F-86 Sabre vs Mig-15 Which one /k/?

Closest thing to parity the east and west ever had. Ones slightly better vertically, the other horizontally.

Pilot is the deciding factor here. Don't be like /o/, the operator matters more than the machine

>>33227183
Isn't that what initial d taught? It's not the car, it's the driver.

>>33227169
who sees whom first?

>>33227229
Unless you buy an 85 like a fucking retard

>>33227169
Sabre is faster
MiG more agile

Both very similar beyond those two big advantages.

Similar situation to early Spitfire and BF109E models during BoB.

>>33227288
Mig isn't flat out more agile.

Saber has all moving tail, which gives them a lot more elevator authority and able to pitch harder at the cost of airspeed.

>>33227278
Takumi rekt 2 guys on itsukis 85.

>>33227169
Well the mig15 was considered a better plane, but as time has show Slavs are god awful at air to air

File: 1488853627418m.jpg (138KB, 1024x791px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1024x791px

>>33227169
How many layers of excuses are you on right now?

File: MIg-15 vs F-86.png (687KB, 1124x565px) Image search: [Google]

687KB, 1124x565px

>>33227169

>>33227169
Well it's easy.

Are you a Ameriboo or a non ameriboo

>>33228159
>slaviboos can't handle that there planes are shit, so the resort to calling everyone an ameriboo
How pathetic

>>33228100
>1:4
What the fuck did they have toddlers piloting them?

Whichever one had radar.

>>33228100
Where were the MiG losses? Israel?

mig was designed to intercept bombers, its not air supremacy fighter and its flight characteristics enforce that

also wasnt it chinks/koreans who flew them in the begining and at late war russian pilots joined in and turned the kill death ratio to 2:1 for sabres

File: 1234.jpg (409KB, 458x616px) Image search: [Google]

409KB, 458x616px

>>33228100
wow
>>33228153
wtf

>>33228100
lol

>>33227169
F-86. Radar gunsight.

>>33228153
>Implying le noodle-man would even be able to land a hit with it's pisspoor muzzle velocity, slow RoF and the MiG's lame optical gunsight

>>33227288
The Sabre performed better than the Mig in almost all respects except in low speed maneuvering where the better power to weight of the Mig gave it the advantage.

>>33228100
cool pic
>List of aircraft losses of the Vietnam War

>F-4 Phantom II-- --445

> 60 MiG-21s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War

>>33229779
air to air kills

>>33229779
And several hundred other MiG variants, retard. Also
>MiG-21 only saw combat in Vietnam
>F-4 only saw combat in Vietnam

How many layers of excuses are you on?

>>33229779
>slav education

>>33229817
> And several hundred other MiG variants, retard.

Like what variants exactly?

So lets count others american fighters then

> In total, the United States lost in Vietnam almost 10,000 aircraft, helicopters and 578

>North Vietnam lost 150 - 200 aircraft and helicopters.


AHAHAHA HOLY FUCK.

>>33228329
Israel, Iran, Afghanistan probably. Maybe like Chechnya or something.

>>33229862
Not to mention USA and Nato in Libya and the ME.

File: lol.jpg (449KB, 1595x863px) Image search: [Google]

449KB, 1595x863px

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-to-air_combat_losses_between_the_Soviet_Union_and_the_United_States

>>33229779
>(33 to MiGs, 30 to SAMs, and 307 to AAA)

Yeah... that doesn't really mean anything in regards to Air to Air Combat. Though initial AtA Missiles were complete garbage as they were based on anti-bomber tech.

>>33229892

> 307 to AAA

Well, you need to be fucked up to lose a supersonic jets to a WW2-tier artillery.

Don't you even understand how ridiculous you looks in this moment?

>>33229857
>you can't loose helicopters when you don't have any

>>33229955
or

>you'll lose helicopters all the time, because of superior soviet MANPADS.

>>33229917
Not if it's radar directed or the jet is flying low where faster firing lower caliber weapons that may also be radar directed can hit them.

>>33228449
Soviet pilots.

In the Korean war, American and their cocksuckers were totally annihilated, later they were smashed in Vietnam even harder.

Just notice that USA don't invade the countries where modern Soviet\Russian AA and fighter jets deployed.

>>33229969
Actually it's generally regarded that the huey was shit. Chanook is where it's at

>>33229993
See>>33229817
Also, in the gulf war, Iraqis were using modern Soviet planes, and got ass-raped
How. Many. Layers.

>>33229979
> Not if it's radar directed or the jet is flying low where faster firing lower caliber weapons that may also be radar directed can hit them.


So in the others words:
>In the fear of being killed by the SAM you fly lower just to get killed by the AAA with zero chance for the pilots to survive, because of low altitude and others factors.

nice tactic, very american.

>>33230061
> Iraqis were using modern Soviet planes

Like what? Tell me their names?

>>33227169
>Fagot

>>33230066
You have to fly low if you want to drop bombs my nigger.

PGMs were only in their infancy at the time.

