Military Review

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?
Author:
Articles from this series:
10 planes that changed the war in the air. Opinion of "Military Review"
158 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Jack O'Neill
    Jack O'Neill 15 November 2019 06: 27 New
    +14
    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. andrewkor
      andrewkor 15 November 2019 06: 38 New
      +9
      Yes, and Falcon "merits" above the roof, but the author, apparently, did not look. Well, this is his purely personal affair. Who does not like to publish a counter-article!
      1. Jack O'Neill
        Jack O'Neill 15 November 2019 06: 59 New
        -7
        Yes, and Falcon "merits" above the roof, but the author, apparently, did not look. Well, this is his purely personal affair. Who does not like to publish a counter-article!

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


            Only the angle is different.
      2. Dooplet11
        Dooplet11 15 November 2019 09: 27 New
        +4
        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. Inokenty
      Inokenty 15 November 2019 07: 05 New
      +15
      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.

      Keep bias for yourself. Typically, weapons are placed on an airplane, and not vice versa, as with a “warthog” ... Comparison - “Granny said for two,” and the A-10 is no better than the Su-25. Maybe compare with the Su-39, and your opus will become equal to zero ... The United States has no other attack aircraft yet.
      1. Jack O'Neill
        Jack O'Neill 15 November 2019 07: 27 New
        -4
        Keep bias for yourself. Usually, weapons are placed on an airplane, and not vice versa, as with a 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.
        A-10А can search for targets with the help of GOS AGM-65, and Su-25 only with the eyes of the pilot. Guided Armament Su-25 should be used with constant illumination through the "Maple", which is in his nose.
        Those. while after launching the A-10A is free, the Su-25 must launch a missile through the Maple, flying directly at it (target), since the Maple is fixed firmly 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
          5-9 15 November 2019 08: 01 New
          +8
          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. Jack O'Neill
            Jack O'Neill 15 November 2019 08: 48 New
            -6
            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
              5-9 15 November 2019 09: 07 New
              +6
              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. Jack O'Neill
                Jack O'Neill 15 November 2019 09: 21 New
                -10
                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. Vlad.by
                  Vlad.by 15 November 2019 14: 34 New
                  +8
                  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. Jack O'Neill
                    Jack O'Neill 15 November 2019 15: 01 New
                    -8
                    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. Vlad.by
                      Vlad.by 18 November 2019 18: 06 New
                      +1
                      If yes, if only ...
                      One 30 mm projectile or even worse gap Arrows or Needles next to any of the engines and the “Bolt” on 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. Jack O'Neill
                        Jack O'Neill 19 November 2019 06: 26 New
                        -3
                        If yes, if only ...
                        One 30 mm projectile or even worse gap Arrows or Needles next to any of the engines and the “Bolt” on 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. guest359
            guest359 15 November 2019 14: 05 New
            -7
            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. Vlad.by
              Vlad.by 18 November 2019 18: 10 New
              +2
              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. Nycomed
        Nycomed 15 November 2019 07: 27 New
        -5
        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. Dooplet11
        Dooplet11 15 November 2019 09: 29 New
        -3
        In the context of the "influence on the development and purchase" of anti-aircraft artillery, the Su-25 was no more influential than the A-10 or attack helicopters. So the presence of Su-25 in the rating of "influenced" is far-fetched.
      4. Dooplet11
        Dooplet11 15 November 2019 10: 04 New
        +7
        A-10 is not better than Su-25.
        - So it seems that the rating is not about "better", but about "changed the world"? What are we arguing about?
    3. Civil
      Civil 15 November 2019 07: 45 New
      -3
      And what, there is nothing about the Tornado, Gripeny and all sorts of Mirages with Jaguars.
    4. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 15 November 2019 07: 49 New
      +10
      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
      5-9 15 November 2019 07: 56 New
      +6
      Phantom II was in the original American version of the top 10. A-10 the better as an anti-tank attack aircraft? A monstrous gun that didn’t penetrate Soviet tanks? "Coloring book for pilots A-10" - have you seen? :))) Well, then the Mayveriki screwed it on and began to use it as F-16 ... and why is it needed then?
      1. Nycomed
        Nycomed 15 November 2019 08: 26 New
        -10
        "which did not penetrate Soviet tanks?"
        Maybe it didn’t always penetrate, but the blow to the tank was so strong that it caused detonation of the ammunition (see the initial velocity of the A-10 cannon shell). It was good for them to test on what, the Arabs “gave” so much Soviet armored vehicles to Israel, and those kindly shared it with the States.
        1. 5-9
          5-9 15 November 2019 09: 13 New
          +9
          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. Jack O'Neill
        Jack O'Neill 15 November 2019 08: 52 New
        -14
        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 gun that didn’t penetrate Soviet tanks? "Coloring book for pilots A-10" - have you seen? :))) Well, then the Mayveriki screwed it to it and began to use it as F-16 ... and why is it needed then?

