NationStates Jolt Archive

That sort of thing always comes up when one mentions a war plane of any sort.

So why not make a thread about it.

Here are the contenders. Say which one you think was/is better and why (take into account that the Soviets designed their planes differently to the Americans). Then be ready to defend your view against the others.

MiG-15 'Fagot' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiG-15) vs F-86 'Sabre' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-86)

MiG-21 'Fishbed' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiG_21) vs F-4 'Phantom' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F4H_Phantom_II)

MiG-31 'Foxhound' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mig_31) vs F-14 'Tomcat' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14)

MiG-29 'Fulcrum' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mig-29) vs F-16 'Fighting Falcon' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16)

Su-27 'Flanker' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-27) vs F-15 'Eagle' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15)

Tu-95 'Bear' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95) vs B-52 'Stratofortress' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-52_Stratofortress)
Don't be thrown by the looks.

Tu-160 'Blackjack' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu-160) vs B-1B 'Lancer' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-1B)

Su-25 'Frogfoot' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su-25) vs A-10 'Thunderbolt II' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10_Thunderbolt_II)

And of course:
F-22 'Raptor' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor) vs Su-37 'Flanker F' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-37) vs Su-47 'Firkin' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-47) vs MiG 'Project 1.44' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_Project_1.44)
Although only one of these planes is actually in service...

If you have any more pairings, be sure to mention them so they can be added to the list.

Migs rule.
They look the best.

I remember hearing that the US tested a microwave weapon against soviet planes ... only to discover that it had no effect because the soviets were still using vacuum tubes.

The us are crap because they can only use helicopters, whereas the Russians can use migs and yaks. But the chronosphere sort of equals them out.

I may be thinking of Red Alert

MiG-15-vs F-86 Sabre...a tie IMHO.

MiG 21 vs F-4. F-4 Phantom is the winner, A2A missiles that worked well, higher tech all around.

MiG-31 vs f-14 ... not a good comparison. Mig 31 is a land defense interceptor, the F-14 is Naval...But I'l say Mig 31. Good missiles, combined super speed and a uber celiing means it can engage and Disengage the F-14 on its terms.

MiG-29 vs f-16 MiG 29. Helment mounted Cue missiles, combined with its higher peak enegry and higher thrust to weight (its conering peak enegry is a bit below the eurofighter!!) means its very agile and very able to get a lock on the enemy and fire.

Su-27 vs F-15. Tough call, very tough call. They are both very capable planes outfitted with some amazing technology. the AMRAAM is slighty inferior to the aa-12 adder (the adder has a bit longer range and a bit better off bore capablitiy) But the F-15 has a better HUD/cockpit. Its a hard call...this one comes down almost to luck.

Migs rule.

I also like the way that any plan used by evil types in movies is always described as a Mig. Always, even when it's very clear that it's not.

In one exercise, Malaysian MiG-29s spanked Australian F/A-18As, 'killing' all of them. So there's one contest sorted. :p

Oh, and the MiG-31 is a long range interceptor. It is designed to pwn everything from a distance, provided it does not allow anyone to get close, at which point its complete inability to maneuver becomes a liability.

Oh, and the MiG-31 is a long range interceptor. It is designed to pwn everything from a distance, provided it does not allow anyone to get close, at which point its complete inability to maneuver becomes a liability.
But in its original design, the F-14 was pretty much the same. I grant that it is a naval interceptor and the MiG-31 is a land-based interceptor, but both are meant to take down things from far away, the Tomcat with the Phoenix missile, the MiG with the AA-9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vympel_R-33).

The F-14s target was the Soviet 'Bear' Bomber, the MiG's is things like B-52s.

And the MiG-31 is actually fairly maneuverable. It was the MiG-25 which really was just a long-range missile platform.

I forgot to say in my post, that Since the F-15 has a Huuuuge Radar Cross section (its bigger on radar then a B-52) the Flanker would probably pick it up a bit before it picked up the flanker.

I was also quite surprised that there weren't really clear-cut adversaries for the MiG-23. Simple, mass-produced workhorses.

I suppose one could match up the MiG-23 and the F-4, and then have the Starfighter or something against the MiG-21.

The stealth stuff aside, these days it's more about the avionics and missiles than the airframe. The MiG-29 and anything Su-27 onwards can comfortably own any US or European fighter provided it is an upgraded export model with the latest missile technology, and the numbers are equal.

This is one of the reasons I feel the UK is better off buying the Su-30 and performing a domestic upgrade, as India and Malaysia have done. You'd get two for the price of a single Eurofighter and equivalent performance.