>>33229969
>VHS footage of Hinds getting shrekt nonstop in Afghanistan

Since the mid 50's, commie aircraft have been hot garbage

>MiG 25 superdooper interceptor
>Vacuum tubes
>Vacuum
>Tubes
>1970

Holy fucking Kek

File: f0c2f21492cc1b969429aa79e17e2843.jpg (8KB, 236x184px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 236x184px

>>33230066
Flew low to avoid a threat that turned out to be more of a paper tiger then anything else. Once the bombing halt was lifted in 1972, in conjunction with new technologies and tactics, such as the wild weasels and more effective ECM, the NVA got smacked about hard. The PVAF got whacked around even harder.

>>33229889
>Patrol Bomber
>ASW Bomber
>Trainer
>Night Photo-Recon Light Bomber
>Propeller Bomber
>Recon version of Bomber
>Cargo Plane
>Cargo Plane
>Unarmed Prop Plane

That's like beating up a bunch of retarded kids and bragging about it.

The only fighter aircraft shot down was Soviet.

>>33230061
I think we can all admit that the Iraqis can barely be called pilots.

Doesn't really prove anything about the aircraft for each side.

>>33230416
What about the Serbs?

>>33231117
Post links cuz im lazy.

>>33230086
Mig-25/29

>>33231117
Serbs were fucked from the beginning. Flying at all was basically a suicide mission. They had a tiny air force and so many SAMs that it almost wasn't even worth flying their own jets for fear of fratricide or compromising their SAMs' ROE with IFF protocols. Also the Cold War was over and the US had already gotten a good hard look at near-identical MiGs curteousy of various other former-Eastern-bloc countries.

>>33230128
I mean I know this is bait but the vacuum tubes have always been easily explainable by the conditions the USSR wanted the MiG-25 to work in: below freezing temperatures operated by a flight crew who's most advanced technology had previously been a tractor, in the middle of fuck-knows-where with little to no advanced equipment or replacement parts available.

File: Mystere IVa.jpg (258KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 1680x1050px

>>33227169
>F-86 Sabre vs Mig-15
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Myst%C3%A8re_IV

The sabre had better multirole capability and had a *much* better gunsight in it. The Mig barely had WWII era gyro sights, plus its guns being so wildly different caused inaccuracy. But the guns on the MiG were much more effective than the .50s on the sabre which would only be replaced with 20mm cannons in the F-86H which served as ground attack.

But they're probably THE most evenly matched aircraft in history.

>>33232015
>But they're probably THE most evenly matched aircraft in history.

It's literally the Superman vs Goku of fighter aircraft. The only reason these two aircraft are so legendary in the first place is because of how matched they were for their fleetingly brief period of dogfighting, and the unrestricted, almost duel-like fights that occurred over Korea between the two.

>>33229917
You fly any jet low enough it will be at risk to ground fire. You throw enough lead into the sky you're going to hit something.

>>33229969
Most choppers were lost to ground fire, there weren't a lot of strelas in-country. Huey's are fast and maneuverable, but have next to nothing in the way of armor. When you're flying in mass formations of choppers into rather small LZs, it doesn't take much to shoot a couple down with a couple well positioned HMGs.

>>33229993
>we were annihlated in the Korean War
Alright russkie, how do you figure this?

>>33232182
North Korea still exists.

>>33232274
Because of Chinese intervention. By that logic South Korea still existing is a win for us. Our first goal was the preservation of the South, that was achieved.

>>33228289
no goat fuckers

File: QuickMemo+_2017-03-05-13-28-46.png (273KB, 1011x1948px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 1011x1948px

>>33232462
Not always, but they did always get the same result

File: 1487878982410.jpg (35KB, 492x449px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 492x449px

>>33232423
>conquer all of Korea.
>get BTFO by a bunch of illiterate Chinese peasants with no artillery, tanks,or planes.
>W-we won because we have the south!!11

Gas yourself Yankee

>>33232626
>no artillery
Not if the heavy kind, but to say the Chinese didn't have any artillery would be a misnomer
>no planes
You can't be serious
>all dem peasants
Was a strategic mistake on our part to underestimate the PVA, but we still gave them one hell of a mauling. And try as they might, they couldn't take the rest of the Korean Peninsula. South Korea remains free, the North is slowly crumbling, and China gives less and less fucks about the Kims. We weren't ready for Korea, and it showed. But the war isn't over yet, and eventually we'll close that chapter. And I think everyone will look on us more favorably for ending it rather than remembering the details of the past war.

File: tmp_2838214840657540061649649366.png (12KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 420x420px

>>33232626
>no artillery, tanks,or planes
Bait or retard, it's hard to tell these days. Although that attempt at English points towards the latter.

>>33227169
Thanks to radar FCS, Sabre is superior in combat despite maneuverability weakness.

File: Super Mystere_2.jpg (87KB, 800x525px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 800x525px

>>33231887
Did the Mystere IV kick some slavshit ass at one point?

IIRC the Israelis whooped a lot of Egyptian ass in 67, but I think they had Mirage IIIs and Super Mysteres, not IVs.

File: Truman.jpg (74KB, 800x1043px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 800x1043px

>>33232883
>we weren't ready
Blame this fucker

>North Korea exists.
>Chiang Kai-Shek lost to the Communists

Again blame this fucker for firing General MacArthur and not letting General Le May do his job to his fullest.

>>33232015

I would argue that this distinction goes to the Spitfire/Messerschmitt during the Battle of Britain. Both were the best fighters of their time and evenly matched on almost every level.