        I wrote to another person above.
        And yes, A-65A originally had AGM-10.)
      3. guest359
        guest359 15 November 2019 14: 08 New
        0
        Quote: 5-9
        A monstrous gun that didn’t penetrate Soviet tanks?

        laughing
    6. Grossvater
      Grossvater 15 November 2019 10: 25 New
      0
      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. av58
      av58 15 November 2019 13: 17 New
      +4
      Balalaika and F2 can not be compared, different planes for different tasks. The A10 is a good aircraft, but there is no reason to call it the "best anti-tank attack aircraft," there simply is no basis for comparison.
    8. Vlad.by
      Vlad.by 15 November 2019 14: 26 New
      +3
      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. Observer2014
      Observer2014 16 November 2019 10: 21 New
      -2
      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. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 17 November 2019 00: 15 New
      -2
      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. Crimean partisan 1974
      Crimean partisan 1974 23 November 2019 12: 33 New
      +2
      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. Jerk
    Jerk 15 November 2019 06: 30 New
    0
    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. Nycomed
    Nycomed 15 November 2019 06: 31 New
    +1
    Somewhat messy, of course, but somewhere and rightly. The only thing is that nothing is said about the F-111 and A-10.
    1. novel66
      novel66 15 November 2019 08: 43 New
      +3
      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. Nycomed
        Nycomed 15 November 2019 22: 25 New
        0
        If you mean the Su-24, then the answer was not very "mirror". hi
        1. novel66
          novel66 16 November 2019 09: 49 New
          +1
          well close ... in general
  4. Ka-52
    Ka-52 15 November 2019 06: 42 New
    +8
    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. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins 15 November 2019 08: 06 New
      -3
      Apparently from the great “shame” at the end of the last century to the present times, the phrase “STELS technology” has firmly entered our lives. With an eye on it, new aircraft, ships, and even tanks are being designed. And the radar takes into account the possibility of detecting "invisibility".
  5. Pessimist22
    Pessimist22 15 November 2019 06: 44 New
    0
    A10 why not?
  6. tesser
    tesser 15 November 2019 06: 56 New
    -9
    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 is the answer rather B-36. The phrase about "bombs against missiles" speaks only about the illiteracy of the author. Oh, and missiles for the B-52 sawn in abundance.