In one exercise, Malaysian MiG-29s spanked Australian F/A-18As, 'killing' all of them. So there's one contest sorted. :p

Damn, there goes all our anti-invasian plans! Why did we buy such crappy planes? :p

On paper, the whole Mig series looks impressive. In many comparisons to their F-series counterparts, they are the equal or better of said counterpart. In actual combat, however, they have gotten their asses handed to them by their U.S. counterparts every time. Part of that is training- but most is in logistics/equipment- i.e. "shoddy" craftsmanship. Not that the Migs have been designed poorly, but for cost reasons, the maintenance has always been substandard, and parts are made from less reliable materials.

The U.S. wastefulness actually comes out good here- why pay $100 for a part when we can make it out of something 50 times as expensive, but it'll be lighter, stronger, and more durable? And since the U.S. military is actually a massive employment program, they don't mind spending 100 man hours of maintenance per 1 hour flight time.

You learn something new every day...

Apparently the MiG-15 was a slight development of the German Focke-Wulff Ta-183 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Ta_183) which was never built.

http://www.worldrc.com/TA-183%20HUCKEBEIN.jpg

Compare that to the MiG-15 and the La-15.

And the Argentinians had one as well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMA_IAe_33_Pulqui_II)...

That sort of thing always comes up when one mentions a war plane of any sort.

So why not make a thread about it.

Here are the contenders. Say which one you think was/is better and why (take into account that the Soviets designed their planes differently to the Americans). Then be ready to defend your view against the others.

MiG-15 'Fagot' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiG-15) vs F-86 'Sabre' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-86)

MiG-21 'Fishbed' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiG_21) vs F-4 'Phantom' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F4H_Phantom_II)

MiG-31 'Foxhound' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mig_31) vs F-14 'Tomcat' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14)

MiG-29 'Fulcrum' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mig-29) vs F-16 'Fighting Falcon' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16)

Su-27 'Flanker' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-27) vs F-15 'Eagle' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15)

If you have any more pairings, be sure to mention them so they can be added to the list.

F-86 'Sabre'

F-4 'Phantom'

MiG-31 and F-14, not sure.

MiG-29 'Fulcrum'

F-15 'Eagle'

One on one engagements arent that common anymore, now adays, you have to factor in things like AWACs aircraft. In which case, the F planes win hands down. Then again, the F-86, fought against the 15 in Korea and beat the fuck out of the Russians.

The F-4, proved itself against MiG-21s in Vietnam, and in countless Israeli-Arab wars. As for the other matchups tough calls, since all six planes are capable aircraft. Training needs to be considered though, which nations are piloting which planes? Is it a Japanese Defense Force F-15J vs a North Korean Su-27? Too many variables.

One on one engagements arent that common anymore, now adays, you have to factor in things like AWACs aircraft. In which case, the F planes win hands down.
It's not so much who got beat who in a 1:1 as it is about which plane was the better aircraft. That includes things like production costs, how well it performed the mission it was supposed to perform and so on.

Then again, the F-86, fought against the 15 in Korea and beat the fuck out of the Russians.
Although the numbers were fixed by both sides. The F-86 was better in some things, the MiG-15 in others.
Training was a big issue though, that's true.

And as I asked before...does anyone know a plane that could be considered a good match-up with the MiG-23?

And as I asked before...does anyone know a plane that could be considered a good match-up with the MiG-23?

Mirage F1?

EDIT- or the Tornado?

They're both a little more advanced than the MiG-23, I guess.

The F-104 Starfighter would be the best matchup for the MiG-23, they're both fast point defense interceptors.

The F-104 Starfighter would be the best matchup for the MiG-23, they're both fast point defense interceptors.

I disagree - the F-104 was being phased out of US service as the MiG-23 was entering Soviet service. Correct me if i'm wrong, also, but the F-104 didn't typically carry radar-missiles, did it?

The F-104 Starfighter would be the best matchup for the MiG-23, they're both fast point defense interceptors.
In which case the MiG takes it by miles, because the Starfighter is a horrible deathtrap I wouldn't want to even get close to. :p

Obviously the Soviet planes are/were much cooler, if not always better.

Sometimes I think that people over-rate Russian/Soviet air-to-air missiles and go too much off theoretical/design/claimed maximum range, which might not always be so significant as you think. Even in the first Gulf War, the Iraqis got planes (Mirages? I'm not sure) up amongst American planes without the Yanks seeing them coming until they were possibly even in gun range (not that it did them any good what so ever), so I'm not going to put too much weight into generalisations about US avionics being a masterkey against the Soviet machines.

Anyway, I much prefer British, Swedish, and other aircraft, myself. Ah, if, by some magic, the UK had been part of the USSR, now that would have resulted in some incredible machines.

I... need to sleep.

In which case the MiG takes it by miles, because the Starfighter is a horrible deathtrap I wouldn't want to even get close to. :p
The MiG-23 was a multi-role fighter-bomber similar to the F-4.