>>33227169
>wanting a Sabre rather than a Fury
>b-but muh air force!

>>33230066
And that, children, is why so much effort went into PGMs.

>>33228100
HOLY SHIT IS THIS REAL?

>>33235034
an order for Mystère IIs was changed to 24 Mystère IVs in 1955, which were delivered from April to June 1956, equipping 101 Squadron. A further 36 were delivered in August 1956, with a final aircraft, equipped for reconnaissance duties, delivered in September 1956

>>33235034
On 30 October 1956 the Mystère IV got its first kill when eight aircraft fought 16 Egyptian Air Force MiG-15s. The Mystères shot down one MiG while a second MiG and one of the Mystères were damaged. On the next day, two Mystères engaged claimed four Egyptian De Havilland Vampires shot down, with another MiG-15 and a MiG-17 claimed later that day.[5] Israeli Mystères flew a total of 147 sorties during the war, for the loss of a single aircraft, shot down by ground fire on 2 November

>>33235034
india : On 16 Sept 65 a Mystère IVA shot down a Pakistani L-19. On 7 September 1965 an Indian Mystère shot down a Pakistani Lockheed F-104 Starfighter in a raid over Sargoda

File: 54.png (342KB, 839x440px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 839x440px

>>33230128

File: HAL.jpg (92KB, 865x570px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 865x570px

>>33238313
>india


>The Gnat is credited by many independent and Indian sources as having shot down seven Pakistani Canadair Sabres[b] in the 1965 war.[24][25] while two Gnats were downed by PAF fighters.

>The most notable action was the Battle of Boyra where the first dogfights over East Pakistan (Bangladesh) took place. The Indian Air Force (IAF) Gnats downed two PAF Canadair Sabres in minutes and badly damaged one.

>Another notable dogfight involving a Gnat was over Srinagar airfield where a lone Indian pilot held out against six Sabres,[30] scoring hits on two of the Sabres in the process,[31][32] before being shot down.

>>33236735
Yep. Makes sense though considering Soviets focused mainly on ground troops.

>>33232626
I you think anyone won the Korean war, you're autistic,
>norks invade the South
>South gets BTFO
>US steps in and pushes them back
>Southern and UN troops attempt to take the north
>get BTFO
>US steps in once again to prevent loss of South
>DMZ is established
And what does anyone have to show for it? Nothing. The borders are almost exactly the same and thousands died in each side. Pure autism

>>33229779
Are you even trying?

>>33230095
>mum i found a new meme

>>33227169
Which version of Saber are we talking about? Early or late?

>>33238486
>Southern and UN troops attempt to take the north
>get BTFO
Hardly. If Truman hadn't been such a massive pussy and had just let MacArthur meet the Chinese """""volunteers""""" head on at the Yalu and strike back inside of China from the air, North Korea wouldn't exist today.

>>33227288

Very much like 109 vs spit in early BoB. The 109 was much lighter than the spitfire, and had a better power to weight ratio, also fuel injection that made it excell in vertical maneuvers. The spitfire couldn't go vertical 90 without dying of float carb failure.

File: Pulqui_Nene.jpg (68KB, 612x469px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 612x469px

Hey guys meet the Nene. Its what you fuckers got gifted to pull you out of the stone age.
This is an Argentinian one.

File: Dowding.jpg (33KB, 615x409px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 615x409px

>>33242068
Negative G was the Spits issue. Carbs vs fuel injection.
Miss Shilling's orifice sorted most of that out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Shilling's_orifice
The few would like a word with you.

>>33227183
The SU27 and F15C were also pretty close too imo.

Also Mig29 and F16

I somewhat kinda miss the USSR. They were retarded but at least they were a worthy rival until they spent themselves into bankruptcy

File: Algerian MiG-25.jpg (345KB, 1600x1082px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1600x1082px

>>33228100
Effectiveness aside, I love how the MiG-25 looks. Just some wings strapped on to fuckhuge engines. Gotta go fast.

>>33242994
>The SU27 and F15C were also pretty close too imo.
>Also Mig29 and F16

Your opinion means nothing, neither the MiG-29 nor Su-27 are anything close to a 16/15, the MiG-29 isn't even a real 4th gen fighter but closer to a 3.5 gen aircraft, that was designed to be nothing more than a more maneuverable MiG-21, and the German Luftwaffe deemed the aircraft not worthy to be a front line fighter, and was still outclassed by the F-4 phantom in BVR

The F-16, purely by itself, is a more advanced air superiority fighter than even Su-27.

>>33243294
Dude I think you're sucking American dick a little too much. And I'm an American who loves American aircraft.

The Germans to this day *still* use the mig29. Mostly for practicing. Their helmet mounted displays were also really nice.

For being drunken communist retards they were surprisingly competent, although admittedly nowhere near the extent of the Nazis(a fault of their retarded ass economic system, no doubt)

But still, they weren't planes to be fucked with lightly.

File: MiG-29a.jpg (79KB, 429x572px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 429x572px

>>33243340
>Dude I think you're sucking American dick a little too much

Detail by detail, please explain how a MiG-29 is on par with an F-16, starting with radar, then avionics suite, and missile tech.

