By: martinez
- 28th November 2006 at 09:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Which would be a particularly useful advantage, given the NVA propensity to try and hit them with SA-2s. There's one hilarious snapshot from a Vigi that actually shows clear as day an SA-2 that was fired at the jet whizzing by underneath it.
however it did not help much, from link " 18 RA-5Cs were lost in combat during the war, giving it the highest loss rate of any Navy aircraft in the conflict. 13 Vigilantes were shot down by flak, two were shot down by SAMs, one was shot down by a MiG-21, and the other two were lost to unknown causes over enemy territory."
I recomend to read at least that web page. According to that site the Vigilante has been rather a pain in the a$$ than an exceptional fighter/bomber/recon platform. The problems mainly caused by technical imperfections and maintenance issues. On the other side I agree the Vigilante being advanced in some areas (aerodynamics, FCS, electronic equipment) considering the time period. Personally, I admire the Vigi too. ;)
Mikoyan was impressed enough with it that he told his designers to use it as a starting point when developing the Mig-25.
Well, Harry Hillaker the father of the F-16 was impressed with Mikoyan`s test bed the Ye-8 and based the whole conceptual design of lightweight fighter on it. But I assume you have heard of that already.
By: martinez
- 28th November 2006 at 09:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So, all stupid except for the glorious Sukhoi engineers
When I said that smartiee??? why being so abrupt?? :eek: you simply never admit that soviets did something better.
I maybe suggest to read a couple of lines on flight control, a field that evolved as major factor from the 70s on.
so, what you have on mind? the sukhoi not able to build a FBW aircraft and design an unstable aircraft in seventies??? :D I suggest to read couple of lines on FBW in soviet union.
They rather went to better aerodynamic concepts (more CL max, more stability), but with a price in terms of weight and drag.
Again, as I told many times before you should stop express your self on what you do not understand. The quality of aerodynamic concepts also depends on the flight control system used.(more CL, more stability). The Su-27 would not be that unique without having the FBW. Try to figure out how the FBW is helping to better the L/D for example. :rolleyes:
New
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297
- 28th November 2006 at 10:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But please note Su-27 weight almost double the Rafale's weight. So when two Rafales fly in close formation you have a double-seat fighter bomber that is comparable in empty weight to the Su-34.
I get the point. But it is somewhat a distant logic for me to look on fighters using $ per kilogram comparison tables. The fact is that for two Rafales flying in close formation you need two experienced pilots.. four engines to maintain and feed.. two airframes to construct.. two radars.. two RWR sets... 2x4 FBW sets.. 2x4 wheels and tyres.. etc.. It is definitely not the same.. not speaking about price tag of two Rafales compared to one Su-34.
It is logical that a larger design provides much more room for adaptability. But then, no one forced French to develop Rafale so small - well maybe except for their own Navy.. They still could have designed the Raffie with 30 tons of empty weight if they really wanted to..
New
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297
- 28th November 2006 at 10:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
flex,
the story about the MiG-25 and the A-5 is quite popular, probably because it fits the prejudice that Russians were unable to develop anything useful on their own. I guess Mikoyan started with a clean sheet when we got the assignment to make a Mach 3 interceptor. The Vigilante used some very useful concepts, especially the air intakes. No Soviet fighter had similar intakes, their technology was not able to deliver the performance needed. The Vigilante was an inspiration, but that's it. You cannot design an aircraft from the visual impression you got from an airshow. But as design engineer you are well of if you use the things other people use. If the Americans build an aircraft that big and capable of Mach 2.3, it is a useful basis.
Often in technology the guy who has the first idea is credited most honor. I actually think that the design work that follows is much more demanding than having an idea. Most "ideas" get shelved and nobody hears of it any more. The problems the MiG-25 got were for real and they were tough. MiG solved them without looking at the A-5. Even if he copied the general arrangement from the A-5, that doesn't make his work any less honorable.