Also in 1989 a Russian pilot ejected from a MiG-23 after experiencing technical difficulties. 900km later it crashed into Belgium. I doubt an F-104 would have allowed the pilot to eject, let alone lasted that long. :p

I disagree - the F-104 was being phased out of US service as the MiG-23 was entering Soviet service. Correct me if i'm wrong, also, but the F-104 didn't typically carry radar-missiles, did it?


Several nations even the US modified it to carry Sparrows. The Italian version could carry them under the F-104S varient.

I honestly dont know why its gotten such a bad reputation, granted it couldnt turn for shit, but if the pilot was skilled enough it was a dangerous fighter with an amazing rate of climb and speed which put the MiG-23 to shame, although the MiG-23 was intended for pretty much the same role of slash and attack moves. Also while the F-104 was phased out early by the US, it saw service until as recently as 2004 in some Western nations.

The MiG-23 was a multi-role fighter-bomber similar to the F-4.

Also in 1989 a Russian pilot ejected from a MiG-23 after experiencing technical difficulties. 900km later it crashed into Belgium. I doubt an F-104 would have allowed the pilot to eject, let alone lasted that long. :p


Pfft...Chuck Yeager survived a 104 accident. Honestly its an unforgiving fighter but some airforces never experienced any problems with it. Spain didnt have a single accident, while the Italians who loved the plane had several. As did the US.

Pfft...Chuck Yeager survived a 104 accident. Honestly its an unforgiving fighter but some airforces never experienced any problems with it. Spain didnt have a single accident, while the Italians who loved the plane had several. As did the US.
Well, I don't think you can say the Luftwaffe didn't have able pilots or technicians.

But the Starfighter didn't impress in Germany at all...wiki says they lost 292 our of 916.

And Yeager lost two of his fingers, amid other things.

Well, I don't think you can say the Luftwaffe didn't have able pilots or technicians.

But the Starfighter didn't impress in Germany at all...wiki says they lost 292 our of 916.

And Yeager lost two of his fingers, amid other things.


Yeah, but that was one country. Spain as I said didnt lose any. Pakistan only lost fighters to combat, and lack of spare parts(after US embargo). Then again the Germans used a different varient than the Italians, Pakistanis and Spainish. It all really has to do with the varient of the plane. Like there are certain versions of the MiG-23 that are highly capable even today.

A quick note too...the Russians do have AWACS)A-50, but they dont just AWACS, they use GWACS (for the fun of making up my own acyronym) Ground based radar and such to give control, target information, ect to their airborne fighters, it works quite well, and the LACK of of AWACS and ground based radar control and data is a big reason the MiG's have lost so badly to the F series, since the F series has only gone up against crack pot nations with no AWACS and very limited Ground based radar networks with poorly skilled technicians controlling them. Keep that in mind, that its been USAF vs nations like Iraq and Libya. Really not a good way to compare MiG's to F series.

That sort of thing always comes up when one mentions a war plane of any sort.

So why not make a thread about it.

Here are the contenders. Say which one you think was/is better and why (take into account that the Soviets designed their planes differently to the Americans). Then be ready to defend your view against the others.

MiG-15 'Fagot' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiG-15) vs F-86 'Sabre' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-86)

MiG-21 'Fishbed' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiG_21) vs F-4 'Phantom' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F4H_Phantom_II)

MiG-31 'Foxhound' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mig_31) vs F-14 'Tomcat' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14)

MiG-29 'Fulcrum' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mig-29) vs F-16 'Fighting Falcon' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16)

Su-27 'Flanker' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-27) vs F-15 'Eagle' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15)

If you have any more pairings, be sure to mention them so they can be added to the list.
The fact is that all of these planes have awfully silly names. Go Eurofighter!

A few more to compare

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu-160 Tu-160 Blackjack vs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-1B B1 "lancer"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su-37 Su-37 "terminator" vs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35 F-35 JSF


I'm going with the Tu-160, its bigger, carries more payload, has a longer range, and goes faster.

I'm not sure about Su-37 vs JSF tho

The Sabre was simply a better dogfighter than the 15; the Mig-15's superior range wasn't enough of an advantage.

The Mig-21, on the other hand, was a superior plane to the F-4 in almost every way. The reason the US came away with the kudos in Vietnam was a combination of numbers and superior training - the Mig wasn't superior enough to overcome the problems of conscript pilots and bad lines of supply. Notably, this was why the US panicked a little at the introduction of the Mig-25, they already knew they were behind the airframe curve, and feared that the Soviets had developed something they couldn't fight.

In all honesty, I'd call the Foxhound/Tomcat fight even. Both fine planes.