Lastly I want you to finish up with flight controls, behavior and performance.

I'll wait.

>>33242297
Mrs. Shilling's orifice was ashort term solution till they get Bendix-Stromberg injection carbs anyway.

File: 1343771025256_6954773.png (30KB, 420x294px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 420x294px

>radar layed gunsight
>heated cockpit with many comforts
>2 fiddies = 1 20mm cannon according to usaf

vs
>gimp gunsight
>freezing ass cockpit
>"big guns"

sabre all day every day

File: Northrop_F-5E_(Tail_No._11419)_(cropped).jpg (193KB, 1322x856px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 1322x856px

>>33229917
They had no PGMs for most of the Vietnam war. That means they had to fly as low as possible to hit a target especially one that required a direct hit like a bridge or something really difficult like trying to get a bomb inside a window.

Anything worth hitting was surrounded by an insane amount of flak and small arms and they got hit so much by sheer virtue of the amount of led in the air at any given time.

File: 975397539753070.png (3MB, 1500x1168px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1500x1168px

>>33243424
The MiG-29 was better than the F-16 until the F-16 got the AMRAAM. F-16 only carried AIM-9s for most of its lifetime whereas the MiG carried the SARH Alamo. The gun pipper on the viper is a shitty wormy thing whereas the MiG-29 has a nice funnel and an easy to use radar guided crosshair.

>>33243680
Is this bait?

Literally everything you said is the opposite of reality

>>33243709
It really did only carry the sidewinder until like yesterday and the snake thing is bullshit and has a low refresh rate.

>>33243754
>bait, or retardation, in the end it's all the same

>>33243680
>mig29 k-d (averaged) ratio: 1-4
>f16 k-d (averaged) ratio: 76-1
And wa-la! You're retarded

>>33227183
fpbp

>>33243918
>>33243781
Down to the pilots. If they had switched planes the results would be similar.

>>33243991
>the typical slaviboo excuse. Your planes are bad and you should feel bad

>>33243991
>similar
>they're completely different planes with vastly different cabilities
>you literally know nothing about either of them but for some reason continue posting anyways

>>33228289
Literal monkey model pilots.

File: 1468804352810.jpg (41KB, 352x315px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 352x315px

One of the most important factors people tend to miss is that Sabres had hydraulically boosted controls, whereas the Migs didn't. It took a ton of muscle endurance to pull those controls at fighting speed.

>>33243680
Alamo was atrociously unreliable though. Like AIM-4 tier worthless.
>The gun pipper on the viper is a shitty wormy thing whereas the MiG-29 has a nice funnel and an easy to use radar guided crosshair.
You realize the F-16 has multiple gunsight modes, right? EEGS mode provides a "nice funnel" at all levels, and a radar pipper at levels 3 and above (i.e. whenever the target is locked).

Also that "wormy thing" is the snapshot display, which basically simulated tracer path for evaluating a shot after it's taken (especially in BFM exercises, or when the gun is not loaded with tracers). It may seem distracting at first and CAN be turned off, but F-16 pilots train with it enough to get used to it and often prefer to leave it on.

File: Screen_170308_204136.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>33244809
>One of the most important factors people tend to miss is that Sabres had hydraulically boosted controls, whereas the Migs didn't

They did, the MiG-15 had good elevator authority at all flight speeds approaching the transonic region, as for roll, the MiG-15 did in fact have hydraulic boosts to assist the ailerons.

>>33243918
>what is pilot skill
Russians sold that plane to every poor shitskin in existence. Not to mention they themselves weren't exactly the best pilots...(once again, a bunch of drunk retards)

File: luft.jpg (63KB, 853x438px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 853x438px

>>33245351
>pilot skill
>having anything to do with the Fulcrums's primitive radar, RWR, and inferior SARH missiles

The best MiG-29 pilots in the world (the Germans) acknowledged there was no way a MiG-29 could ever down a real Nato 4th gen fighter at any range, and they had to come with in their own word 'crazy tactics' to try and get within heater/gun range. It's basically a sitting duck until, somehow, if it gets lucky, it finds itself in a turn fight with the enemy, and even then, fighters like the F-16 still have a higher roll rate, tighter turn radius, and use FBW flight controls.

Also, without external fuel tanks, the Fulcrum only has about twelve minutes of combat power flying time....

>>33245450
Then why do they run simulations of them all the time and they do decently well? I won't argue the fact that Soviet avionics are wholly inferior. I will however argue that the mig 29 is wholly inferior in every single category to a NATO multirole from the same era like the f16 or even an f4 for fucks sake

>>33245516
Like just looking at the damn thing. You obviously know the Mig's airframe is very maneuverable. Dual engines mean more thrust. etc.

>>33245546
They can accelerate faster in the vertical, there are many aspects of acm that you do not understand, nor do you seem to be aware of the MiG-29's actual flight characteristics

Please feel free to research pilot accounts who've flown both it and the F-16/18

File: JHMCS assuming direct control.jpg (44KB, 634x608px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 634x608px

>>33245450
>The best MiG-29 pilots in the world (the Germans) acknowledged there was no way a MiG-29 could ever down a real Nato 4th gen fighter at any range
That's not what I heard. The MiG was/is shit in many respects, but from what I read, German MiG-29s were a shock to the West in WVR, since they had near parity in terms of maneuverability, and superior heatseekers plus (and ESPECIALLY) helmet-mounted sighting and cueing. It spurred the West to develop wider-aspect dogfighting missiles and their own HMDs for fighters.
However it's worth noting that only a few MiG-29 operators were supplied with the HMD, so there's that.

