And that MiG was a over rated peice of crap.

LOL where did you get that information?

Actually it was a NORTH KOREAN who defected.

There was a project called :Project Mulla (?sp) (as in mully, money, bucks) It was a standing offer of $100,000 to any North Korean who defected with the MiG 15.

According to Chuck Yeager it was a not so great plane in some respects. At high speeds the stick would get REAL hard to move (same as in the MiG-17), and due to it having no "Flying Tail" (the tail had a flap, as opposed to a one piece transonic capable tail) it would occilate badly near transsonic speeds.

Also, the 2x23mm cannons and 1x37mm cannons were designed for American BOMBERS and there is one report where an F-86 pilot (who had not been watching his 6 o'clock) had a MiG-15 open up on him and the 23mm cannon fire flew OVER him, while the slower 37mm cannon went UNDER him. He shot down the MiG btw.

Also the cockpit didn't have an efficient heater for the canopy so if the MiG climbed too quickly the inside of the canopy would fog and ice BADLY and the pilot could not see out (again from C. Yeager's report).

Hope that helps.

Steven

Quote:
And that MiG was a over rated peice of crap.



LOL where did you get that information?

Watched a history channel thing about it not too long ago and said the same thing. Personally i consider the history channel fairly reliable.

Regardless of sources, etc. WHAT IF this was true, or becomes true? It seems as though the U.S. military has always had air superiority. If it is true that the MIG's are superior to even our fifth generation craft, what will happen as far as ground troops are concerned? Are there sufficient ground-based aa weapons to knock these things down?

Originally Posted by Spartacus

Regardless of sources, etc. WHAT IF this was true, or becomes true? It seems as though the U.S. military has always had air superiority. If it is true that the MIG's are superior to even our fifth generation craft, what will happen as far as ground troops are concerned? Are there sufficient ground-based aa weapons to knock these things down?

A valid, if unsettling point. Imagine OUR troops (I'm going to Iraq in 14 days) were the ones enduring withering fire from unfriendly skies.

Sparticus does add to the discussion.

Steven

Don't you just love it when people make ridiculous statements that the Mig-15 was so vastly superior to the FA-86 or vice versa.

The fact is that the Mig-15 was superior in some ways & the FA-86 was superior in others. In the end it was the superior US gunsite & pilot training that won the day.

As for the Su-30 MKI showing to be capable of defeating the F-15 in mock combat. That comes as no surprise as that is exactly what the Su-27 (from which the Su-30 is derived) was designed specifically to do that.

Personally, I think that with the advent of 5th generation IR missiles, flight performance is no longer as important as it has been in the past.

Does anyone have any details concerning the wargame sited here?

Were the Su-30 MKI's "armed" with AA-11 Archers? Were the F-15's "armed" with AIM-9X? Were the engagements stickily within visual range or were there beyond visual range engagements as well?

We still have to see if they have to cancel the F/A22 or F35 to pay for the war in Iraq. The F/A22 is so rediclously overpriced at $250-300 million a piece its going to be near impossible to replace a majority of the airforce planes without bankcrupting the country. I can well see it going the way of the Comanche, the so called super stealth helecopter with all the fancy gadgets to be unseen, but in the end was so expensive and there wasn't really anyone to use it against.

The F35 is a much better sale as its so useable by other services and countries like Britain that were involved in the design project. It also costs a fraction of the cost of the F/A22.

the F-35 is a nice plane no doubt, but will it guarntee us air superioty for the next 30 years, nope.