I'd place the F-16 ahead of the Mig-29, but with some caveats. The performance of the F-16 was almost totally related to the skill of the pilot. A superb pilot could beat almost anything in an F-16 - but a mediocre pilot could easily kill himself. The F-16 was a known "Widowmaker". So, if you're talking two great pilots, I'd go with the F-16, but with any lesser pilots, the Mig-29 was much more forgiving.

The Su-27 vs. F-15 match up is hard for me, because I love Sukhois. But the 15's capacities are marginally better in most areas.

India is retiring its MiG-25s by the way.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4892524.stm
"It was a darned good machine but even today we are not permitted to speak of the daredevilry these stratospheric planes have been used for," an unnamed MiG 25 pilot was quoted by news agency AFP.

"All I can say is that I more than once hit Seven Plus (70,000 feet) with them," he said.

Weren't the F4's missiles one of the main reasons why the USA didn't get air superiority in Vietnam? Weren't they blowing up U.S. aircraft or something?

A quick note too...the Russians do have AWACS)A-50, but they dont just AWACS, they use GWACS (for the fun of making up my own acyronym) Ground based radar and such to give control, target information, ect to their airborne fighters, it works quite well, and the LACK of of AWACS and ground based radar control and data is a big reason the MiG's have lost so badly to the F series, since the F series has only gone up against crack pot nations with no AWACS and very limited Ground based radar networks with poorly skilled technicians controlling them. Keep that in mind, that its been USAF vs nations like Iraq and Libya. Really not a good way to compare MiG's to F series.


Pakitsan v India
Israel v Insert Muslim Country Here

There you go.

Weren't the F4's missiles one of the main reasons why the USA didn't get air superiority in Vietnam? Weren't they blowing up U.S. aircraft or something?


The US had uncontested air superiority because of the F4, however there were several flaws which meant the F4 didnt do as well as it could have. The kill ratio was 2:1. This was due to the fact that the F4 lacking guns made it a poor dogfighter after it exhausted its payload of missiles(dependingon the varient 4 sparrows 4 sidewinders, 6 sparrows 2 sidewinders, 8 sparrows, 8 sidewinders, 6 sidewinders 2 sparrows..) Granted during this time it made it a nasty missile fighter and it had a great standoff range, but without a gun it was screwed close in

Another reason was the depth, and the massive nature of the North Vietnamese SAM coverage. Granted this was also due to the fact that when we did know where they were setting up we didnt attack them for fear of killing Russian or Chinese advisors and making it a wider war. But when your capital city is being bombed(Op Linebacker I and II) you dont have uncontested air superiority.

MiG-15 'Fagot' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiG-15) vs F-86 'Sabre' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-86)

MiG-15

MiG-21 'Fishbed' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiG_21) vs F-4 'Phantom' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F4H_Phantom_II)

F-4

MiG-31 'Foxhound' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mig_31) vs F-14 'Tomcat' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14)

MiG-31

MiG-29 'Fulcrum' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mig-29) vs F-16 'Fighting Falcon' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16)

F-16

Su-27 'Flanker' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-27) vs F-15 'Eagle' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15)

SU-27


Note: Pilot training plays a large factor in air combat. One can have the best aircraft and get completely waxed by more experienced pilot.

Another quite valid comparison...

Su-25 'Frogfoot' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su-25) vs A-10 'Thunderbolt II' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10_Thunderbolt_II)

And before you call that a foregone conclusion, the two are actually very, very similar in everything they can do. Even in terms of guns, the two aren't all that different. And as far as missiles are concerned, the Russian ones are virtually identical to the American ones.

Plus the Sukhoi can operate off carriers.

Su-27 vs F-15. Tough call, very tough call. They are both very capable planes outfitted with some amazing technology. the AMRAAM is slighty inferior to the aa-12 adder (the adder has a bit longer range and a bit better off bore capablitiy) But the F-15 has a better HUD/cockpit. Its a hard call...this one comes down almost to luck.
I'll get my plug in here. It's never luck. Or rather you make your own luck. It's all about the pilots and the tactics. U.S. pilots are much, much better trained than the old Soviet pilots ever were. The Soviets worked almost exclusively from a GCI station, whereas U.S. pilots were able to control their own intercepts. Plus, you need to consider if this is a one-v-one, a two-v-two, or some other combination of planes in the engagement.

There's way more to consider to determine a successful engagement than just the armament and airframe characteristics.

Another quite valid comparison...

Su-25 'Frogfoot' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su-25) vs A-10 'Thunderbolt II' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10_Thunderbolt_II)

And before you call that a foregone conclusion, the two are actually very, very similar in everything they can do. Even in terms of guns, the two aren't all that different. And as far as missiles are concerned, the Russian ones are virtually identical to the American ones.

Plus the Sukhoi can operate off carriers.
Which carrier(s) would those be?

