. +1
          15 November 2019 15: 50
          you always judge by form, not by content
          laughing Again the senses deceive you. I have a complaint just about the content of the "rating". The form of presentation is of little concern. There are no complaints about the font either. But the fact that you have drifted from aviation problems to Great Russian chauvinism says a lot. Apparently, you don't have a lot of arguments related to aviation ...
          1. +1
            15 November 2019 16: 14
            Apparently, with arguments related to aviation you do not have much ...

            Oh yes, where do we get to you iksperds, constantly hating articles on VO.
            I have a complaint just about the content of the "rating"

            That feeling when the concept of content is not familiar to you.
            1. +1
              15 November 2019 17: 44
              That feeling when the concept of content is not familiar to you.
              - it is your opinion? I heard him. Thanks.
              Oh yes, where do we get to you iksperds, constantly hating articles on VO.
              - that is why you switched from aviation to the "national question"?
              1. 0
                15 November 2019 17: 53
                that is why you moved from aviation to the "national question

                And what directly does the paduchka take from the national question? ))))
                1. +2
                  15 November 2019 17: 57
                  And what directly does the paduchka take from the national question? ))))
                  - Yes, it’s unpleasant when people instead of arguments on the essence of the problem go either to the person or to the nationality. But far to the epilepsy. Do not wait. Rather, grab the ban for inciting ethnic hatred. laughing
                  1. 0
                    15 November 2019 18: 08
                    Yes, it’s unpleasant when people instead of arguments on the essence of the problem go either to the person or to the national

                    So what about the MiG-21 roll handling?
                    What say theorist? )))
                    1. +1
                      15 November 2019 18: 14
                      And what about the roll handling of the MiG-21 special? Do not show on the graph the angular roll speed from the effort on the handle in speed?
                      1. 0
                        15 November 2019 18: 16
                        And what about the roll handling of the MiG-21 special? Do not show on the graph the angular roll speed from the effort on the handle in speed?

                        That feeling when I'm talking to a woman.
                        Sit at the helm on any simulator and fly, maybe you will understand why the roll speed of the plane ..
                      2. +1
                        15 November 2019 18: 41
                        Exactly ... But I think ... Virpil !!!)))
                        Respected! Angular velocity is maneuverability. And the resulting angular acceleration, depending on the force applied to the control, is controllability. Try to realize this, then re-read what is written here. If you stay with your own, then you and I need to finish. For to no purpose.
                      3. 0
                        15 November 2019 18: 42
                        Angular velocity is maneuverability

                        Angular speed is controllability))))
                      4. +1
                        15 November 2019 19: 22
                        Bravissimo! That's it. At least google what this or that aviation term means. Since Mednikov is too much for you. I understand now why you are delighted with Skomorokhov. The author has found his reader.
                      5. -1
                        15 November 2019 19: 29
                        At least google what a particular term means

                        And what is there google)))
                        The plane has 6 degrees of freedom. And the same "barrel" does not lead to a change in its location in space, to be called maneuverability. That is, to KINEMATIKA.
                      6. 0
                        16 November 2019 07: 20
                        They didn’t google it for nothing. This is about maneuverability and handling:

                        This is about a barrel "which does not change its position in space":

                        To draw knowledge about aerodynamics and flight only from the yellow press and from simulators is fraught with gaps. hi
    2. +1
      15 November 2019 15: 08
      Quote: lucul
      Manageability MiG - 21 went to legend

      Which MiG-21? And then the "twenty-first" modifications - like the An-12. smile
      1. -1
        15 November 2019 15: 47
        Which MiG-21? And then the "twenty-first" modifications - like the An-12.

        Yes, any .....
        That feeling when you are talking to people far from aviation.
        You read the reviews of American pilots who managed to fly on the MiG-21 ....
        1. +1
          15 November 2019 16: 58
          Quote: lucul
          You read the reviews of American pilots who managed to fly on the MiG-21 ....