Exactly my point, Schorsch. It is logical that a design engineer pays attention to what is being done all over the world, what's wrong with that? I am sure that people designing F-4 Phantom II were exactly aware of all Russian and European contemporary designs existing at that time, but I haven't seen a single individual here claiming the Phantom bein a rip-off.
I mean, if it's that simple to throw a look at Vigi and that was it, why doesn't Slovakia reproduce simplified F-35s today? I got a model kit of the thing, that should be more than sufficient to start with, don't you think? :p
New
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297
- 28th November 2006 at 10:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
however it did not help much, from link " 18 RA-5Cs were lost in combat during the war, giving it the highest loss rate of any Navy aircraft in the conflict. 13 Vigilantes were shot down by flak, two were shot down by SAMs, one was shot down by a MiG-21, and the other two were lost to unknown causes over enemy territory."
I recomend to read at least that web page. According to that site the Vigilante has been rather a pain in the a$$ than an exceptional fighter/bomber/recon platform. The problems mainly caused by technical imperfections and maintenance issues. On the other side I agree the Vigilante being advanced in some areas (aerodynamics, FCS, electronic equipment) considering the time period. Personally, I admire the Vigi too. ;)
As already mentioned, maintenance problems are not related to aerodynamics. But often overseen is the fact that exactly the aerodynamics of the Vigi made the bird one of the worst photo recon platforms available at that time. Yes, preparing the RA-5C for the task was one pain in the a$$, surviving the mission another one, but once returned, it still more than often delivered undesirable quality photos, a pain in the a$$ for the recognition teams on the ground. So what kind of exceptional aircraft are we talking about here? Was there something Vigi could really do right, except impressing the crews by its size and out-accelerating the escorting Phantoms? BTW, really big deal, the latter mentioned the RF-4 could do almost exactly as well.
Well, Harry Hillaker the father of the F-16 was impressed with Mikoyan`s test bed the Ye-8 and based the whole conceptual design of lightweight fighter on it. But I assume you have heard of that already. M
Don't bother.. The Ye-8 was nothing but just a rip-off of some American design, anyway.. :p
Do you have any proof that they are not producing a simplified F-35? A simple link which reads " Slovakia not producing F-35 " would be more then enough !! ;)
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 28th November 2006 at 11:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Which would be a particularly useful advantage, given the NVA propensity to try and hit them with SA-2s. There's one hilarious snapshot from a Vigi that actually shows clear as day an SA-2 that was fired at the jet whizzing by underneath it.
I thought the story was that someone came back from Paris and told Mikoyan to draw up an interceptor along the lines of the Vigilante? At any rate I've never seen any concrete evidence of the story, but Yefim Gordon does mention it in his Aerofax MiG-25/31 volume as a potential source of the FOXBAT's configuration.
I think the A-5 was revolutionary in the late 1950s from my point of view it was the most advanced aircraft of the entire 1950s, no other aircraft has a so modern looking layout, that is probably the reason Mikoyan decided to develop an aircraft similar to it, and the F-15 is basicly a more refined A-5 proving the aircraft was quit advanced when in the late 1950s the MiG-19 and F-86 were still operational, the aircraft indeed was quit advanced for 1958, more advanced than even the F-4 or Mirage III and far ahead of the MiG-21.
The MiG-21 line was already totaly milked, that type of aircraft with a single forward inlet with a cone shaped shock inducer intake was almost in extingtion, the MiG-21 was the best but the last of that aerodynamic fashion.
The A-5 represented the future, it represented the new lines explored in the F-14, MiG-25s and MiG-31s and in one way or other even the early draft configurations tested in the MiG-29
By: martinez
- 28th November 2006 at 12:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The story about the MiG-25 and the A-5 is quite popular, probably because it fits the prejudice that Russians were unable to develop anything useful on their own.
No, it has helped to retain your ego, thinking that you were still ahead of soviet union during that time in aerospace technology. :diablo:
I guess Mikoyan started with a clean sheet when we got the assignment to make a Mach 3 interceptor. The Vigilante used some very useful concepts, especially the air intakes. No Soviet fighter had similar intakes, their technology was not able to deliver the performance needed.