>and they had to come with in their own word 'crazy tactics' to try and get within heater/gun range.
I assume this is a post-cold-war time frame, then? The F-16 didn't have any BVR capability at all until the late '80s, and AMRAAMs only came into the picture in the '90s.
>tighter turn radius
Depends on variant and configuration. They're very close. Though the F-16 is a significantly stronger airframe, which gives it a pronounced advantage at higher speeds.
>Also, without external fuel tanks, the Fulcrum only has about twelve minutes of combat power flying time....
And WITH them, a 4 G load limit... kek

>>33246171
>The F-16 didn't have any BVR capability at all until the late '80s,
>What is the AIM-7
>what are Israeli F-16s

>>33243482
I think high rate of fire is more important than firepower for air to air guns. The moments when the target is actually in range and in a position where you can shoot are so fleeting and short that rate of fire is very critical. High rate of fire increases the probability there will be a hit.

>>33246650
The reason Russian fighters typically have larger caliber cannons is because their fighters have always been meant to take out other fighters AND bombers. 37mm cannons in the MiG weren't exactly out their to shoot small evading F-86s.

US fighters have akways been on the offensive, not defensive, and facing down large formations of bombers was never something the US airforce, in any of its forms, ever had to deal with. Hence, their fighters being armed to take out other fighters, with smaller caliber higher RoF guns for that purpose

>>33229889
What the hell US were doing near Vladivastok? It's only North Korea and China there

File: 1c99a040776a45bd.jpg (72KB, 719x709px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 719x709px

>>33242994
Imagine if Chernobyl disaster never happened.

Soviet Union might have been going on another 20 years.

>>33247215
Yeah, imagine all the shitty-lagging-a-generation-behind aircraft they could have produced, well I mean, made prototypes of, they could barely muster production for the Fulcrum and Flanker...

File: GD-TGSM-Concept-S.jpg (78KB, 768x608px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 768x608px

>>33247215
I wish, then we could've seen some real yank space magic in the 90s rather than just cutting everything to fight bullshit sandbox wars.

>>33247215
That pic? Is it a future look at WW4?

File: ddc76df49a1a1c4649c53ba5d3c43abe.jpg (67KB, 640x891px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 640x891px

>>33247215
>Chernobyl
>'imagine if the Soviet Union hadn't already collapsed by the time it collapsed'

The USSR was on the brink before Chernobyl ever happened, guy.

>at the height of Soviet military might newly commissioned Russian subs were almost destined to sink to the bottom of the ocean, killing all on board

Why again are there slavboos here who jerk off to all things vatnik?

File: F-16 C:D Barak Israeli.jpg (37KB, 800x332px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 800x332px

>>33246417
>What is the AIM-7
AIM-7s weren't equipped until F-16Cs started rolling out.
>what are Israeli F-16s
Yep, them too. Netz (all Block 10 F-16s) could fire Sidewinders, Pythons and guns only. They didn't get their first Baraks (Block 30, later 40) until late '87, and I'm not sure the Israelis ever even bothered fitting them with Sparrows anyways (the F-15 had a more powerful radar and was much better suited for firing SARH missiles).

>>33230394
>F16 and F15 shooting down Mig19s and 17s
>lol 100000 kills to no losses rooskie btfo

That's like beating up a bunch of retarded kids and bragging about it

>>33243294
>plane not even meant for BVR outclassed by a plane meant for BVR

who would have thought?

>>33246171
>F-16
>no BVR until the late 80s

The first block 15 rolled off the production line in 82 and it was equipped to fire Sparrows.

File: 0869637.jpg (136KB, 1200x812px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1200x812px

>>33227169
The really scandalous thing, was that the Britshit aviation was never able to make a fighter equal to either. They were true incompetents compared to the French (Mystere) or even Swedes (Tunnan)

File: MiG-29N_Malay RAC MiG.jpg (105KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1600x1066px

>>33245450
The best MiG-29 pilots in the world are Malaysian.

>>33227169

Which F-86 Sabre and which Mig-15?

>>33247971
You're literally wrong

>>33248939

>Britshit aviation was never able to make a fighter equal

What is the De Havilland Venom and Hawker Hunter?

>>33243482

>2 FIDDIES = 1 20MM

HAHAHAH

That's just propaganda cause the US was too retarded and broke their Hispanos.

File: F-16 ADF.jpg (20KB, 660x385px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 660x385px

>>33248758
>The first block 15 rolled off the production line in 82 and it was equipped to fire Sparrows.
Not quite.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_armament_article10.html
>Although the possibility of equipping the aircraft with the missile were already tested succesfully in 1977 it took untill the introduction of the F-16C block 25 and the F-16 ADF before the Viper got a BVR capability.
As for your block 15s:
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article3.html
>The F-16s were also equipped with Have Quick I secure UHF radios, and internal provisions for the AIM-7 were made.
Provisions for =/= full capability. Apparently the Block 15's v2 radar still didn't have a CW mode to paint targets (something F-16Cs had straight from the factory with the v3 radar), but some Block 15s did eventually receive CW mode and thus AIM-7 capability with the ADF upgrade. Others apparently skipped it and went straight to AMRAAMs later on (MLU).