          Anecdote "How the MiG-21 is removed from a spin? With a shovel." And another pilot wrote that before the appearance of the MiG-21PF, pilots' gloves were wiped from the constant rotation of the trimers.
          1. -2
            15 November 2019 17: 51
            Anecdote "How the MiG-21 is removed from a spin? With a shovel." And another pilot wrote that before the appearance of the MiG-21PF, pilots' gloves were wiped from the constant rotation of the trimers.

            There are no words ....
            Enlighten:
            https://topwar.ru/63394-mig-21-boec-bez-pravil.html
            1. 0
              15 November 2019 18: 01
              There are no words ....
              Enlighten:

              Yes. There are no words.
              Mednikov. "Flight dynamics .."
              Enlighten yourself.
              1. 0
                15 November 2019 18: 09
                Yes. There are no words.
                Mednikov. "Flight dynamics .."
                Enlighten yourself.

                Do you distinguish maneuverability from handling? Teoreteg?
                1. +2
                  15 November 2019 18: 12
                  Definitely distinguish. Therefore, he wrote that the controllability of the MiG-21 is comparable to the Phantom and the Mirage.
                  1. 0
                    15 November 2019 18: 13
                    . Therefore, he wrote that the controllability of the MiG-21 is comparable to the Phantom and the Mirage

                    The angular velocity of the Phantom and Mirage roll? )))
                    1. +3
                      15 November 2019 18: 27
                      The angular velocity of the Phantom and Mirage roll? )))
                      At what speed and at what effort on the handle? In general, the roll angular velocity parameter per se refers to maneuverability. It can relate to handling only in conjunction with the effort on the handle. Your cap.
                      1. 0
                        15 November 2019 18: 41
                        At what speed and at what effort on the handle? In general, the roll angular velocity parameter per se refers to maneuverability. It can relate to handling only in conjunction with the effort on the handle. Your cap.

                        Oh my God .....
                        “The rate of roll was often more important than the radius of the turn, as it made it possible to change the direction of flight faster.” This is a situation when an enemy fighter is already “hanging on its tail” and is preparing to open fire. and 'get off track' determines the survival of the attacked aircraft. "
                      2. +2
                        15 November 2019 18: 47
                        AND? It's about roll maneuverability. Where is it about handling? Understand the terminology, buddy! And it does not at all follow from your quote that everywhere and always the MiG is more maneuverable than the Phantom.
                      3. -2
                        15 November 2019 18: 51
                        And it does not at all follow from your quote that everywhere and always the MiG is more maneuverable than the Phantom

                        I’m starting to understand.
                        Here is an article on VO where everything is chewed
                        https://topwar.ru/63394-mig-21-boec-bez-pravil.html

                        This is any pilot for you - the FIGHTER will confirm it.
                      4. +1
                        15 November 2019 19: 15
                        But how does this relate to MANAGEMENT, for which you are crucifying here? Roll speed is maneuverability, not handling. Any aviation specialist will confirm this to you. And a fighter, and an aircraft engineer, and even a bomber!)))
                      5. +1
                        16 November 2019 14: 25
                        Here is an article on VO where everything is chewed
                        https://topwar.ru/63394-mig-21-boec-bez-pravil.html
                        - How long has Kaptsov become a "guru" in aerodynamics? But if he is a "guru" for you, it is not surprising that you have a mixture of maneuverability and controllability. Learn from Kaptsov further.
            2. 0
              18 November 2019 10: 14
              Quote: lucul
              There are no words ....
              Enlighten:

              You were asked - which version of the MiG? Gone from the answer.
      2. +2
        15 November 2019 15: 55
        Colleague, this is a question "not a hat". You will also ask lucul for this diagram as proof:

        I'm afraid he will ask: "Oh, what is this?"
        1. -2
          15 November 2019 16: 16
          Colleague, this is a question "not a hat". You will also ask lucul for this diagram as proof:

          Aha-aha teoreteg - roll control. Do you know such an indicator? )
          Or didn’t this happen in your Haifa? )))
          1. +1
            15 November 2019 17: 45
            Aha-aha teoreteg - roll control. Do you know such an indicator? )
            Or didn’t this happen in your Haifa? )))
            - we went through a lot at MAI. And we were given an understanding of the differences between handling and maneuverability. By the way, "Haifa" also has understanding people. Otherwise, Mirages and Migs would not be on equal terms above Sinai. wink
            1. -6
              15 November 2019 18: 12
              And we were given an understanding of the differences between handling and maneuverability.

              So why then post nonsense? MiG-21 carved the Phantom like a kitten, if of course he could drag him into close combat.
              What Americans frankly feared like fire.
              1. +3
                15 November 2019 18: 19
                So why then post nonsense? MiG-21 carved the Phantom like a kitten, if of course he could drag him into close combat.
                What Americans frankly feared like fire.
                - You clearly read the yellow press. Or replayed in simulations. Or both.
              2. +1
                17 November 2019 00: 12
                Quote: lucul
                MiG-21 butchered the Phantom as a kitten, if of course he could drag him into close combat.


                Lieutenant Randall Cunningham, while piloting an F-4J, met two MiG-19s flying at ultra-low altitude on January 1972, 21. In aerial combat, one Mig was shot down, the second managed to escape. On May 8, 1972, Randy and his wingman met a flight of three MiG-17s. While two MiGs fired at his wingman, Randy followed the third and shot him down with a Sidewinder missile. The other two immediately left the battlefield. Two days later, Cunningham participated in a massive raid on Hanoi, his task was to suppress air defense. The aircraft is armed with two Shrikes and four Sidewinder. The Americans were attacked by large Vietnamese forces - 22 MiG-17s. In the outset of the battle, Cunningham shot down one MiG-17 with a Sidewinder missile. He then caught up with Mig, who was hanging on the tail of the squadron commander and shot him down with a salvo of two Sidewinder. The squadron commander gave the command to leave the battle and return home. On the way home, already over the sea, Randy, left alone, met a single MiG-17. On a collision course, the planes missed each other. In the near carousel, which lasted four minutes, Randall managed to follow Mig's tail and knock him down with the last Sidewinder. Soon, Randall's plane was also shot down by an anti-aircraft missile. Both pilots ejected safely and were lifted from the water by a rescue helicopter.

                After the war, Randall Cunningham commanded an "enemy" squadron at the training base. Later he was elected senator. As a senator, he received a kickback from a company that supplied software to the US Army in the amount of $ 630. He was arrested and spent eight years in prison from 2005 to 2013.
                1. +1
                  23 November 2019 15: 10
                  Randall Cunningham ....... where is such noodles on your ears ???? all the tracking equipment and recorders are still at the bottom, the Vietnamese do not care about them like many hawks who have not reached their bases, all the other hawks and bombers shot down by the air defense systems and the Viet Cong fighters are lying in the jungle, identified and confirmed, you’re still a McCain
  20. +4
    15 November 2019 14: 01
    "The result of the good work of the Douglas firm. If the Americans had not made the F-15, then there would be no need for the Su-27." What kind of nonsense is this written? Aircraft construction in the United States and ours is a completely different story ...
    1. +2
      15 November 2019 15: 58
      Quote: pavlentiy
      "The result of the good work of the Douglas firm. If the Americans had not made the F-15, then there would be no need for the Su-27." What kind of nonsense is this written? Aircraft construction in the United States and ours is a completely different story ...

      Apparently, the design history of the Su-27 and second approach to the shell - T-10S, from which they made the now known Su-27.
      F-10 was obliged by the birth of T-15C. More precisely, the F-15 data obtained in the USSR, according to which first approach to the shell - T-10-3 and T-10-4 - were inferior to the American or had no advantages over him.