So, wedge-type inlets were the only solution to fly faster than Mach3?? Geez, anytime you write something about this, it`s even more dumber than dumbest.
Don't bother.. The Ye-8 was nothing but just a rip-off of some American design, anyway..
Are you kidding? I`d never let them to reproduce such a crap, we will produce something what is light years ahead. Mark my words, buddy. ;)
M
New
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297
- 28th November 2006 at 12:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think the A-5 was revolutionary in the late 1950s from my point of view it was the most advanced aircraft of the entire 1950s, no other aircraft has a so modern looking layout, that is probably the reason Mikoyan decided to develop an aircraft similar to it, and the F-15 is basicly a more refined A-5 proving the aircraft was quit advanced when in the late 1950s the MiG-19 and F-86 were still operational, the aircraft indeed was quit advanced for 1958, more advanced than even the F-4 or Mirage III and far ahead of the MiG-21.
The MiG-21 line was already totaly milked, that type of aircraft with a single forward inlet with a cone shaped shock inducer intake was almost in extingtion, the MiG-21 was the best but the last of that aerodynamic fashion.
The A-5 represented the future, it represented the new lines explored in the F-14, MiG-25s and MiG-31s and in one way or other even the early draft configurations tested in the MiG-29
Sure, it was a design breach.. but it wasn't a good aircraft.
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 28th November 2006 at 13:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sure, it was a design breach.. but it wasn't a good aircraft.
It depends, perhaps was not as good as other aircraft in terms of operational success but definitively was the most modern aircraft configuration the 1950s produced at least to my knowledge because i can not remember other design as revolutionary as the A-5, in fact all my life i thought this was a late 1960s design until i read about it and found it flew for the first time in 1958
By: Schorsch
- 28th November 2006 at 13:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, it has helped to retain your ego, thinking that you were still ahead of soviet union during that time in aerospace technology.
You didn't get my point, but I see that you are equally unable to do some reflection yourself. If I am a typical western moron, you are my eastern counterpart.
So, wedge-type inlets were the only solution to fly faster than Mach3?? Geez, anytime you write something about this, it`s even more dumber than dumbest.
Great, we are down to insult. I really can't take somebody serious who is unable to deliver his mighty knowledge without this childish flaming.
By the way, I never wrote that wedge-type inlets are the only way to fly faster than Mach 3. Actually the only real Mach 3 aircraft used conical inlets (Blackbird), which was the preferred option for the Soviets at that time (see MiG-21 and early Sukhois).
By: martinez
- 28th November 2006 at 14:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If I am a typical western moron, you are my eastern counterpart.
yeahh, a typical behaviour of yours, nice to meet you again, anyway. I didn`t start insulting, you did first.
Great, we are down to insult. I really can't take somebody serious who is unable to deliver his mighty knowledge without this childish flaming.
You`ve said.... "The Vigilante used some very useful concepts, especially the air intakes. [B]No Soviet fighter had similar intakes, their technology was not able to deliver the performance needed." [/B]
I suppose you`ve started to talk the "inlet performance", so I asked whether the wedge-type inlet used on Vigilante had been the only one solution to achieve inlet performance for Mach3. I see you already figured it by your self that it is not dependant on it, but what "lacking" performance you were talking about then?
Again, please stop talking things you do not understand, especially when comparing east vs west aviation. I`ve seen your fancy comments on soviet aircrafts on other forums, but I rather decided to leave you in it.....
By: martinez
- 28th November 2006 at 15:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The actual story is that Mikoyan came back from the 1959 Paris Airshow and told the PD section to draw up an interceptor along the lines of the Vigilante but without the all-too-complex boundary layer blowing system.
I`m currious what is the source of that story? Hmm, generally designers from military facilities were not allowed to cross the border for safety reasons, neither for bussines nor for a "stupid" vacation. That`s how it worked here during that time too.