File: rs11520_xp695-ee-lightning-f-3-raf-stmawgan-4th-august-1976.jpg (91KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1024x682px

>>33249017
Venom was no where equal to the F-86 (incapable of transonic speeds) and it was only in service three years after the F-86. Hunter was a joke compared to its contemporary F-100 and Super Mystere. Britshits were unable to produce a Mach 1-capable fighter aircraft in the same class. They were incapable of building any kind of supersonic aircraft in any quantity.

>>33247165

>US fighters have always been on the offensive, not defensive, and facing down large formations of bombers was never something the US air force, in any of its forms, ever had to deal with.
>We will now ignore the year 1941 because otherwise our BS would not make sense.
>We will also hide the 37mm cannon under the carpet as well as the Hispano Suiza we managed to fuck up

>>33247196
Vladivostok is THE centerpoint of the Soviet/Russian Pacific Fleet. It's like asking why the Soviets would be near Norfolk.

>>33249051
>1941
>one surprise attack now = near 100 history of US pilots flying fighters

Are you retarded? The US has never had to deal with bombers in anything even close to the Battle of Britain situation.

Hi, Im history, have we met?

>>33249050

>Venom was no where equal to the F-86 (incapable of transonic speeds) and it was only in service three years after the F-86.

Neither the Mig-15 nor the Tunan where transonic fighters, and not like that was even a major thing at the time.

>They were incapable of building any kind of supersonic aircraft in any quantity.

The English Electric Lightning went Mach 2 just a few years after the Hunter.

>>33249051
Are you honestly saying that the AAC was designed to deal with large formations of bombers in 1941?

>>33249062
Hi, I'm NORAD, have we met?

>>33249062

>Battle of Guadalcanal
>Battle of Wake Island
>Battle for Papa New Guinea
>Philippines Campaign
>Basically almost half of the Pacific Theather

It was actually such a big deal that the US was preparing for such an eventuality in the inter war period.

>>33249038
>Provisions for =/= full capability.

One F-16 being able to use one Sparrow was an entire generation ahead of the whole MiG-29 program, who to this day still has to rely on merging and firing heat seakers.

Give up, the MiG-29 is terrible, always has been

>>33249069

Not purposely designed but some of the planes tested and even put in production before the war had that in mind and at the start of the war it was what they mostly had to do.

Similar how all nations air forces had to.

>>33249073
.....


You do know what a traditional medium bomber is, right?


You, you do realize that in all the battles you mentioned, that the US was NOT facing said bombers, right?


Right anon?

>>33249073
>suddenly G4M Bettys now roamed the entire pacific theater

Are you retarded?

>>33249093

>The betty and nell has apparently turned into a light bomber.

>>33249100

Bettys were present at Papa New Guinea, in the Philippines Campaign and at Guadalcanal.

File: f4-scene2.jpg (130KB, 1200x772px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1200x772px

>>33249050

Pic related the best British fighter of the Cold War period... an American design.

The Britroaches were hilariously poor and incompetent

>>33249051
tbf, the hispano was pretty garbage all around. Even when the british used it on warships they hated it and soon replaced it, the notion of manually cocking the gun before flight didn't sit well with many, and if it jammed (which even the Brit versions did often) you were out of a cannon for the rest of the flight

>>33249116

Eventually they did fix it. And when it worked the ability to down a plane in just 3 cannon hits is a nice thing to have.

And US was the only nation to forgoe cannon design do to the previous fuck ups.

>>33249077
>One F-16 being able to use one Sparrow was an entire generation ahead of the whole MiG-29 program
MiG-29 could fire R-27s for pretty much as long as they've existed (granted, the R-27 isn't exactly enviable). R-77 capability exists now too.

>>33249126
lolwut?

They didn't fix it, they only made it more tolerable. It always had the jamming problem throughout its service life. There's a reason why the RAF ditched it the second that WWII ended and moved to the ADEN.

>>33249135
The capability of the MiG-29 to track a target and fire the R-27 back in the early 80s is the same as its ability today for a production model to fire an R-77, i.e. almost non existant.

>>33249505

>The 2nd WW2 ended
>The de Havilland Venom still had Mk 5's

They only got rid of it cause the ADEN was the next step in cannon development.

>>33235092
I don't think we would be of sittings here right now, comrade

File: Soviet_MiG-29_over_Alaska_1989_side_view.jpg (320KB, 1897x1308px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 1897x1308px

>>33249508

I'm sorry, but are you claiming MiG-29's are unable to fire R-27's. Am I reading this right?

Like you actually think the Fulcrum couldn't fire the missile that was designed for it?


Can we all just agree that the MiG-29 was an excellent airframe that was limitted by 3rd gen tier avoinics?

The only MiG-29's to get shot down were the 9-12B's, which never had more than two R-27's and R-60's. They never even got to use their one big advantage, the helmet+archer combo.