      If it weren’t for the F-15, the Su-27 could have a completely different look, because then the T-10-4 would suit everyone.
  21. 0
    15 November 2019 14: 52
    MIG-21 is clearly praised. And F-4 did not get on the list.
  22. +2
    15 November 2019 15: 10
    For the sake of a red word, neither mother nor father will regret it.
    Not a single (!) Plane has changed this world. Comparing aircraft between the USSR and the USA is an intellectual impasse - thus it is impossible to explain why the USSR, which was 30-50 years behind the USA technologically, was able to achieve parity and force the USA to recognize itself as a superpower.
    1. 0
      16 November 2019 11: 40
      Quote: iouris
      thus it is impossible to explain why the USSR, technologically 30-50 years behind the USA

      I don’t remember where, but such a metaphor came across: the USSR lagged behind the USA quite a bit, but it was hopelessly lagging behind. Like a transport ship following an icebreaker.

      Now China occupies exactly the same place.
    2. -1
      16 November 2019 12: 27
      Quote: iouris
      The USSR, technologically 30-50 years behind the USA, was able to achieve parity


      The USSR never lagged behind the United States by 50 years, and after the war, for some time, abandonment was completely eliminated.
      1. 0
        16 November 2019 12: 50
        This is my value judgment, but I have a good idea of ​​how aviation developed in specific areas in the USSR and the USA. Interestingly, what personal relationship do you have with aviation?
        1. +1
          16 November 2019 14: 29
          You, colleague, forgot to emphasize: " technologically for 40-50 years. "In the field of aircraft design or in the field of aerodynamics, such assessments will not pass. hi
        2. -1
          16 November 2019 20: 05
          Quote: iouris
          Interestingly, what personal relationship do you have with aviation?


          Only glue planes.
  23. +1
    15 November 2019 15: 45
    It would be worth mentioning at least one aircraft with variable sweep, the F-111 is desirable - because the first.
    1. 0
      15 November 2019 15: 59
      Variable sweep is a variant of wing mechanization. Just "one of" to increase the range of available speeds.
    2. 0
      15 November 2019 17: 47
      But is the Su24 not a crease too?
  24. +3
    15 November 2019 16: 35
    Did not like. Some kind of digest, with a focus on the personal preferences of the author.
  25. 0
    15 November 2019 17: 33
    MIG 25-this floor "Raketa" - only a little weapons carried
  26. 0
    15 November 2019 19: 16
    class work
  27. BAI
    0
    15 November 2019 19: 26
    One short question that the site simply does not allow to ask:
    "F-16 where?"
    No need to answer the rhyme.
    1. +1
      16 November 2019 03: 54
      Quote: BAI
      One short question that the site simply does not allow to ask:
      "F-16 where?"
      No need to answer the rhyme.