Please correct me if I`m wrong but the boundary layer blowing system called in the Udssr the SPS(systema sduva pogranicnogo sloja) has been installed on Mig-21PF since 1958. Thanks.
By: martinez
- 28th November 2006 at 17:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But often overseen is the fact that exactly the aerodynamics of the Vigi made the bird one of the worst photo recon platforms available at that time.
Hey Flex, could you elaborate on this one please. I`m not sure what you had in mind. What`s wrong with VIGI aerodynamics concept that rendered it useless as a recon platform? The Mig-25 is almost the same. :confused:
By: aerospacetech
- 28th November 2006 at 19:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I`m currious what is the source of that story? Hmm, generally designers from military facilities were not allowed to cross the border for safety reasons, neither for bussines nor for a "stupid" vacation. That`s how it worked here during that time too.
Please correct me if I`m wrong but the boundary layer blowing system called in the Udssr the SPS(systema sduva pogranicnogo sloja) has been installed on Mig-21PF since 1958. Thanks.
It was quoted by Yefim Gordon. I don't know if its true or not, but why wouldn't it be?
As to boundary layer blowing - well, it would make sense to the comment if Mikoyan had first hand experience of the complexity of a SPS system.
By: martinez
- 28th November 2006 at 19:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It was quoted by Yefim Gordon. I don't know if its true or not, but why wouldn't it be?
Hmm, maybe one of his anecdotes to inspire the book, full of inaccurate technical knowledge on the soviet aircraft. ;) What else can one expect from a Russian Jew?
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 29th November 2006 at 02:08Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You didn't get my point, but I see that you are equally unable to do some reflection yourself. If I am a typical western moron, you are my eastern counterpart.
Great, we are down to insult. I really can't take somebody serious who is unable to deliver his mighty knowledge without this childish flaming.
By the way, I never wrote that wedge-type inlets are the only way to fly faster than Mach 3. Actually the only real Mach 3 aircraft used conical inlets (Blackbird), which was the preferred option for the Soviets at that time (see MiG-21 and early Sukhois).
The question is not the US or the USSR were on top undoutedly there were times when the Russiasn were ahead and when the americans were ahead.
The Russian aircraft design has been hampered mostly by financing since the late 1980s and in many ways the total fragmentation the Soviet Union military complex.
Some Russian aircraft have been quit successful, the MiG-21 is an example, when we rank an aircraft we see how advanced was and how succesful was in operational service.
The US had some aircaft that were very advanced, but no aircraft is perfect there is always room for improvement, the Russians were the same.
By: SOC
- 29th November 2006 at 04:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Russian aircraft design has been hampered mostly by financing since the late 1980s
The real thing that hampered Russia's military design bureaus was Stalin's lack of enthusiasm for computer systems. That set them back in so many areas. Gotta credit them for closing the gap and even taking the lead in some areas though.
Posts: 1,189
By: martinez - 28th November 2006 at 09:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
however it did not help much, from link
" 18 RA-5Cs were lost in combat during the war, giving it the highest loss rate of any Navy aircraft in the conflict. 13 Vigilantes were shot down by flak, two were shot down by SAMs, one was shot down by a MiG-21, and the other two were lost to unknown causes over enemy territory."
I recomend to read at least that web page. According to that site the Vigilante has been rather a pain in the a$$ than an exceptional fighter/bomber/recon platform. The problems mainly caused by technical imperfections and maintenance issues. On the other side I agree the Vigilante being advanced in some areas (aerodynamics, FCS, electronic equipment) considering the time period. Personally, I admire the Vigi too. ;)
Well, Harry Hillaker the father of the F-16 was impressed with Mikoyan`s test bed the Ye-8 and based the whole conceptual design of lightweight fighter on it. But I assume you have heard of that already.
M
Posts: 1,189
By: martinez - 28th November 2006 at 09:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
When I said that smartiee??? why being so abrupt?? :eek: you simply never admit that soviets did something better.
so, what you have on mind? the sukhoi not able to build a FBW aircraft and design an unstable aircraft in seventies??? :D I suggest to read couple of lines on FBW in soviet union.