9-12 = Soviet Variant
9-12A = Downgraded export for WarPact
9-12B = Even further downgraded variant for non-WarPact (every single one ever shot down was this model)

Monkey models isn't an excuse when it's literally a huge factor.

>>33231779
let's not forget constant EMP bursts and the occasional flight through a nuclear debris cloud
but seriously if they could have manufactured Ga/As transistors to the required power ratings, they would have

File: polyus - energia.jpg (1MB, 2832x2053px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2832x2053px

>>33247258
b-but muh orbital lazor

>>33247971
Israelis absolutely DID bother with Sparrows
not sure about any of the other things

>>33243340
Last german Mig's were sold to poland in 2004 i think

With trained pilots, might be quite a matchup.
With newbies, Sabre. You've got 50.'s so you can spray and probably hit something important a few times.
Mig has 2 23mm's and a 37mm. You could probably take an enemy craft out with a quick burst, but you'd have to be a good shot, something newbies aren't.

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-09 at 12.24.07 PM.png (75KB, 587x259px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 587x259px

>>33251065
>Israelis absolutely DID bother with Sparrows
I really don't think so. I can find lots of pics with AMRAAMs, Sidewinders and Pythons loaded, but none with Sparrows.

>>33251824
Yep. Gunsight factors heavily into this too. F-86's had radar ranging and was basically point-and-click, even at long range and high deflection. The MiG's gunsight required manual range adjustment, and in practice was only really useful at point-blank range unless the pilot had Hans-Joachim-Marseille tier gunnery skills. The slowness and divergence of the MiG's two heavy calibers only aggravated this issue.

>>33253082
>>>33251824 #
>Yep. Gunsight factors heavily into this too. F-86's had radar ranging and was basically point-and-click, even at long range and high deflection. The MiG's gunsight required manual range adjustment


Literally no. F-86s for the most part used k14 gunsights, there's nothing 'point and click' about it. And veteran pilots still used caged mode anyways, please educate yourself

>>33232274
North Korea still existing was planned. China would never allow a Western ally right on their southern border; North Korea is just a very loud buffer.

>>33228100
wasn't the F-15 shot down by an extremely lucky rpg a few years back?

>>33229661
those are 23mm hits, not 37mm
a 37mm would completely destroy the wing.

File: 1472504857051.jpg (138KB, 976x1100px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 976x1100px

>>33227169
HISTORY!!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xV2U6U4C-A

>>33253159
>F-86s for the most part used k14 gunsights
Only EARLY A-models had K14s, but in Korea the majority of F-86s had one radar sight or another.
>And veteran pilots still used caged mode anyways
http://acepilots.com/planes/f86_sabre.html
>We used a marvelous gun sight, the Sperry A-1C radar gunsight. It had a range limiter on it, which you could set to 1000, 1200, or 1600 feet . . . The range limiter would activate when you crossed 1200 feet. From then on you were getting actual lead to your target. So you waited for that sign on the circle that was around the dot. When you got that, you were getting good lead. You'd get the pipper on him and go after him.
But I mean what the fuck would he know, he's only an ace with ten kills.

File: a6a0d2cfdd58bc30c1e858180c739c96.jpg (420KB, 1500x1019px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 1500x1019px

>>33227169
Neither.
TUNNAN

File: 01.jpg (489KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

489KB, 1920x1200px

>>33255744
>But I mean what the fuck would he know

a lot more if you would actually do more research. Perhaps maybe even learn how to fly one a mil grade sim

File: Swedish_UFO_Interception_by_Alfredsson.jpg (390KB, 1200x720px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 1200x720px

>>33255788
>You will never shoot down a UFO.

>>33255226
You mean the 37mm round that had even worse performance than the 23mm? The 37mm cannon that only had 80 rounds total?

You were talking about that 37mm, right?

>>33258254
what sim?

File: 23.jpg (619KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

619KB, 1680x1050px

>>33258658
>a thread about the F-86 and MiG-15
>not knowing about the only sim that models both to the nth degree

I hate this board

>>33258754
wow, excuse me your excellency.
some people have day jobs.

>>33258836
Because he's being an asshat, the sim is DCS

The F-86 and Mig-15 modules each cost about $30-$40 each

>>33258869
thanks

>>33258254

>Flying one in a mil sim is better than primary sources

Wut?

File: Capture.png (214KB, 739x666px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 739x666px

>>33258627
the 23mm round has good performance tho. better than the mg151.

>>33258754
then you probably should fuck off back to
>>>/v/

>>33249103
>Betty and Nell

Capable of carrying ~1,500 to ~2,000lbs of bombs/torpedos.

>He111

Capable of carrying ~4,400lbs of bombs internally and up to ~7,900lbs with external racks.

The Betty and Nell may have been considered medium bombers if judged on their size, empty weight, and speed but they were woefully outclasses by their peers when judged by the qualities that make a bomber effective in its role. They had the bomb load of a light bomber with the size and speed of a medium. Not a good combo.

>>33251824
You're mostly on the right track with that viewpoint. While volume of fire is important, so is the size of the projectile.

The best way to analyze the effectiveness of different A2A guns is by burst mass which is basically the combined mass of all the projectiles fired during a 0.5 or 1 second long burst. The more mass, the greater the potential for fatally damaging a major component whether it's larger holes or more of them.