MiG-15 'Fagot' vs F-86 'Sabre' I go with the Mig 15 much more maneoverable.

MiG-21 'Fishbed' vs F-4 'Phantom' The Phantom is much more modern no comparison.

MiG-31 'Foxhound' vs F-14 'Tomcat' Foxhound she is fast ass hell and can fly to the edge of space.

MiG-29 'Fulcrum' vs F-16 'Fighting Falcon' MiG 29 by far 2 engines for more reliability and can the F-16 pull the vulcan manoever no.

Su-27 'Flanker' vs F-15 'Eagle' Flanker it is much better looking and more modern.

Tu-95 'Bear' vs B-52 'Stratofortress' B-52 the bear is too noisy and doesnt have the load capacity.
Don't be thrown by the looks.

Tu-160 'Blackjack' vs B-1B 'Lancer' Tu-160, she is faster with pretty much the same range and bomb load.

Su-25 'Frogfoot' vs A-10 'Thunderbolt II' tie

And of course:
F-22 'Raptor' vs Su-37 'Flanker F' vs Su-47 'Firkin' vs MiG 'Project 1.44'
Su-47 she had a practice dog fight with an F-22 and the Su-47 Berkut won, out of several dog fights.

MiG-31 'Foxhound' vs F-14 'Tomcat' Foxhound she is fast ass hell and can fly to the edge of space.

Are you sure you're not thinking about the Mig-25? I've never heard of the -31 having an especially great ceiling.

Pakitsan v India
Israel v Insert Muslim Country Here

There you go.

Israel has much higher tech then the Muslim nations it fought.


I'll get my plug in here. It's never luck. Or rather you make your own luck. It's all about the pilots and the tactics. U.S. pilots are much, much better trained than the old Soviet pilots ever were. The Soviets worked almost exclusively from a GCI station, whereas U.S. pilots were able to control their own intercepts. Plus, you need to consider if this is a one-v-one, a two-v-two, or some other combination of planes in the engagement.

There's way more to consider to determine a successful engagement than just the armament and airframe characteristics.

This thread was plane to plane, not a variety of scenario's. two F-15's on the 6 of a Flanker will for sure take it out. then again, 4 MiG 21's on the 6 of an F-15 would prolly take it down too... I was saying the Su-27 has a bit of an advantage in a 1 v 1 on the nose type engagment. A measure of the plane and the plane alone, not of the pilots, and the AWACS and the numbers of planes. ;)

Also in 1989 a Russian pilot ejected from a MiG-23 after experiencing technical difficulties. 900km later it crashed into Belgium. I doubt an F-104 would have allowed the pilot to eject, let alone lasted that long. :p

Theres an old NATO joke runs something like this

Do you want your own F104 aircraft?.... then just buy a field somewhere in Europe as sooner or later one will land in it:eek:


Tu-95 'Bear' vs B-52 'Stratofortress'
Don't be thrown by the looks.

I'd still go with the B-52 here, based on performance and bomb load, plus the TU-95 could be tracked by the NATO SoSUS warning system while over the north atlantic thanks to its propellor noise, plus the B-52 has the better nickname 'Buff' * as opposed to 'Bear'

El-presidente Boris

*Big ugly fat f**ker :D

Israel has much higher tech then the Muslim nations it fought.



Not really. It wasnt until after the '73 war that Israel began to really pull ahead tech wise.

Which carrier(s) would those be?
Admiral Kuznetsov, I believe.

Not sure whether they're just training aircraft though.

Su-47 she had a practice dog fight with an F-22 and the Su-47 Berkut won, out of several dog fights.
Really? Have you got a link or two?

That sort of thing always comes up when one mentions a war plane of any sort.

So why not make a thread about it.

Here are the contenders. Say which one you think was/is better and why (take into account that the Soviets designed their planes differently to the Americans). Then be ready to defend your view against the others.

MiG-15 'Fagot' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiG-15) vs F-86 'Sabre' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-86)
This is a bit of a toss up, but I'd say the F-86 just edges out.



MiG-21 'Fishbed' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiG_21) vs F-4 'Phantom' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F4H_Phantom_II)
The F-4 wins this one, but not for the reasons that many think. The F-4 had far superior multirole capabilities to the MiG-21, and also many MiG-21 variants lacked radar. Even those that had radars were equipped with ones that were clearly inferior in range and resolution to the Phantom's system. The Phantom also gets bonus points for resilience, with two engines instead of one allowing it to survive many hits that would put a MiG-21 down for good. The Sparrows are just a slight bonus. Even at their best (Gulf War), they only managed to claim a 36% hit rate. In Vietnam, it was 7% IIRC.



