MiGs - Overrated, or not ?

Split from Sabre vs MiG

The Pentagon continuously over-estimated the number of aircraft in Soviet inventory during the Cold War. Maybe they did it on purpose to get the Congress the give them more money, or maybe they did it just to be on the safe side. I don´t know, but when the Cold War ended it revealed a Soviet air force only half the size of what the Pentagon had estimated. However, I´m beginning to think that not only the quantity of Soviet aircraft was overrated, but the quality as well. Maybe for the same reasons.

 

Except the West was able to test captured examples (from the Israeli conflicts, for example) and examples flown in by defectors.

So we did (have the capability to) know fairly good performance figures & abilities for most Soviet equipment.
Which was probably another reason it did badly - it's enemies knew what they were up against...

 

I saw the movie "Firefox" on TV the other day, and even if it is a really stupid movie, it still reflects the view the West had on Soviet technology in those days. The West obviosly thought a great deal about Soviet aircraft, just have a look at a book or aircraft magazine from the Cold War era. Those captured planes were mostly export models btw, and the West knew it.

I´m beginning to think that Western military advisors have more or less deliberately exaggerated the capabilities of Soviet combat aircraft.

One thing is for sure though, I don´t think the high reputation of the MiGs is well deserved.

 

Yes - which does mean that it is possible (or easy...) to exaggerate the abilities of the 'real McCoy'
But the planes brought in by defectors?

To make it clear - no way am I going to say that the West did not over-estimate the quality and/or technological advances of the USSR, usually in order to get more money for the military (the 'missile gap', for example!).
We may well have known the exact abilities of the planes. What we did with that info is another story...
Although the quality was often played down when discussing how good the NATO armies were.

How well did Soviet equipment fare when used by decent personnel? The only possible example I can think of is the India-Pakistan conflicts, where both sides used a mixture of Soviet & Westen weaponry.
In terms of tanks - the Israelis re-use captured Soviet armour, after various upgrades.


Capabilities of the MiGs?
Mig 21 - nimble enough, but poorly armed, bad radar & with a bad pilot view.
MiG 23 - fast, good radar/missiles kit, but turned slow
MiG 25/31 - designed as High-speed, High-altitude interceptors, and bloody good at it. Now used as recon, and good at that too.
MiG 29 - seems to be good!

Compared to contemporary Western designs, they ain't too bad.

MiG21 vs Lockheed Starfighter - same strengths, same weaknesses! Starfighter never performed well as a fighter either (Pakistani use). The main difference was that the Starfighter was phased out, while the MiG21 was developed - China still produces advanced versions of the plane!
MiG23 vs Phantom - Well, Phantom wins. But the MiG23 was adapted to most of the roles the Phantom was. It just was not as good!
MiG25/31 had no equivalent.
MiG29 vs F16 (or F-15??) - equals? Germany has them - I'm sure they have fought friendly dogfights. Any info?

 

I actually think the MiG-19 was about the best they made compared to its contemporaries.

The F-104 performed with excellence in the dry air above the Nevada desert, its combat record in the Vietnam War was less impressive, however. The MiG-21 was/is a tad more versatile. It would be more fair to compare it to the Mirage III, or even the F-106.

The MiG-29 is a good a rugged design which in many ways can hold its own against the F-16, and in some regards perhaps even against the F-15. The MiG-29 lack the superiour avionics pack and weapons system of its Western adversaries, but its main shortcoming is its short legs ( which is why the Su-27 was developed ).

 

I think the MiGs developed their reputation (that continued forward) when the MiG 15 shocked the U.S. when it appeared in Korea. Yes the F-86 could fight on even terms (more than even when you account for pilot quality), but the U.S. had none of the F-86s in Korea when the MiGs first appeared. From everything I've read the U.S. had almost no idea the Soviets had developed such a capable aircraft. Remember, the Russians have always been masters of spying and keeping secrets, hence the dicrepancies of numbers.

 

I agree, the MiG-15 came as a nasty surprise. And then came the Vietnam War when MiG-19s and MiG-21s of course added to the reputation allready gained by the MiGs by giving the U.S. their worst kill to loss ratio ever. But that was caused more by excellent tactics on the North Vietnamese side and poor planning on the U.S. side, not to mention the restrictions the U.S. pilots were burdoned with, than the actual capabilities of the involved aircraft.

 

And don't forget the U.S. was actually dumb enough to field a jet without a gun. Missiles (definitely not as accurate as today's) only.

 

The MiG21 was also 'improved' to be gunless.
I guess stupidity is catching!

 

Atleast U.S. kept developing and producing first line fast fighters. Same cannot be said about U.K.

 

Until the recent appearance of the thrust vector-capable F-22 and the Euro-fighter, no western fighters can match the close quarter maneuerability of the Su-27 (Cobra maneuver). Its excellent ejection seat system was also vividly demonstrated when the pilot was able to bail out (while pulling negative Gs in an inverted position close to the ground) during the Farnsborough airshow before it crashed.
That being said, even the slick Mig-29 and Su-27 can't match the western fighters in terms of modern computerization and firing control system. The MIG-25 and MIG-30 were pretty much large and powerful aircrafts that were designed to fly high and fast to intercept American Jet bombers (VAlkrie, B1, etc....), they were not designed to tangle with the agile F-16 or F-18s.

 

Yeah that Cobra maneuvre is great to watch during an airshow. But is is unusable in a dogfight ( sadly enough )

 

The Su-27 is indeed an impressive design, but it isn´t a MiG.

 

Yes we did just not as many.

 

AFAIK there is a 20 years gap bethween EE Lightning and PANAVIA Tornado. This is because some believed the time of jet fighters is over because of SAM's.

 

Ah, the EE Lighning...
Supercruise in the mid-60s.
Performance that kicked the arse of the Phantom (and even apparently the F-15) in a scrap - provided the disparity in radar etc could be neutralised.
*nostalgic sigh*

We did have lots of good stuff on the books, but sadly that stupid Labour Government and its White Paper...

 

Not only that but the British compnaies do not /did not have the money to develope as many.

 

The harrier jump jet 1969

Jaguar 1974

Blackburn Buccaneer 1958

Gloster Javelin 1958

 

Nobody can dispute that lot!
(unless you try applying 'fast' too closely to the Harrier!)

How about the Gloster Javelin, the DeHavilland Vixen...
And of course the BAE Hawk.

Um, one little quibble - was the Buccaneer ever envisaged as a fighter?

 

Sorry, you are right I was getting carried away.