Of course, this approach only makes sense for comparing guns with roughly similar rates of fire and projectile size. A plane mounting a 155mm artillery piece will have an enormous burst mass but fuck all chance of hitting anything. A plane with 2 dozen PPSH submachineguns (yes, the soviets tried this) will also have a huge burst mass but the projectiles are too small to include any meaningful incendiary or explosive filler.

Basically, this is why autocannons (rotating, multibarrel cannons) became the standard.

>>33228100
Basically all of this is because of Israel. Even when the soviets themselves fought the Israelis themselves they got wrecked.

Kikes are OP in the air

File: Capture.png (58KB, 1328x859px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1328x859px

>>33260910
>The best way to analyze the effectiveness of different A2A guns is by burst mass
bullshit. guns do more damage via their explosive chemical energy than by their kinetic energy.

people who arent niggers compare the total kinetic + chemical energy of the rounds being fired.

your method makes the m2 look good when it actually sucked massive nigger cocks.

MiG-15bis as bomber interceptor
Sabre (preferably with 20 mm) as fighter

Both suck compared to the Folland Gnat

>>33260205
>take your literal 1:1 simulation of an F-86 and MiG-15 out of this about an F86 and MiG15!
>this thread is for ignorant retards only!

Got it

>>33258254
>mil grade sim
>DCS or anything else running on a PC

Holy goddamn motherfuck you just made me piss myself, you spectacular retard!

>>33261777
Why do you think DCS exists?

Hint: US airforce

>>33261808
Look, I appreciate the effort, but my bladder is already empty.

>>33227169
Are you actually fucking stupid mate?

Mig-15! Let the Commie Space Magic do the rest.

>>33261520
>chart with no explanation for how they got to anything or even what Table 1 score means

why?

>>33261777
>literally has no idea about flying or any of these aircraft
>gets mad at the only people who do

Kek

>>33243340
>Nazis
>Competent

Lel

>>33261889
Not sure who you think you are talking to, but your delusion is absolutely spectacular.

>>33261751

>literal 1v1 simulation

You mean useless shit.

>>33229889
>The Soviets flew planes that had Chinese or North Korean markings and were initially forbidden from speaking in Russian over the airwaves
>The ban was soon lifted due to obvious problems with using Korean to communicate in critical battle situations
Top kek

>>33262533
>useless shit.

In other words, how relevant your posts are to aviation/ air combat threads.

Since you know, you don't know anything about any of it...

>>33250747
Yes we would, Ivan had practically no nukes compared to the west during those conflicts.

File: Kondratjew F-86 Seibr.jpg (148KB, 1346x963px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1346x963px

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

>>33227169
Arent they pretty much the same aircraft with a different paint job?

>>33253984
No but even so these are air to air kills

>>33261520

So I fucked up and forgot to clarify my last paragraph regarding "why autocannons became the standard".

You're right in that room for filler has become the primary way to determine the effectiveness of a gun designed for A2A combat. However, in the era being discussed, explosive and specialty rounds performed nowhere near what was available just a few years later.

A .50 caliber round is just about the minimum size where it becomes possible to add "special effects" (explosive filler, incendiary filler, etc) to a round without compromising it's ballistics/penetration to the point of being useless. A 20mm or 37mm round is theoretically vastly superior but the design and quality control if such cannon rounds was lacking in that time period. The dud rate of HE cannon rounds was astronomical at that point in time, to the point that the additional filler was negated by the fact that nearly 1/5th to 13rd of your rounds would fail to detonate. Sure, it's a big hole but if you take away the additional effectiveness of the filler, they wound up being less effective overall.

This is why autocannons failed to catch on until the 60's despite fully functional designs existing by the end of WWII. The dependability of the rounds themselves was so questionable that it took 2 decades of concerted manufacturing effort to improve them to the point where their inherent, but theoretical, superiority could be realized.

File: Screen_170311_043756.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>33260509
>military grade sim
>not being /k/
>this coming from a guy who has no idea what being instrument rated means

ahahahahahaha

>>33249050
>They were incapable of building any kind of supersonic aircraft in any quantity.
hunter could go supersonic in a shallow dive.

supersonic hunter variant was in works until the 1957 defense white paper which killed a lot of advanced projects in the belief that missiles were the future

>>33269753
vatnik detected

>>33267781
>autocannons failed to catch on until the 60's
Objection: all sides in WW2 were using autocannon by the end, excluding the Americans-and that was mostly due to them royally fucking up the adoption of the Hispano (the conversion of production drawings to meet American standards was worse than that of the Chauchat).
A US testing board (can't remember which, so take this with a grain of salt) concluded that the British standard armament of 4 Hispanos was approximately "twice as destructive" as 6 AN/M2.

>>33271096
By autocannon I was referring to rotary autocannons. I was getting my terms mixed up.

>>33258658

DCS world. Both planes are available and are fully functional down to every button and switch. Probably the most in depth sim of these aircraft you can get. Around $50 for each, a bit expensive but if you are a fan of the aircraft and like to fly sims then it's probably worth it if you want to put in the time to learn them.

>>33243203
I love the idea that was behind the foxbat.

High altitude intercepts