Again, as I told many times before you should stop express your self on what you do not understand. The quality of aerodynamic concepts also depends on the flight control system used.(more CL, more stability). The Su-27 would not be that unique without having the FBW. Try to figure out how the FBW is helping to better the L/D for example. :rolleyes:
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297 - 28th November 2006 at 10:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I get the point. But it is somewhat a distant logic for me to look on fighters using $ per kilogram comparison tables. The fact is that for two Rafales flying in close formation you need two experienced pilots.. four engines to maintain and feed.. two airframes to construct.. two radars.. two RWR sets... 2x4 FBW sets.. 2x4 wheels and tyres.. etc.. It is definitely not the same.. not speaking about price tag of two Rafales compared to one Su-34.
It is logical that a larger design provides much more room for adaptability. But then, no one forced French to develop Rafale so small - well maybe except for their own Navy.. They still could have designed the Raffie with 30 tons of empty weight if they really wanted to..
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297 - 28th November 2006 at 10:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Exactly my point, Schorsch. It is logical that a design engineer pays attention to what is being done all over the world, what's wrong with that? I am sure that people designing F-4 Phantom II were exactly aware of all Russian and European contemporary designs existing at that time, but I haven't seen a single individual here claiming the Phantom bein a rip-off.
I mean, if it's that simple to throw a look at Vigi and that was it, why doesn't Slovakia reproduce simplified F-35s today? I got a model kit of the thing, that should be more than sufficient to start with, don't you think? :p
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297 - 28th November 2006 at 10:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As already mentioned, maintenance problems are not related to aerodynamics. But often overseen is the fact that exactly the aerodynamics of the Vigi made the bird one of the worst photo recon platforms available at that time. Yes, preparing the RA-5C for the task was one pain in the a$$, surviving the mission another one, but once returned, it still more than often delivered undesirable quality photos, a pain in the a$$ for the recognition teams on the ground. So what kind of exceptional aircraft are we talking about here? Was there something Vigi could really do right, except impressing the crews by its size and out-accelerating the escorting Phantoms? BTW, really big deal, the latter mentioned the RF-4 could do almost exactly as well. Don't bother.. The Ye-8 was nothing but just a rip-off of some American design, anyway.. :pPosts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 28th November 2006 at 11:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Do you have any proof that they are not producing a simplified F-35? A simple link which reads " Slovakia not producing F-35 " would be more then enough !! ;)
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 28th November 2006 at 11:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think the A-5 was revolutionary in the late 1950s from my point of view it was the most advanced aircraft of the entire 1950s, no other aircraft has a so modern looking layout, that is probably the reason Mikoyan decided to develop an aircraft similar to it, and the F-15 is basicly a more refined A-5 proving the aircraft was quit advanced when in the late 1950s the MiG-19 and F-86 were still operational, the aircraft indeed was quit advanced for 1958, more advanced than even the F-4 or Mirage III and far ahead of the MiG-21.
The MiG-21 line was already totaly milked, that type of aircraft with a single forward inlet with a cone shaped shock inducer intake was almost in extingtion, the MiG-21 was the best but the last of that aerodynamic fashion.
The A-5 represented the future, it represented the new lines explored in the F-14, MiG-25s and MiG-31s and in one way or other even the early draft configurations tested in the MiG-29
Posts: 1,189
By: martinez - 28th November 2006 at 12:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, it has helped to retain your ego, thinking that you were still ahead of soviet union during that time in aerospace technology. :diablo:
So, wedge-type inlets were the only solution to fly faster than Mach3?? Geez, anytime you write something about this, it`s even more dumber than dumbest.
Damn, I thought so.... :(
Are you kidding? I`d never let them to reproduce such a crap, we will produce something what is light years ahead. Mark my words, buddy. ;)
M
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297 - 28th November 2006 at 12:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sure, it was a design breach.. but it wasn't a good aircraft.
