Why did the Soviets never make anything that was on par with

MiG-21?

>>33204680

Mig-21bis?

File: FB_IMG_1488025714951.jpg (61KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 720x960px

>>33204703
The MiG-21 doesn't really compare, being a single engine interceptor that lacks the range and carrying capacity of the Phantom. While it could be used for ground attack, it was not very stable and never got the guided AG missile capabilities the F-4 got later in its life.

>>33204723
This, nor did they ever get fitted for EW like the F-4 was.

>>33204755
Closer, but the payload and versatility is way off in comparison.

>>33204783
maybe it was Doctrine?
the russians had similar but not exact jets that could do more shit
but USA had one jet for each role that it was really good at

File: 1446549693733.jpg (454KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

454KB, 1280x853px

>>33204680
Why did the US and NATO never make anything that was on par with the Mi-24?

Nothing they ever produced during its service life was as useful or versatile as the Hind.

(hint: doctrinal differences)

>>33204680

I don't their military doctrine was so focussed on air combat to put so much effort into it.

Not to say that they would not use air combat, just that they would use it less than the US and allies would do.

Is like asking why the US doesn't have a hind equivalent or a BM-21 equivalent(the MLRS is not exactly the same, it would be like saying that putting rockets on a blackhawk makes it equal to a hind)

>>33204821
>>33204819
so yea basically this
same reason russian IFV/APCs differ so much from NATO IFVs and APCs
and why the west looks at russia IFVs like it is a faliure while russians kept using em

>>33204833
>and why the west looks at russia IFVs like it is a faliure while russians kept using em

Some mistakes are so big, that you can't simply back down when you realize about the implied costs.

I mean, mass mindless production had to have its disadvantages...

>>33204845
i understand most of the weakness of the BMP 2
but i believe it is very good for what it was made for
which is roll in fast after a arty barrage and unload loads of troops with some cover from the autocannon it was ment to be fast and not ment go toe to toe with other IFVs
i am a novice when it comes to /k/ stuff so want to see what you think as well

>>33204870

NATO never fielded any amphibious APCs except for M113 and AAVP7A1, which are nowhere near being fit for modern battlefield.

>>33205225
The USA never fielded any amphibious APCs except for M113 and AAVP7A1.
The rest of NATO did just fine in that regard.

>>33205264

there are no relevant countries in NATO except for USA.

>>33204680
because russians are retarded

File: viking-apc-beach.jpg (50KB, 600x408px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 600x408px

>>33205225
>NATO never fielded any amphibious APCs except for M113 and AAVP7A1, which are nowhere near being fit for modern battlefield.

>>33204821
>what is AH-60
>what is Lynx

>>33204680

Hard to be productive when you live in a shit place, you're always drunk.

File: 20140710130717.jpg (65KB, 628x320px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 628x320px

>>33205225

>>33205343
>>33205346
---> >>33205307

File: 2336012317_1[1].jpg (61KB, 640x428px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 640x428px

>>33205343
Doesn't the BV206 requires additional buoys to be fully amphibious?

>>33205358
The Arisgator is too cute for this sinful world.

>>33204680

If a 1960's F-4E Phantom were to go up against a 1990's Su-27, who would win?

>>33205530
At BVR it is leaning towards the Flanker, as it had more advanced fire control than the F-4 did at that time. In a knife fight, the Flanker would certainly win.

>>33205505
The photo is BvS 10, which is fully amphibious. i don't know about the earlier versions.

>>33205505
>>33205358
>>33205343
>NATO never fielded any amphibious APCs except for M113 and AAVP7A1, which are nowhere near being fit for modern battlefield.

And we were talking about IFV's. A Viking will melt if a BMP-2 even looks at it.

>>33204783
>Closer, but the payload and versatility is way off in comparison.

MiG-23 is the correct answer. Just because it doesn't have exactly the same payload doesn't mean it wasn't a similarly versatile aircraft. Both were a sort of proto-multirole fighter.

>>33206470
Dont you talk like that about my dear BV206! It shielded me against many a pointy branch and eagle shit at terminal velocity.

File: 1273941621486.jpg (31KB, 363x310px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 363x310px

>>33204680
Nothing but lies

File: Shenyang J-8II.jpg (39KB, 746x430px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 746x430px

>>33204755
This, though it wasn't quite contemporary with the F-4. As far as contemporaries go, SU-15 was probably the closest, though it was a pure interceptor. SU-7B is probably the closest multirole, but even then it's far too light to be really comparable.

The MiG-21 was more of an F-5 (or even F-104) equivalent than an F-4 equivalent.

And then there's the ChinkPhantom...

File: DA-SC-85-11316[1].jpg (56KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 640x426px

>>33206470
Initially, we were talking about the F-4 Phantom. Your point?

Besides, most NATO IFVs are amphibious. Even the Bradley can be made so with minimal preparation.

Russians have always been decades behind the curve when it comes to aircraft.

Fuck, they still rely on GCI and ground control for everything.

>>33208116
Besides a few french ones, i cant really think of any that are.

>>33204821
>butthurt vodnik attempting to redirect the conversation in order to save face for glorious USSR

don't you have some cosmoline/anal adventure to attend to?

File: Sikorsky S-67.jpg (39KB, 450x289px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 450x289px

>>33204821
>Why did the US and NATO never make anything that was on par with the Mi-24?
Hi.