    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. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 15 November 2019 07: 55 New
      +8
      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. tesser
        tesser 15 November 2019 08: 08 New
        -6
        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
      5-9 15 November 2019 08: 06 New
      +11
      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. tesser
        tesser 15 November 2019 08: 13 New
        -9
        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 the "revolutionism" of the Soviet military-industrial complex.
        1. 5-9
          5-9 15 November 2019 09: 17 New
          +6
          The phantom in general “by chance” became successful, massive and epoch-making. He was the decker initially, was considered as a checkpoint, they were waiting for the F-111 prodigy, but did not take off. And USEF ordered the hundredth series for themselves, 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. Nycomed
            Nycomed 15 November 2019 09: 49 New
            -4
            Do not write nonsense. “Phantom” was conceived even when the question of “Ardwark” was not even at all.
            1. 5-9
              5-9 15 November 2019 12: 15 New
              +3
              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. Nycomed
                Nycomed 15 November 2019 22: 08 New
                0
                F-111 is the brainchild of Mak Namara, who, for some reason, believed that one type of aircraft could cover all the needs of the Navy and Air Force. He was mistaken, if even success came, then the F-111B would become a good deck "bomber", but nothing more. But the F-4 Phantom-2 became, in fact, a real multi-role fighter for the Navy, Air Force, KMP and even worked in the US air defense system. Therefore, it is also not clear to me why the Author bypassed this wonderful plane.
    3. Dooplet11
      Dooplet11 15 November 2019 09: 34 New
      +4
      So this is a rating for the sake of rating.
  7. Zeev Zeev
    Zeev Zeev 15 November 2019 07: 28 New
    -6
    Just one question - were the pilots of the 2nd squadron 135 fighter regiment also bad? After all, they had the MiG-21, and they were opposed by Mirages (for some reason, not included in the rating) and Phantoms.
    1. Grossvater
      Grossvater 15 November 2019 10: 29 New
      +5
      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. Nycomed
        Nycomed 15 November 2019 22: 22 New
        0
        You are absolutely right, the “Phantom” “pair” in the USSR was never found. And the MiG-21 pair could be Mirage-3 or F-5.
      2. sergevl
        sergevl 12 December 2019 22: 40 New
        0
        "Pair" phantom in case of conflict with the USSR su-15.
        According to the functionality of the pair, he is 23 seconds.
  8. maden.usmanow
    maden.usmanow 15 November 2019 07: 40 New
    +1
    Do not put Phantom ... well, I don’t know.
  9. Professor
    Professor 15 November 2019 08: 21 New
    -2
    Roma, And where is the flying wing of the B-2? Aircraft with variable wing geometry?
  10. Thunderbolt
    Thunderbolt 15 November 2019 08: 21 New
    +1
    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. dgonni
    dgonni 15 November 2019 08: 22 New
    -1
    Where is the Ta-183? After all, he laid the aerodynamic scheme on which the instant 15 and the Saber were based!
  12. K-50
    K-50 15 November 2019 08: 31 New
    -1
    Is it possible to drop at least one of the planes from the list?

    If only to add, "Warthog". what
  13. Dooplet11
    Dooplet11 15 November 2019 09: 25 New
    +4
    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 dramatically changed Harrier, Eagle and Su-27 in the tactics of air warfare? The formula "Speed-maneuver-fire" is a thing of the past?
    Again dubious rating on dubious arguments. Article minus.
    1. Snakebyte
      Snakebyte 15 November 2019 11: 08 New
      +2
      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, gyroscopes and PPC among Americans appeared in WWII, but I agree with the conclusion. New principles - this is the advent of the URVV. Especially medium and long range with radar guidance. And ph just appears "Phantom". 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 pull in a new basing tactics. The F-15 is the first 4th generation fighter, with an emphasis on maneuverable combat. Actually, this couple somehow claims to be “changed”. The rest is an amateurish collection from the series "the author likes them." There is no desire to disassemble in detail.
      1. Dooplet11
        Dooplet11 15 November 2019 12: 16 New
        -1
        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 pair of MiG-Sabers can still be mistakenly mistaken for "having changed the world." URVV, - yes, a step. But the next one. hi
  14. Dooplet11
    Dooplet11 15 November 2019 10: 10 New
    +2
    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 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 birthplace of elephants." The Soviet aircraft design school was better in some ways, worse in some ways, and at certain time intervals (it was sad ).
  15. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 15 November 2019 11: 06 New
    +2
    However, T-95 missiles against B-52 bombs - it's hard to say who will find it easier.