MiG-31 'Foxhound' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mig_31) vs F-14 'Tomcat' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14)
On this, I'm going to go with the F-14. Though the MiG-31 does have good radar and missiles, and superior speed, the plane was actually operationally limited to being not much better than the F-14. The F-14 also had slightly superior missiles and radar, and notably better communications, which have allowed it to serve as an ad-hoc AWACS unit. In the end, the F-14 was better suited to dealing with what both were supposed to: massed bomber attacks. The F-14 gets additional points for actually being a capable dogfighter, which the MiG-31 is most certainly not. The speed and altitude of the MiG-31 are better, but in reality, the aircraft that those were meant to counter don't exist anymore (most never even appeared), and thus those are completely irrelevant. They don't give any real advantage over the F-14 in the actual mission that the planes perform.



MiG-29 'Fulcrum' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mig-29) vs F-16 'Fighting Falcon' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16)
The F-16 wins, hands down. The MiG-29 is vastly overrated because of its maneuverability and capability in a dogfight. But, that's not what makes a modern aircraft good. It may have the AA-11 and HMS, but those same features are going to be found on F-16 variants, so that's not much of a claim. The MiG-29 is short-ranged (it was intended as a high-speed interceptor), fits a rather narrow role, and has vastly inferior avionics, which dramatically increases pilot workload. For example, a MiG-29 pilot has to actually calculate missile flight time himself, and uses a clock to time it. On the F-16, the computer tells you when it hit. Radar resolution is poor and overreliance on ground/AEW&C control leaves it limited against low-level threats. It's also a bit light on the weapons load, like many older Soviet designs. Pilots who have flown both aircraft have resoundingly stated that they'd prefer to be in the F-16. The MiG-29 may be more agile and have the higher dogfighting capabilities, but both of those have been or are being rectified in the F-16, and the F-16 can fill a FAR greater variety of roles without modification.


Su-27 'Flanker' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-27) vs F-15 'Eagle' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15)
On this, I'd go with the F-15. Both aircraft have seen many variants, but with the later Su-27 versions being compared later, the edge from that series drops. These are a close matchup though. Both are large, heavy fighters with powerful radars. Current F-15s have a slight edge in that area, but lack the rearward antenna seen in the Sukhoi birds. In armament, the F-15 edges out, mostly with the ground attack ordnance options seen on the later versions. The main draws of the Su-27 series are that it's cheaper and that the Russians will sell to pretty much anyone who can cough up the cash. But for those who can get them, the F-15 is still preferred.



Tu-95 'Bear' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95) vs B-52 'Stratofortress' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-52_Stratofortress)
Don't be thrown by the looks.
The B-52 wins this. The Bear was a fine series of aircraft, and matched the B-52 in many areas, except one critical place: Payload. Some B-52 variants can carry 80,000 lbs of bombs, while a Bear never had more than 50,000, despite similarities in size, cost, and crew complement. The B-52 was also much better adapted for low level penetration thanks to superior American avionics. The Bear does have advantages in that it was adapted to more roles, but that was more an issue of policy (the US adapted transports for those roles). The Bear also got those huge missiles, but again, they weren't really all that great, and the B-52 could carry more normal-sized cruise missiles than the Bear.



Tu-160 'Blackjack' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu-160) vs B-1B 'Lancer' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-1B)
B-1B hands down. Stealthier, far greater payload (particuarly interal), superior avoinics, and vastly superior low-altitude performance. The Tu-160 has slight edges in speed and range, but those are factors of the greater size. The B-1B is also more agile. Altogether, it gets more ordnance on target with greater accuracy and more safely than the Tu-160. That's how to win.



Su-25 'Frogfoot' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su-25) vs A-10 'Thunderbolt II' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10_Thunderbolt_II)
This depends. In a pure tank-busting role, the A-10 wins due to the greater power of the GAU-8/A. In many other roles, however, the Su-25 gets a slight advantage due to speed and agility. Beyond that, these are actually rather even.



And of course:
F-22 'Raptor' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor) vs Su-37 'Flanker F' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-37) vs Su-47 'Firkin' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-47) vs MiG 'Project 1.44' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_Project_1.44)
Although only one of these planes is actually in service...
The F-22 wins. It was designed for BVR engagements and will wipe the floor with every one of these almost every time. The last two are actually only technology demonstrators, but even they can't come close to the air-to-air capability of the F-22. The Su-37 is just an Su-27 with some improvements, and while it would hold off well against the F-15, it's just no match for the F-22. The F-22 will regularly get off a shot and get away before any of these adversaries can even see it.