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 28th November 2006 at 13:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It depends, perhaps was not as good as other aircraft in terms of operational success but definitively was the most modern aircraft configuration the 1950s produced at least to my knowledge because i can not remember other design as revolutionary as the A-5, in fact all my life i thought this was a late 1960s design until i read about it and found it flew for the first time in 1958
Posts: 3,718
By: Schorsch - 28th November 2006 at 13:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You didn't get my point, but I see that you are equally unable to do some reflection yourself. If I am a typical western moron, you are my eastern counterpart.
Great, we are down to insult. I really can't take somebody serious who is unable to deliver his mighty knowledge without this childish flaming.
By the way, I never wrote that wedge-type inlets are the only way to fly faster than Mach 3. Actually the only real Mach 3 aircraft used conical inlets (Blackbird), which was the preferred option for the Soviets at that time (see MiG-21 and early Sukhois).
Posts: 1,189
By: martinez - 28th November 2006 at 14:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
yeahh, a typical behaviour of yours, nice to meet you again, anyway. I didn`t start insulting, you did first.
You`ve said.... "The Vigilante used some very useful concepts, especially the air intakes. [B]No Soviet fighter had similar intakes, their technology was not able to deliver the performance needed." [/B]
I suppose you`ve started to talk the "inlet performance", so I asked whether the wedge-type inlet used on Vigilante had been the only one solution to achieve inlet performance for Mach3. I see you already figured it by your self that it is not dependant on it, but what "lacking" performance you were talking about then?
Again, please stop talking things you do not understand, especially when comparing east vs west aviation. I`ve seen your fancy comments on soviet aircrafts on other forums, but I rather decided to leave you in it.....
M
Posts: 1,189
By: martinez - 28th November 2006 at 15:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I`m currious what is the source of that story? Hmm, generally designers from military facilities were not allowed to cross the border for safety reasons, neither for bussines nor for a "stupid" vacation. That`s how it worked here during that time too.Please correct me if I`m wrong but the boundary layer blowing system called in the Udssr the SPS(systema sduva pogranicnogo sloja) has been installed on Mig-21PF since 1958. Thanks.
Posts: 1,189
By: martinez - 28th November 2006 at 17:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hey Flex, could you elaborate on this one please. I`m not sure what you had in mind. What`s wrong with VIGI aerodynamics concept that rendered it useless as a recon platform? The Mig-25 is almost the same. :confused:
Posts: 12,009
By: SOC - 28th November 2006 at 19:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The RA-5C was American, duh! :D
Posts: 1,437
By: aerospacetech - 28th November 2006 at 19:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It was quoted by Yefim Gordon. I don't know if its true or not, but why wouldn't it be?
As to boundary layer blowing - well, it would make sense to the comment if Mikoyan had first hand experience of the complexity of a SPS system.
Posts: 1,189
By: martinez - 28th November 2006 at 19:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
:D ;)
Posts: 1,189
By: martinez - 28th November 2006 at 19:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hmm, maybe one of his anecdotes to inspire the book, full of inaccurate technical knowledge on the soviet aircraft. ;) What else can one expect from a Russian Jew?
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 29th November 2006 at 02:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The question is not the US or the USSR were on top undoutedly there were times when the Russiasn were ahead and when the americans were ahead.
The Russian aircraft design has been hampered mostly by financing since the late 1980s and in many ways the total fragmentation the Soviet Union military complex.
Some Russian aircraft have been quit successful, the MiG-21 is an example, when we rank an aircraft we see how advanced was and how succesful was in operational service.
The US had some aircaft that were very advanced, but no aircraft is perfect there is always room for improvement, the Russians were the same.
Posts: 12,009
By: SOC - 29th November 2006 at 04:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The real thing that hampered Russia's military design bureaus was Stalin's lack of enthusiasm for computer systems. That set them back in so many areas. Gotta credit them for closing the gap and even taking the lead in some areas though.