    Ahem ... actually, the "half-and-a-half" nowadays is the only missile carrier of the SAK.
    And, EMNIP, Tu-95MS on the internal suspension carries 6 missiles against 8 in the B-52N.
  16. Ostup bender
    Ostup bender 15 November 2019 11: 15 New
    +1
    So-so article.
    Like a conversation between two taxi drivers in the parking lot, in between orders.
    "All these F-22s will not be!" laughing laughing laughing
  17. Tamek
    Tamek 15 November 2019 11: 34 New
    +2
    But if the name is "who changed", then how can you not insert the f-111 and f-117?
  18. Tamek
    Tamek 15 November 2019 11: 53 New
    0
    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. lucul
    lucul 15 November 2019 13: 09 New
    -6
    The same feeling - when the author of the article is much more competent than commentators))))
    The phrases “why is there a MiG-21, but there’s no 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. Dooplet11
      Dooplet11 15 November 2019 14: 46 New
      0
      You are being fooled. Apparently, something is missing. Like 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 are there MiG-21, but there is no Phantom, are especially touching?"
      But why is it “touching” if, as an argument for being in the “rating” of the MiG-21, is it precisely what made it return the gun to the fighter? But many people think that it was a MiG-17.
      Just like the era before Me.109 and after
      Bf-109 "LOSED SKY." Both in the West and in the East. Mythic in this regard.
      1. lucul
        lucul 15 November 2019 15: 44 New
        +1
        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. Dooplet11
          Dooplet11 15 November 2019 15: 50 New
          +1
          you always judge by form, not by content
          laughing Again, feelings are deceiving you. My claim is just to 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 were brought from the problems of aviation to Great Russian chauvinism speaks volumes. Apparently, with arguments related to aviation you do not have much ...
          1. lucul
            lucul 15 November 2019 16: 14 New
            +1
            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.
            My claim is just to the content of the "rating"

            That feeling when the concept of content is not familiar to you.
            1. Dooplet11
              Dooplet11 15 November 2019 17: 44 New
              +1
              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 moved from aviation to the "national question"?
              1. lucul
                lucul 15 November 2019 17: 53 New
                0
                that is why you moved from aviation to the "national issue"

                And what directly does the paduchka take from the national question? ))))
                1. Dooplet11
                  Dooplet11 15 November 2019 17: 57 New
                  +2
                  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. lucul
                    lucul 15 November 2019 18: 08 New
                    0
                    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. Dooplet11
                      Dooplet11 15 November 2019 18: 14 New
                      +1
                      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. lucul
                        lucul 15 November 2019 18: 16 New
                        0
                        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. Dooplet11
                        Dooplet11 15 November 2019 18: 41 New
                        +1
                        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. lucul
                        lucul 15 November 2019 18: 42 New
                        0
                        Angular velocity is maneuverability

                        Angular speed is controllability))))
                      4. Dooplet11
                        Dooplet11 15 November 2019 19: 22 New
                        +1
                        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. lucul
                        lucul 15 November 2019 19: 29 New
                        -1
                        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 KINEMATICS.
                      6. Dooplet11
                        Dooplet11 16 November 2019 07: 20 New
                        0
                        They didn’t google it for nothing. This is about maneuverability and handling:

                        This is about the barrel, "which does not lead to a change in its position in space":

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

    Which of the MiG-21? And then the “twenty-first” modifications - like the An-12. smile
    1. lucul
      lucul 15 November 2019 15: 47 New
      -1
      Which of the 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. verp19
        verp19 15 November 2019 16: 58 New
        +1
        Quote: lucul
        You read the reviews of American pilots who managed to fly on the MiG-21 ....


        Joke "How is the MiG-21 derived from a corkscrew? Shovel." And another pilot wrote that before the MiG-21PF, pilots' gloves were wiped from the constant rotation of the trimers.
        1. lucul
          lucul 15 November 2019 17: 51 New
          -2
          Joke "How is the MiG-21 derived from a corkscrew? Shovel." And another pilot wrote that before 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. Dooplet11
            Dooplet11 15 November 2019 18: 01 New
            0
            There are no words ....
            Enlighten:

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

              Do you distinguish maneuverability from handling? Teoreteg?
              1. Dooplet11
                Dooplet11 15 November 2019 18: 12 New
                +2
                Definitely distinguish. Therefore, he wrote that the controllability of the MiG-21 is comparable to the Phantom and the Mirage.
                1. lucul
                  lucul 15 November 2019 18: 13 New
                  0
                  . 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. Dooplet11
                    Dooplet11 15 November 2019 18: 27 New
                    +3
                    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. lucul
                      lucul 15 November 2019 18: 41 New
                      0
                      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 roll speed was often more important than the turning radius, because it allowed you to quickly change the direction of flight.” This is a situation where the enemy fighter is already “hanging on its tail” and is preparing to open fire. Moreover, it is the ability to quickly roll and "leave the track" determines the survival of the attacked aircraft. "
                    2. Dooplet11
                      Dooplet11 15 November 2019 18: 47 New
                      +2
                      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. lucul
                      lucul 15 November 2019 18: 51 New
                      -2
                      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. Dooplet11
                      Dooplet11 15 November 2019 19: 15 New
                      +1
                      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. Dooplet11
                      Dooplet11 16 November 2019 14: 25 New
                      +1
                      Here is an article on VO where everything is chewed
                      https://topwar.ru/63394-mig-21-boec-bez-pravil.html
                      - Has Kaptsov long ago become a “guru” in matters of aerodynamics? But if he is a "guru" for you, - it is not surprising that you have a mix of maneuverability and controllability. Learn from Kaptsov further.
    2. verp19
      verp19 18 November 2019 10: 14 New
      0
      Quote: lucul
      There are no words ....
      Enlighten:

      You were asked - which version of the MiG? Gone from the answer.
  • Dooplet11
    Dooplet11 15 November 2019 15: 55 New
    +2
    Colleague, this is a question "not for nothing." You also ask lucul for a diagram like this for proof:

    I'm afraid he will ask: "Oh, what is this?"
    1. lucul
      lucul 15 November 2019 16: 16 New
      -2
      Colleague, this is a question "not for nothing." You also ask lucul for a diagram like this for proof:

      Aha-aha teoreteg - roll control. Do you know such an indicator? )
      Or didn’t this happen in your Haifa? )))
      1. Dooplet11
        Dooplet11 15 November 2019 17: 45 New
        +1
        Aha-aha teoreteg - roll control. Do you know such an indicator? )
        Or didn’t this happen in your Haifa? )))
        - We have been through a lot at the MAI. And we were given an understanding of the differences between handling and maneuverability. By the way, there are also understanding people in Haifa. Otherwise, Mirages with MiGs would not spin on Sinai on equal terms. wink
        1. lucul
          lucul 15 November 2019 18: 12 New
          -6
          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. Dooplet11
            Dooplet11 15 November 2019 18: 19 New
            +3
            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. Sasha_rulevoy
            Sasha_rulevoy 17 November 2019 00: 12 New
            +1
            Quote: lucul
            MiG-21 butchered the Phantom as a kitten, if of course he could drag him into close combat.


            Lieutenant Randall Cunningham, flying an F-4J, met two MiG-19s flying at ultra-low altitude on January 1972, 21. In an air battle, one Mig was shot down, the second managed to escape. On May 8, 1972, Randy and his wingman met a link from three MiG-17s. While two MiGs fired at his wingman, Randy got into the tail of the third and shot him down with the Sidewinder rocket. The other two immediately left the battlefield. Two days later, Cunningham participated in a mass raid on Hanoi, his task was to suppress air defense. The armament of the aircraft - two "Shrike" and four "Sidewinder". The Americans were attacked by large forces of the Vietnamese - 22 MiG-17. In the beginning 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 in one gulp of two Sidewinders. The squadron commander gave the command to leave the battle and return home. On his way home already over the sea, Randy, left alone, met a single MiG-17. At counter courses, the planes missed each other. In the near “carousel”, which lasted four minutes, Randall managed to get into the tail of Migu and knock him down with the last Sidewinder. Soon, Randall's plane was also shot down by an anti-aircraft missile. Both pilots safely ejected and were lifted from the water by a rescue helicopter.