I'm going with the Tu-160, its bigger, carries more payload, has a longer range, and goes faster.
What you're actually doing is comparing the total payload of the Tu-160 (40,000 kg) to the internal load of the B-1B (34,013 kg). The B-1B actually has the capability (though not exercised) to carry nearly 26,757 kg externally, which gives it about a 50% greater total payload compared to the Tu-160. Internally, the Tu-160 has two weapons bays to the B-1B's three, and even without the external carriage, the B-1B can carry almost as much as the Tu-160. Often more actually, since space usually comes into play before weight does in such designs.
Speed is also irrelevant. If it was important, the B-1 program would have stuck with the "A" model, which matches the Tu-160. The B-1B was designed for low-altitude penetration and greater survivability, and is actually more likely to get through heavy defenses than the Tu-160 could ever hope to be.

Admiral Kuznetsov, I believe.

Not sure whether they're just training aircraft though.


Really? Have you got a link or two?
Ah yes, the carrier formerly known as "Tiblisi". Which I believe was never commissioned and is now being sold to India. I'll bet watching the Russians try to learn how to do carrier ops was a laugh and a half.

(I haven't anything to add yet as I'm about to be off, but I just have to say, I love this thread.)

US planes would win most of the time, thanks to superior American technology and funding.

The ultimate fighter, however, would have been designed by Russian engineers using American technology and funding.

Oh, and the US and Soviets used the Middle East as their proving grounds for many weapons - US gives stuff to Israel, Soviets give stuff to Arabs, wait for a war.

US planes would win most of the time, thanks to superior American technology and funding.

The ultimate fighter, however, would have been designed by Russian engineers using American technology and funding.

Oh, and the US and Soviets used the Middle East as their proving grounds for many weapons - US gives stuff to Israel, Soviets give stuff to Arabs, wait for a war.
Add to that...
War breaks out and U.S. weaponry mops the floor with the Soviet crap.

The great myth that the Russians can produce superior weapons is just that. Every time the IAF splashes a MIG, the myth is busted. Every time a Warthog shreds a T-72, the myth is busted. Face it, the Russians can't go toe-to-toe with American engineering, manufacturing, or implementation.

Ah yes, the carrier formerly known as "Tiblisi". Which I believe was never commissioned and is now being sold to India. I'll bet watching the Russians try to learn how to do carrier ops was a laugh and a half.
:confused:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_aircraft_carrier_Kuznetsov
The Admiral Flota Sovetskogo Soyuza Kuznetsov, which was constructed at Nikolayev South Shipyard in Nikolayev, was launched in 1985, and she became fully operational in 1995. The vessel was briefly named Kremlin. The Kuznetsov made a brief Mediterranean training cruise early in 1996. At the end of 1997 she remained immobilized in a Northern Fleet shipyard, awaiting funding for major repairs that were halted when only 20% complete. The overhaul was finally completed in July 1998, and the ship was formally returned to active service in the Northern fleet on November 3, 1998. Apparently, the ship remained in port for about two years. In the autumn of 2000, the Kuznetsov went to sea for operations related to the rescue and salvage operations of the Kursk submarine. Plans for further operations were postponed or cancelled. In late 2003 and early 2004, the Kuznetsov went to sea for inspection and trials. In late October 2004, she participated in a fleet exercise of the Russian navy in the Atlantic Ocean. The Kuznetsov participated in September 2005 in a fleet exercise of the Russian navy in the Atlantic Ocean. During the exercise one of its Sukhoi Su-33 "Flanker" aircraft had an accident, and fell from the carrier into the Atlantic Ocean. The Sukhoi is currently on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean (in 1117 metres of water).

Although money shortages and technical problems have resulted in limited operations, it is expected that the Admiral Kuznetsov will remain in active duty until at least 2025.

You might be talking about the other Kuznetsov-Class Carrier, the Varyag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_aircraft_carrier_Varyag). That's been sold to the Chinese, who're probably reverse engineering it.

The Indians have only one carrier at the moment, the INS Viraat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Viraat), which used to be the HMS Hermes.

And (and I'm pretty sure that's the one you mean) a Kiev-Class "Aircraft Carrying Cruiser" - the INS Vikramaditya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vikramaditya). But that's not due to begin service until 2008.

And then there is this thing (http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-04/12/content_433517.htm), about which I know even less (wiki reckons it's based on the Italian Cavour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_aircraft_carrier_Cavour)).

Not commenting on the first two, because I don't know much about planes from the post-ww2 to vietnam era, with a few exceptions...

MiG-31 'Foxhound' vs F-14 'Tomcat'

The Tomcat. While I'm not a real fan of the F-14, the Mig-25 and Mig-31 really weren't that great at all. High speed is great, but missiles are more important. The F-14 had american radar(which pretty much always beats russian radar at same period/similar carriers), american missiles(Russian missiles, especially BVR, and pretty much crap. Aim-54's are pretty much the best way for an aircraft to kill an enemy bomber), american avionics(No comparison needed), etc.

