You skillfully distort the facts without going into details…probably out of ignorance …In short …
The USSR air defense system since the mid-1960s was built on the basis of the world’s first Automated Control Systems (Automated Control Systems)…that is, Computer stations for Processing, Transmitting and Exchanging Data …
Now these stations are on all Western aircraft …
In this case, the Radar on board the aircraft served as an end terminal (no more than that - as a backup system)…that is, fully automatic flight and even launching and aiming missiles at the target in automatic mode…
A Digital Computer is installed on the MiG-25 of the first series (first with an Analog interface, later with modifications and on subsequent serial ones with a Digital interface) … БЦВМ Орбита — Википедия (wikipedia.org)
The F-14 is an interceptor fighter for the US Navy…that is, it operates over the sea-at a great distance from ground systems where it is impossible to provide a permanent radar field…Therefore, he needs a powerful radar on board the aircraft…
I’m doing testings, so far STR seems to have changed very little if anything at all compared to before 2.29.0.78… is still slightly underperforming at slower speeds (more specifically a little more than 0.5 deg/sec at 240knt (~440kph)), which is exactly the same as before the update… need to do more testing tough, as while the time it currently takes the aircraft at that speed to do a 360 corresponds to a G load factor of 3.8 (instead of 3.92 according to manual), the local host says Ny=3.72, so I don’t know if it’s me not starting-stopping the timer at the right time or is the local host having a seizure.
Also I noticed the local host has, in the other “table” of values, a parameter called “g_meter” that I have no idea what it is doing lol (regardless it’s definitely not the acceleration we care about as, when we get the in game G overload warning Ny value matches the value on screen, while that other value usually overstates it by 0.8-1.5)
If you are here only to start a “war” about country X is better than country Y (or vice versa) this is not the right thread.
Every country builds the best aircraft they can that satisfy their needs, one of which is also cost / easiness to production.
One of the many possible easy answers to this
is that the Soviets in 1980 fielded well over 2000 MiG23ML/MLA all armed with inverse monopulse seeker missiles, more than capable radars given the ranges of the missiles of the time, and good flight performance (especially compared to the early MiG23S and MiG23M) especially in terms of speed, zoom climbing and high speed manoeuvrability which are the most important metrics in real life combat.
The US on the other hand had 400 F-15/F-14 at best in service in 1980, any F4 phantom is a brick compared to a MiG23ML and F-16 couldn’t even fire radar missiles yet, and the US didn’t even have an inverse monopulse SARH in line service (although the Skyflash and Aspide were already there in other western countries).
Does this make the VVS better than the USAF in 1980? No, it simply had different requirements and by consequence produced different aircraft.
The only time the USAF started to be clearly ahead in all the ways is when the USSR collapsed, as the two airforces went from comparable budgets to the USAF having a lot more funds.
Feeding them doesn’t further productive conversation. Everything you said was already apparent to anyone else reading the thread… imagine comparing AWG-9 to the cheaper Soviet light fighter…
Anyway, managed to do a decent ~200kt rate test at sea level with full real control (hard to do in my case as aircraft is difficult to control without stick)… MiG-29 is underperforming by AT LEAST 1 degree/second… I’ll upload the video and explain everything here as soon as the video finishes uploading
My last post is off topic…All the time they forget about our Main fighter, the MiG-31 …
The first in the world with a Phased Array Radar …
2.The world’s first c-Digital interference-proof communication system provides automatic exchange of tactical information in a group of four interceptors, remote from each other at a distance of up to 200 km (for ground points, the range up to 2000 km)…
The first in the world-Targeting a group of fighters with less powerful avionics (in this case, the aircraft acts as a guidance point, or repeater). The MiG-31 is capable of targeting up to four Mig-23/29 and Su-15/27 aircraft without turning on the radars of these aircraft…
The digital interference-proof radio channel AK-RLDN provides a two-way exchange of tactical information with a ground control unit. The APD-518 digital noise-proof equipment allows exchanging data on the air situation at a distance of up to 200 km with aircraft having interface devices with the APD-518 equipment (MiG-31, Su-27, MiG-29, A-50). It is possible to restore a complete picture of the air situation obtained from the results of the operation of four radars and restore information by triangulation or kinematic methods …
the MiG-31 has been in serial production since 1979…
Now find on the Internet-when similar systems appeared on Western aircraft …
PS…The first MiG-29 regiment was formed in the summer of 1983… and not in 1986, as you write!..
I’m sure the forum thread “were Russian and Western aerospace ever equals?” on F-16.net is a very unbiased thread of talented historians who have a solid understanding of the air force doctrines of both sides of the cold war, and who can deftly, effortlessly separate themselves from any nationalistic biases in their writings
Also a good example of the double standard of logic applied here
The MiG-31 has such a radar because it has to in order to function effectively in the period and role it was intended for, and because that role was of such strategic importance that the immense funds to get a system so ahead of its time working reliably weren’t too hard to swallow. The immense effort and talent poured into the creation of such a system did not necessarily arise from some inhuman superiority of Soviet engineers, but rather it arose from such a system being correctly identified as needed and being funded in addition to a competent military-scientific development apparatus in the relevant fields.
Everyone I’ve talked about the Foxhound with understands this easily. But online, you talk about the F-14, and from word go it’s a magic plane made tom cruise himself that completely vanquished Soviet aircraft’s viability by being decades ahead of its time on account of being designed with extra freedom and democracy. While the reason for the plane’s sophistication in certain fields (and cost) were derived from necessary characteristics of a competent interceptor for the role assigned to the plane in the case of both of these, people suddenly become intransient and belligerent when you imply that the F-14 was essentially required to be what it was in order to fulfill its most basic mission parameters, that its high characteristics in certain aspects was anything but the result of the superiority of Western minds to what they consider others
Specifically talking about the radars and how they’re perceived online. Both are necessarily equipped with expensive, extremely cutting edge and powerful radars for their time that were still competitive decades later, but when the discussion is regarding the F-14, there’s a tendency to imply that the radar, rather than being incredibly expensive, heavy, and being the result of a gigantic scientific and industrial effort to produce it, was instead just better because “America is awesome and better than those stupid commie planes”, while you’d be hard pressed to find an inverse case of extreme Soviet nationalists making claims about the inferiority of the West’s tactical fighter radars in the way US nationalists always talk about the F-14 particularly in relation to Soviet tactical fighters of the early 70s
I think its unsurprising its underperforming considering they corrected the weight without adjusting the flight model accordingly, im guessing you have your bug report in the works?
Plane was underperforming in slow speed rate even before the weight increase.
Yes, but I don’t know if they’ll accept it with only one test… knowing how this usually goes they certainly won’t accept the part where I calculate what actually sustained turn time would be without a test getting values close to them (the problem with this is that it’s very hard at least without a stick to keep speed and altitude very consistent).
I think its a good idea to mention their answer to the previous report of being “correct in their own testing” and then mentioning how they increased the weight without adjusting. So even if your testing isnt the best it still has strong backing from a logical perspective