            After the war, Randall Cunningham commanded an “enemy” squadron at a training base. He was later elected a senator. As a senator, he received a “kickback” from a company that supplied software to the US Army in the amount of 630 thousand dollars. He was arrested and spent eight years in prison from 2005 to 2013.
            1. Crimean partisan 1974
              Crimean partisan 1974 23 November 2019 15: 10 New
              +1
              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
  • pavelty
    pavelty 15 November 2019 14: 01 New
    +4
    "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." What is this nonsense written? US aircraft manufacturing and ours is a completely different story ...
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 15 November 2019 15: 58 New
      +2
      Quote: pavlentiy
      "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." What is this nonsense written? US aircraft manufacturing 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.
  • mmaxx
    mmaxx 15 November 2019 14: 52 New
    0
    MIG-21 is clearly praised. And F-4 did not get on the list.
  • iouris
    iouris 15 November 2019 15: 10 New
    +2
    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. tesser
      tesser 16 November 2019 11: 40 New
      0
      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. Good_Anonymous
      Good_Anonymous 16 November 2019 12: 27 New
      -1
      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. iouris
        iouris 16 November 2019 12: 50 New
        0
        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. Dooplet11
          Dooplet11 16 November 2019 14: 29 New
          +1
          You, a colleague, forgot to focus: "lagged behind technologically for 40-50 years. "In the field of aircraft design or in the field of aerodynamics, such assessments will not pass. hi
        2. Good_Anonymous
          Good_Anonymous 16 November 2019 20: 05 New
          -1
          Quote: iouris
          Interestingly, what personal relationship do you have with aviation?


