Northrop F-5

>>34256557
They were right. But remember, you don't take an F-5 up against a MiG-21, you take an F-5 and SAMs and AWACS and GCIs and SEAD, and put it up against a MiG-21 and SAMs and AWACS and GCIs and SEAD.

It's fun to argue over the pros and cons of hardware, but as long as no side has a massive advantage, it's of little consequence to a platform's real-world performance.

>>34257204
>But remember, you don't take an F-5 up against a MiG-21, you take an F-5 and SAMs and AWACS and GCIs and SEAD, and put it up against a MiG-21 and SAMs and AWACS and GCIs and SEAD.
Depends really. The Ogaden War saw probably the closest thing to a "pure" engagement between the F-5 and MiG-21 we'd ever see.

Problem was, you had the Somalians flying against literally the best trained pilots in all of Africa.

>>34256557
>AWACs
>GCI

Stop.

File: 451234123.jpg (39KB, 636x358px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 636x358px

>>34256557
>What did they mean by this?
Calculated trust to weight ratio with engine in the static test rig and multiplied by maximum speed.

>>34256557
On paper, the MiG-21 looked like it should have been better than the F-5.
>faster
>higher climb rate
>slightly better T/W
>lower wing loading

But the metrics they used to compare left out important factors like pilot workload, cockpit visibility, and overall ergonomics, which the F-5 excelled in.

>>34257357
F-5 mostly excelled in the turn ratio. When it had higher wing loading its adaptive higher aspect ratio wing had better lift coefficient. F-5 simply outurned Mig-21 as USSR tests revealed.
>but muh boom and zoom
Not so shiny in the age of Sidewinder.

>>34257419
Oh yeah that was definitely the case - deltas tend to have lower wing loading, but that comes at the cost of a lower lift curve slope.

>>34257419
>in the age of sidewinder
Not during the time they still shoot B and P model. Sidewinder only got good when the L model was released in late 70s

While the MiG-21 had its advantages in pure performance, like a higher max speed and altitude, the F-5's advantages were in the fighting envelope.

I'm pretty sure that AIM-9s were always better than their Soviet contemporaries.

Pilot training matters a lot. Western pilots tended to be better trained than Eastern ones.

Doctrine was also very different. Soviet doctrine was very top heavy in that pilots did not have the flexibility of their enemies. American/NATO/Western doctrine allowed for more decision making by the pilot in the sky instead of a controller back at the base.

>>34257837
>western pilots tended to be better trained

Except for Mig Alley in Korean War where NK pilots seemed to be poorly trained and air combats Israel Defense Force engaged in,
all that "undertrained pilots flew Soviet/Russian fighters" meme is just an excuse for the bad fighter platform.
There's just no evidence about the "muh poorly trained" arguments.

>>34258083
>There's just no evidence about the "muh poorly trained" arguments.
There actually is. The Ethiopians underwent conversion training from their F-5s to MiG-23s back when they flipped to the Soviet side, and their pilots were pretty horrified as to how little training they received. Rather than the training they'd received with their F-5s - they even flew adversarial training against US pilots - the Ethiopians found that the Soviets were pretty much training them how to listen to radar controllers and press the right buttons at the right time.

Soviet fighter doctrine left little room for pilot initiative, and it showed in the training.

>>34258083
Soviet aircraft were roughly on par with their peers, with the edge swinging back and forth the duration of the Cold War.

MiG-15 had a slight advantage over F-86.

MiG-21 was a poor match to F-4, as they were more akin to a F-100, F-102, or F-5 in terms of weight class. MiG-23 was more an attempt to match the F-4 with a common medium to heavy fighter.

MiG-25 blew everyone away at introduction, putting a panic in USA. F-15 was built to counter it, and beat it in everything except top speed.

MiG-29 was initially thought to be a super fighter, but has repeatedly failed to show any reputable combat record. Su-27 on the other hand is about equal to the F-15, but without the combat record.

Unless you are making the monkey model argument, which may or may not be valid.

>>34258142
Any Soviet doctrine left little room for any initiative. There are no rewards in communism. I'm amazed that anything substantial was accomplished under Soviet rule.

Soviets at one time considered removing missile control from their aircraft, instead weapons were going to by released remotely by the ground controller.

>>34258502

The Soviets did allow for some initiative....provided you were Russian. But if you were a client or Pact, nah.

For all Moscow's talk, only Russians had any degree of independence.

File: DDR MiG 21 F-13 Fishbed 05.jpg (33KB, 880x531px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 880x531px

>>34258502
>Soviet aircraft were roughly on par with their peers
Not really. Soviet fighters across the board tended to match raw performance on paper with Western fighters, but they had a decidedly defensive focus (mainly intended to be flown by pilots following ground control) that made them more suited for interceptors than true fighter duties. Worse, most made critical design sacrifices to get competitive performance.

They were closest early on - the MiG-15 truly was better than the Sabre in terms of performance, mostly falling short with its heavy armament intended for intercepting bombers at the cost of performance against more nimble fighters. The MiG-17 was a fairly good step forward from that, but everything after that only got worse.

The MiG-21 combined all the downsides of the F-104 with issues endemic to Soviet design of the time, namely poor ergonomics and sub-par avionics/missiles. It got Mach 2 performance, but, like the F-104, that came at the cost of pitifully short range and a tiny payload capacity.

The MiG-23 was a horrific failure. It tried to cram the workload of an F-4 into a single-man platform while adding first-generation swing-wing mechanisms just in case there was any question as to whether or not the pilot would be overworked. Pilot workload was notoriously high, meaning high crash rates, and the missiles the Flogger was designed around were shitty even for the time.

The MiG-25 only blew away the West because we knew nothing about it. The shape of the plane made it seem like a super-air-superiority fighter, when it was really just one of the greatest examples of the Soviets making major sacrifices for narrow design goals. All the MiG-25 had going for it was speed, and it came at the cost of actual combat utility.