      only the most massive 4 generations, a light fighter with an excellent engine, participating in real battles. He is not worthy. He is American. tongue
  28. -1
    15 November 2019 22: 02
    The Tu-95 just flew by, because it’s not a couple of B-52s. Su-27 as the embodiment of over-maneuverability (and did not fight because Ethiopia does not count), but only as a trailer for the F-15 as it embodied the best of mattresses in general, the Phantom and the balalaika as antagonists of their time if only the F-22 did not enter !! !! Charles! The first 5th generation did not affect the development? And then who? F-117 only as the first with stealth elements, but then on a par with Ch. Orl and Lady, Su-25 without a warthog? Strange choice. But it is precisely the pair of F-15 and F-16 as a development strategy that takes place. Tu-126DRLO could get here (for the location of the antenna). MQ-1 definitely. Well, and can the Volcano stick somewhere?
  29. -1
    15 November 2019 22: 36
    At one time, Maxim Kalashnikov made fun of "Phantom" against the background of the MiG-21. Hee-hee-hee, isn't it clear to the fool that a simple fighter in air combat will be stronger than a fighter-bomber? The fool can understand everything, only after the "Phantom" they simply stopped building fighters, and all subsequent ones became fighter-bombers, capable of striking ground targets. The overwhelming majority of aircraft after the Phantom have multi-mode radars, a long flight range, a large (relative to the MiG-21) bomb load, the ability to use medium-range missiles, TV and LA UABs, and airborne missiles. In addition, many aircraft are twin-engine and have two crew members. Incl. Su-30, Su-34, MiG-35, F-15E, F / A-18D and F are in fact the heirs of Phantom. But the MiG-21, with all its merits, completed the evolution of "flying pipes". The MiG-21 and Phantom are roughly the same as Andrew the First-Called and Dreadnought. The "First-Called" looked perfect against the background of other battleships, but for some reason the "First-Called" were no longer made, and the dreadnoughts did everything. If we are talking about the aircraft that changed the air war, then definitely "Phantom", and remove the MiG-21.
    1. +1
      20 November 2019 16: 18
      Everyone laughs. MIG-21 had barely enough fuel to shoot down Phantoms in the area of ​​its airfields. But the Phantom delivered the load, unloaded, managed to fight the MiGs (and the statistics here are contradictory and strong) and go back. About what kind of plane did they say: dove of peace? Is it about our MIG?
      1. +2
        23 November 2019 16: 18
        But the Phantom was delivering the cargo, unloading, managing to fight the MiGs ..... laughed, if only if it were, if it had delivered the cargo and was unloading wherever, and not just anywhere, and had time to fight the MiGs, Vietnam would be under the hood of Uncle Sam, and so, Vietnam is popular and everyone loves Ho Chi Minh and they keep the memory of him. unlike Iraq, Yugoslavia and Libya
        1. 0
          24 November 2019 09: 35
          You see how .... The war in Vietnam was also very strange, like many wars after WWII.
          In general, any war not secured by politics is better not even to start. They are lost right away.
          But the courage of Viet Cong must be given credit.
          1. 0
            24 November 2019 10: 11
            it was also very strange ......... nothing strange, the question was in the Gulf of Thin, or rather, under it the largest hydrocarbon reserves in East Asia, the idea was simple. as before in Korea. to support pro-American forces and to sit on a valve in the Gulf of Thin, but it didn’t work out according to plan, if in Korea kim jong-il was muttted around the world for UN money, then war had to be fought out of one’s own pocket, and pro-American forces were extremely cowardly and corrupt, there was no point in continuing to knead the mud in the jungle, and huge money was devouring, and an alliance with China from behind the bushes established reliable supplies of food and weapons, an outcome was inevitable, at the moment the Xiaopeng rule there, the Spratli archipelago was crushed by itself without looking on yelling in the district from other applicants
    2. +2
      23 November 2019 15: 43
      But the MiG-21, with all its merits, completed the evolution of "flying pipes" ........ about flying pipes, this is true, but there is only interesting, this flying pipe was produced in an amount of about 12 thousand, the tea house was more than 2000 copies, but the phantoms were a bit for 5 thousand produced, phantoms are everywhere, the MiG-21 flying pipes are still in service, and are not going to the dump on the way
      1. 0
        24 November 2019 09: 31
        Just cheap. Well, brought to certain conditions. And that’s all. Lada also did 50 years and still ride.
        Even just a picture to see. Throughout the layout of the Phantom and now the plane. And Mig-21 is something from the past.
        For me, the criterion is the memories of our tester. I forgot my surname, I'm afraid to make a mistake. After Vietnam, the American F-5 was tested. So it is lower than 5 thousand meters was better than Miga in everything. And Tiger was a second-row aircraft compared to the F-4. And nobody called him a dove of peace.
        When they say how many "phantoms" there were, they forget that they did not do the main work. And much older aircraft.
        1. 0
          24 November 2019 09: 53
          So it is lower than 5 thousand meters was better than Miga in everything. ...... this is not true, the flight performance of Tiger is inferior to 21 in everything, in rate of climb, in thrust-weight ratio, in wing load, in combat radius of action, the question begs, maybe this tester is just an instructor of air desks L-39 ??? ? Yes, Tiger was the basis in the squadron Aggressor who imitated the MiG-21, but here's the piquancy, the pilots of this squadron studied and applied the tactics of the Soviet fighter school, because they were leaders in the number of accidents and flight incidents, the answer is simple, it was not suitable for Soviet fighter tactics
          1. 0
            24 November 2019 11: 08
            You can search for that note. A person is very authoritative. He did not compare digits. He just flew. And mastered without guidelines. A simple airplane in everything. People like us do not argue.
            1. 0
              24 November 2019 12: 22
              He didn’t compare the numbers ........ but in vain, when, at the Air Force Research Institute, the numbers are displayed and compared in order to have a complete picture of how to counteract an enemy device, and learn useful things in it, but just fly .. ..... probably not very authoritative, if not worse
              1. 0
                24 November 2019 15: 37
                Well, here, for example:
                http://testpilot.ru/review/runway/volga/volga_xvi.htm
                The first one.
                1. 0
                  24 November 2019 15: 44
                  I’m not saying that I like everything American, Western, etc. But you have to understand that there are no miracles. One must look at everything with open eyes and not deceive oneself with propaganda gadgets. Americans have always built good planes. And technologically, their planes were always on top.
                2. 0
                  24 November 2019 15: 55
                  well, for example: .... this is not an example, but a story from someone unknown, I can fantasize about this myself, I especially dared "but the perspective of the target was steadily increasing and the" enemy "after a couple of minutes was in my tail" "this what an idiot you have to be so that an airplane with a wing load of 500 kg per square meter would enter your tail with 400 kg per square meter on its unit.such aces had to be driven in the neck, joke
                  1. 0
                    24 November 2019 15: 57
                    Write your own. By numbers.
                    The author, it seems like it is not known who. The name, surname is.
                  2. 0
                    24 November 2019 16: 04
                    Here is one comment from the second link (you can probably even write it to the author):