          Only glue planes.
  • Earthshaker
    Earthshaker 15 November 2019 15: 45 New
    +1
    It would be worth mentioning at least one aircraft with variable sweep, the F-111 is desirable - because the first.
    1. Dooplet11
      Dooplet11 15 November 2019 15: 59 New
      0
      Variable sweep is a variant of wing mechanization. Just “one of” to increase the range of available speeds.
    2. Charik
      Charik 15 November 2019 17: 47 New
      0
      But is the Su24 not a crease too?
  • 7,62h54
    7,62h54 15 November 2019 16: 35 New
    +3
    Did not like. Some kind of digest, with a focus on the personal preferences of the author.
  • Charik
    Charik 15 November 2019 17: 33 New
    0
    MIG 25-here is the "ROCKET" -only a little carried weapons
  • 501Legion
    501Legion 15 November 2019 19: 16 New
    0
    class work
  • BAI
    BAI 15 November 2019 19: 26 New
    0
    One short question that the site simply does not allow to ask:
    "F-16 where?"
    No need to answer the rhyme.
    1. Nenie Lynn
      Nenie Lynn 16 November 2019 03: 54 New
      +1
      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
  • lopuhan2006
    lopuhan2006 15 November 2019 22: 02 New
    -1
    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?
  • Sasha_rulevoy
    Sasha_rulevoy 15 November 2019 22: 36 New
    -1
    At one time, Maxim Kalashnikov ridiculed the Phantom against the background of the MiG-21. Hee hee hee, is it not foolish to understand that just a fighter in an air battle will be stronger than a fighter-bomber. Everything is clear to the fool, only after the Phantom the fighters simply stopped building, and all subsequent ones became fighter-bombers, capable of delivering strikes against 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 possibility of using medium-range missiles, TV and L UABs and missiles in-w. In addition, many aircraft are twin-engine and have two crew members. Including The Su-30, Su-34, MiG-35, F-15E, F / A-18D and F are essentially the heirs of the Phantom. But the MiG-21, for all its merits, completed the evolution of the "flying tubes." MiG-21 and Phantom are, roughly speaking, both the “Andrew the First-Called” and the “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 a plane that changed the air war, then definitely Phantom, and remove the MiG-21.
    1. mmaxx
      mmaxx 20 November 2019 16: 18 New
      +1
      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. Crimean partisan 1974
        Crimean partisan 1974 23 November 2019 16: 18 New
        +2
        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. mmaxx
          mmaxx 24 November 2019 09: 35 New
          0
          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. Crimean partisan 1974
            Crimean partisan 1974 24 November 2019 10: 11 New
            0
            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. Crimean partisan 1974
      Crimean partisan 1974 23 November 2019 15: 43 New
      +2
      But the MiG-21, with all its merits, completed the evolution of “flying pipes” ........ about flying pipes this is true, but there’s only interesting things, this flying pipe was produced in an amount of about 12 thousand, more than 2000 more copies, but they made phantoms a bit over 5 thousand, phantoms wherever and wherever, the flying pipes of the MiG-21 are still in service, and are not going to the dump
      1. mmaxx
        mmaxx 24 November 2019 09: 31 New
        0
        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 of our “phantoms” were being built there, they forget that they did not do the main work. And much older planes.
        1. Crimean partisan 1974
          Crimean partisan 1974 24 November 2019 09: 53 New
          0
          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. mmaxx
            mmaxx 24 November 2019 11: 08 New
            0
            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. Crimean partisan 1974
              Crimean partisan 1974 24 November 2019 12: 22 New
              0
              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. mmaxx
                mmaxx 24 November 2019 15: 37 New
                0
                Well, here, for example:
                http://testpilot.ru/review/runway/volga/volga_xvi.htm
                The first one.
                1. mmaxx
                  mmaxx 24 November 2019 15: 44 New
                  0
                  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. Crimean partisan 1974
                  Crimean partisan 1974 24 November 2019 15: 55 New
                  0
                  well, for example: .... this is not an example, but a narration from an unknown person, I can even fantasize myself, especially laughed "but the angle of the goal steadily increased and the" enemy "appeared in my tail in a couple of minutes" " what an idiot it is to use a plane with a wing load of 500 kg per m squared in the tail with 400 kg per meter squared on your machine.
                  1. mmaxx
                    mmaxx 24 November 2019 15: 57 New
                    0
                    Write your own. By numbers.
                    The author, it seems like it is not known who. The name, surname is.
                  2. mmaxx
                    mmaxx 24 November 2019 16: 04 New
                    0
                    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 volume of the State (for our types of aircraft). Flew N. Stogov, A. Bezhevets, V. Kondaurov. They (GI) consisted of two parts: evaluation of the aircraft performance characteristics and comparative evaluation. Moreover, at the stage of comparative assessment (air battles), each of the pilots took turns in turn on the MiG-21bis and MiG-23M and fought with the F-5E (and vice versa). The superiority in maneuverability (on M less than 0,85) of the F-5E was provided by deflectable wing socks (which was not the case with the rivals), due to the Cyp. At these speeds, the aircraft sooner comes to a limit on the angle of attack than a limit on overload. At higher speeds, the advantage passed to the MiG-23M, due to the best acceleration characteristics and thrust-weight ratio. Based on the test results, work began on introducing deviation of wing socks 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 by inertia. Shorter turnaround time and radius, better acceleration performance. With F-5E weapons (guns and SD md), the main problem is getting into the scope of use of weapons. And if at M less than 0,85 he coped with this (at the second turn he went into this same AFP on the 21st and 23rd), then at higher speeds he couldn’t do anything. And they "had" it already 21 (to a lesser extent) and (to a greater extent) the 23rd. By the way, according to the general assessment of combat effectiveness, it was still the 23rd that proved to be better (due to the possibility of working in the teaching staff, under 4/4 and in the Federal Law). Indeed, when evaluating it, everything is taken into account: from the time of entering the RP and the beginning of the battle to exit it. But the loss in the BMW and then greatly strained the leadership of the Air Force.