                    sivuch (Igor Kopeetsky) March 8, 2014 02:05
                    +3
                    They compared with the Tiger not 23-12, but 23-11M
                    I give the opinion of Oleg Mutovin
                    http://forums.airforce.ru/showthread.php?t=1325&page=24
                    So I said-Kondaurov wrote the truth. But not all.
                    Okay, have to copy paste
                    http://forums.airforce.ru/showthread.php?t=1325&page=24
                    According to the GI act of 1976, tests of the F-5E aircraft were carried out in the scope of the State (for our types of aircraft). N. Stogov, A. Bezhevets, V. Kondaurov flew. They (GI) consisted of two parts: estimates of aircraft flight characteristics and comparative estimates. Moreover, at the stage of comparative assessment (air battles), each of the pilots took turns landing on the MiG-21bis and MiG-23M and fought with the F-5E (and vice versa). Superiority in maneuvering characteristics (at M less than 0,85) of the F-5E was provided by deflecting wing tips (which was not on the "rivals"), due to Cy rasp. At these speeds, the aircraft reaches the angle of attack limit earlier than the overload limit. At higher speeds, the advantage passed to the MiG-23M, due to the better acceleration characteristics and thrust-to-weight ratio. Based on the test results, work began on the introduction of the deflection of the wing tips on the maneuver on the next modification of the MiG-23
                    And what was the advantage of the MIG-23M over the F-5E? And another question (to be honest, I just don’t remember): on subsequent modifications of the 23rd (P, ML, MLD) wing mechanization changed?
                    The advantage is disposable overload and power availability. On MLD rejected socks. Another thing is that it did not work out very well. But about this in another thread for six months discussion has been going on
                    Message from FLOGGER
                    Well, what did it practically turn into? What you wrote is an advantage on paper, but really, what did it give?
                    Well, I wrote for specialists out of inertia. Less time and radius of turn, better acceleration characteristics. With the F-5E armament (cannons and UR MD), the main problem is getting into the field of weapon use. And if at M less than 0,85 he coped with this (on the second bend he went into this same ORP both 21 and 23rd), then at high speeds he could not do anything. And "had" it already 21 (to a lesser extent) and (to a greater extent) 23rd. By the way, according to the general assessment of combat effectiveness, it was the 23rd that showed itself better (due to the possibility of working in the PPS, under 4/4 and at the Federal Law). After all, when assessing it, everything is taken into account: from the time of entering the RP and the beginning of the battle to leaving it. But the loss in the BMVB then greatly strained the leadership of the Air Force.
                    ... because in V. Kandaurov's book there is not a word that our MIGs won at least one battle against the F-5E. Neither 21st nor 23rd. If you want, I can upload a scan of this page. The same thing, in one of the films for "Wings of Russia" (I have one), says L. Popov ....
                    Landing speed, if I am not mistaken, was about 220 km / h. Only after all the modifications (including the use of EMDS) did the plane gain normal control, but ML and MLD were evaluated by combatant pilots already highly.
                    There is no need to spread it, I have a book, and I personally know Kondaurov. Vladimir Nikolaevich in his book omitted some details and wrote EXCLUSIVELY about the assessment in the BMVB. This was a revelation for our designers and testers. And also opened my eyes to the imperfection of the comparative assessment method based on the comparison of ONLY energy characteristics. According to the Act, at speeds above 0.85 M (where the mechanization of the leading edge on the F-5E was disabled), the situation was as I wrote to you. Leonid Stepanovich, with all due respect to him, was not a participant in those tests, but he undoubtedly saw the recommendations of the State Research Committee of the Russian Federation. I wrote about this above - the results were sent to all interested organizations (including OKB "MiG") for use in work.
                    1. +1
                      24 November 2019 16: 21
                      (at M less than 0,85) ...... my friend, at M less than about 85 these are battles in Korea, the tactics of conducting air battles have changed dramatically during this time, even seven inches in the forehead do not need to figure out what Tiger is against 21 this is like our "donkey" against Messer -109 fashion in WWII, so the tiger was only able to burn out non-military warehouses and other combat objects. and settlements and food supplies of the civilian population, forget you are soaring about the tiger, not a hat
                      1. +1
                        24 November 2019 16: 49
                        I propose to stay at my place. I have no desire to prove anything. I only know that our technology is a bit overpriced. There is something to praise for, but one must know the measure as well.
                      2. +1
                        24 November 2019 19: 39
                        I propose to stay with my ....... this is true, we are not judges, not lawyers or historians, only ... we offer our knowledge on this topic for review, because the topic is not indifferent
              2. 0
                24 November 2019 15: 55
                The second one:
                https://topwar.ru/40987-vtoroe-dyhanie-istrebitelya-f-5.html
                Not like a bad plane in any way. Airplane soldier.
                1. 0
                  24 November 2019 16: 01
                  Doesn't sound like a bad plane in any way. The soldier plane ....... even more amused "F-5 shot down in December with small arms." voosche fly away, even I do not remember that any reagent would be shot down from small arms, thanks. I am delighted
                  1. 0
                    24 November 2019 16: 10
                    In Chechnya, shot down the Su-25. One (!!!) bullet 12.7 is exactly like a pilot’s head. Probably also not a plane, but junk.
                    1. 0
                      24 November 2019 16: 33
                      One (!!!) bullet 12.7 is exactly like a pilot’s head. ..... if A said and B., 1999 September 9, Su-25 was fired by MANPADS, the pilot with a hard landing was fired from DShK ... already on the ground
                      1. 0
                        24 November 2019 16: 45
                        In those days, they wrote only about one bullet and the absence of other injuries. Maybe this is not about that plane now. I do not collect statistics.
                      2. +1
                        24 November 2019 19: 28
                        In those days, they wrote only about one bullet and the absence of others ... as in communicating with my friend, very competent in air defense issues. we refer not only to information from one bell tower, we must take into account other bell towers and monasteries, so figuratively. Well, and DShK is a very impressive bastard so far, the only thing I can tell you. DShK, there are no single shots and cut-offs for a certain number of shots, he grinds while he presses the trigger on the finger, but I can disappoint, the Su-25 yong cabin lamp will not break on the fly, only from a convenient distance and without movement. and then argue for yourself
                      3. 0
                        25 November 2019 01: 08
                        About the features of the DShK I do not need to educate. I’ll educate anyone myself. Like the lanterns of the Su-25.
                      4. 0
                        25 November 2019 07: 59
                        Like the lights of the Su-25 .......... why are you so inattentive, I typed literally "the canopy of the cockpit of the Su-25 yon will not break through on the fly," you need to enlighten you along the way, firstly the height is not will even allow you to see the flashlight of a flying Su-25 and not only, secondly, shooting at a target flying at a speed of 400 meters per second is another lesson, the effective firing time is no more than 2 seconds, so start tales about the Su-25 flashlight
                      5. 0
                        25 November 2019 08: 43
                        Especially for you, I’ll fix a typo: not about, but about the lights. Fingers on the phone failed. Will it go? Count it all over again.
                      6. 0
                        25 November 2019 08: 53
                        Especially for you, I’ll correct a typo: ...... don’t worry, I’ve understood everything, let's get better to our sheep, that is, about what the author’s article is talking about, there are a lot of indignation about this or that aircraft, but how about The Tu-16 should occupy the first line for me, I’ll explain why, this unit joined all directions of military aviation, it was also a bomber, missile carrier, reconnaissance aircraft, air tanker, repeater, rescuer, and on its base the Tu-128 interceptor was created and naturally legendary the Tu-104 airliner, in addition, has several more clones which is the most popular Chinese, what other combat aircraft has such a track record of specialties?
  30. 0
    16 November 2019 12: 15
    5. MiG-25 and MiG-31