                    ... because V. Kandaurov’s book doesn’t say a word that our MIGs won at least one battle against F-5E. Neither the 21st nor the 23rd. If you want, I can upload a scan of this page. The same thing, in one of the films for \ with "Wings of Russia" (I have it), 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.
                    You don’t have to upload it, I have a book, and I personally know Kondaurov as well. Vladimir Nikolaevich in his book omitted some details, and wrote EXCLUSIVELY about the assessment at the Moscow Interbank Currency Exchange. This was a revelation to our designers and testers. And it also opened eyes to the imperfection of the comparative assessment methodology, based on a comparison of ONLY energy characteristics. According to the Act, at speeds greater than M 0.85 (there the mechanization of the leading edge on the F-5E was turned off), the situation was as I wrote to you. Leonid Stepanovich, with all due respect to him, was not a participant in those tests, but undoubtedly he saw the recommendations of the GNIKI. I wrote about this above - the results were sent to all interested organizations (including the MiG Design Bureau) for use in work.
                    1. Crimean partisan 1974
                      Crimean partisan 1974 24 November 2019 16: 21 New
                      +1
                      (on M less than 0,85) ...... my friend, on M less than about 85 this is fighting in Korea, the tactics of conducting air battles have changed dramatically during this time, even seven spans in the forehead do not need to figure out what Tiger is against 21 is like our “donkey” against the Messer -109 mode in the Second World War, therefore the tiger was only able to burn non-military depots and other military objects. and settlements and fodder reserves of the civilian population, forget you are soaring about a tiger, not a senile cap
                      1. mmaxx
                        mmaxx 24 November 2019 16: 49 New
                        +1
                        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. Crimean partisan 1974
                        Crimean partisan 1974 24 November 2019 19: 39 New
                        +1
                        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. mmaxx
              mmaxx 24 November 2019 15: 55 New
              0
              The second one:
              https://topwar.ru/40987-vtoroe-dyhanie-istrebitelya-f-5.html
              Not like a bad plane in any way. Airplane soldier.
              1. Crimean partisan 1974
                Crimean partisan 1974 24 November 2019 16: 01 New
                0
                Not like a bad plane in any way. The soldier plane ....... even more amused "F-5, shot down in December from small arms." it’ll fly away, I don’t remember that in general any reagent was shot down from small arms, thanks. I am delighted
                1. mmaxx
                  mmaxx 24 November 2019 16: 10 New
                  0
                  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. Crimean partisan 1974
                    Crimean partisan 1974 24 November 2019 16: 33 New
                    0
                    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. mmaxx
                      mmaxx 24 November 2019 16: 45 New
                      0
                      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. Crimean partisan 1974
                      Crimean partisan 1974 24 November 2019 19: 28 New
                      +1
                      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. mmaxx
                      mmaxx 25 November 2019 01: 08 New
                      0
                      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. Crimean partisan 1974
                      Crimean partisan 1974 25 November 2019 07: 59 New
                      0
                      Like the lanterns of the Su-25 .......... why are you so inattentive, I literally printed "the lantern of the cockpit of the Su-25 yong will not break through on the fly," along the way you need to enlighten everything, firstly the height it will even allow you to see the lamp of a flying Su-25 and not only, secondly, shooting at a target flying at a speed of 400 meters per second is another task, the time of effective shooting is no more than 2 seconds, so tie up fables about the lamp of the Su-25
                    5. mmaxx
                      mmaxx 25 November 2019 08: 43 New
                      0
                      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. Crimean partisan 1974
                      Crimean partisan 1974 25 November 2019 08: 53 New
                      0
                      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?
  • Good_Anonymous
    Good_Anonymous 16 November 2019 12: 15 New
    0
    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.
  • certero
    certero 16 November 2019 13: 52 New
    0
    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
  • 16112014nk
    16112014nk 16 November 2019 20: 03 New
    0
    Tu-95 ... I didn’t see nuclear charges at all.
    But what about AN602 (Tsar is a bomb)?
  • aleev1957
    aleev1957 23 November 2019 12: 46 New
    -1
    Why fly 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 deep 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 freed from unnecessary slag, add pure liquefied oxygen to the solarium. Inject it until the pressure normalizes with the external environment. This production can be applied to missiles of any liquid type. And then "White Swan" will be "White Lightning !!!"
  • Gissar4537
    Gissar4537 25 January 2020 16: 50 New
    0
    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!