    Actually, the answer to B-1, U-2 and other tricks.


    Especially the MiG-25 was a response to the B-1.

    2. Tu-95 and B-52

    Two more forever compared aircraft. Records for the duration of operation.


    This is not entirely true. B-52 ceased to produce in the 60s, Tu-95 - in the 90s. So the B-52s have been in operation for much longer.

    it's not about patriotism


    Here it is precisely in patriotism. The presence of the Su-25 in the list cannot be explained by anything else.
  31. 0
    16 November 2019 13: 52
    Very, very controversial article. And why didn’t I understand the mention of super fortresses and Messerschmitt 262 at all.
    What does this agree with the Korean War and with Tu95 and b-52
  32. 0
    16 November 2019 20: 03
    Tu-95 ... I didn’t see nuclear charges at all.
    But what about AN602 (Tsar is a bomb)?
  33. -1
    23 November 2019 12: 46
    Why are we flying so slowly and low. The engine has nowhere else to upgrade. The matter remains with the fuel. We take a railway tank full of diesel fuel and place it in a vacuum workshop, a high vacuum hangar. And we begin to pump out the contents of the tank. If the compressors have more power, the goal is close. After the resin has passed a deep vacuum and is freed from unnecessary slag, add pure liquefied oxygen to the solarium. Inject until the pressure is normalized with the external environment. This production can be applied to missiles of any liquid type. And then "White Swan" will be "White Lightning !!!"
  34. 0
    25 January 2020 16: 50
    As for the Phantom ... All the same, it was necessary to include it on the list. Those who know the Phantom aviation know that, but any American Phantom plane is commoner.
    SR-71 - generally handsome! Really super car!

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"