Though, I wouldn't really want either. Its still pretty funny to hear about the successes of Iraqi Mirage F1's(iraqi's aren't exactly great pilots) against F-14's, piloted by Irans best and brightest, being their best fighter planes.

MiG-29 'Fulcrum' vs F-16 'Fighting Falcon'

F-16. Export success should say more than anything. Better radar, better missiles, better exports, better avionics. The Mig-29 never has the chance to get into BVR, especially against F-16's, so its pointless. Planes like the F-16 Blk 60 can do pretty well against 5th generation aircraft, which is a good feat. If the F-16 gets AESA anytime soon, its all over for the Mig-29 anytime, ever.

Su-27 'Flanker' vs F-15 'Eagle'

F-15. Will be fitted with AESA soon. Currently, still has a better radar than the Flanker, better missiles, etc. The Flanker has a strong radar, but not very advanced. Both planes have large radar signatures(about 5 RCS each, the F-15 in recent forms is thought to have a bit lower RCS). The Su-27 has no real advantages that come into play, especially in BVR. Without AESA, with such large RCS's, both planes are pretty much useless in modern combat against 5th gens(F/A-18E/F's, Rafale, Typhoon, F-22 and F-35).

No bomber or attack aircraft comments, though I give it to the US aircraft, on basis of better avionics, better missiles, better ECM and ECCM, etc.

And of course:
F-22 'Raptor' vs Su-37 'Flanker F' vs Su-47 'Firkin' vs MiG 'Project 1.44'

F-22. With AESA, IRST suite, incredibly low radar signature, etc, it will knock any plane out of the sky in BVR, unless the pilot is either a complete douche, or something completely bizarre forces it into WVR combat, where it will still have a good chance, though not as good. The F-22 will beat any aircraft in the world, on a kill to death ratio, even if you consider price.

Russian missiles, especially BVR, and pretty much crap.
Why?

What about the AA-12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMRAAMski)?

How can you make such generalising statements, when all the stats indicate differently. And just one example - Germany was participating in the ASRAAM project until it got its hands on the MiGs and their AA-11s. Which turned out to be better than was thought.

So the Germans wanted to incorporate that new knowledge into the ASRAAM project, the Brits refused, and now there is the IRIS-T which is the top dogfight-missile in the world.

:confused:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_aircraft_carrier_Kuznetsov


You might be talking about the other Kuznetsov-Class Carrier, the Varyag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_aircraft_carrier_Varyag). That's been sold to the Chinese, who're probably reverse engineering it.

The Indians have only one carrier at the moment, the INS Viraat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Viraat), which used to be the HMS Hermes.

And (and I'm pretty sure that's the one you mean) a Kiev-Class "Aircraft Carrying Cruiser" - the INS Vikramaditya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vikramaditya). But that's not due to begin service until 2008.

And then there is this thing (http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-04/12/content_433517.htm), about which I know even less (wiki reckons it's based on the Italian Cavour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_aircraft_carrier_Cavour)).
Thanks for unravelling the Russian mess. It turns out that a carrier is being sold to India, the Admiral Gorshkov was never operational and is now on it's way to the sub-continent.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kuznetsov/

The American engineers had the advantage of lots of technology and funding. The Soviet engineers had lower technology and less cash. They then learned how to make decent planes with less money. American engineers are undoubtedly brilliant, but the Soviet engineers were probably a little better.

Why?

What about the AA-12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMRAAMski)?

How can you make such generalising statements, when all the stats indicate differently. And just one example - Germany was participating in the ASRAAM project until it got its hands on the MiGs and their AA-11s. Which turned out to be better than was thought.

So the Germans wanted to incorporate that new knowledge into the ASRAAM project, the Brits refused, and now there is the IRIS-T which is the top dogfight-missile in the world.

The AA-12 isn't a very advanced missile. While its base statistics are similar to say an AMRAAM, it doesn't really compare.

ECCM, the AMRAAM is superior(and seeing as the AMRAAM isn't the hardest missile in the world to fool, thats not very good for the R-77).

Range, its difficult to say. Some say the R-77 can go to 90km, some say only to 50km(also depends on many variables, so both could possibly be right under conditions). The R-77m1 is said to have 175km range, but until its actually in production, its a non-issue. The Aim-120A/B has a range of about 50km, and the Aim-120C(The C-6 being the currently used version) is said to have signifigantly longer range, though no official numbers. Its likely they are similar ranged. The thing is, the R-77 has never been fired in anger, so its also pretty much a non-issue. Most russian planes can't even use the missile(Su-30 can, latest Mig-29's can, though both planes use radars that won't even detect most modern planes until fairly close).

Speed, the Aim-120C-6 has a speed of Mach 4+, so the R-77 gets no advantage there.

Agility, doesn't really matter. In BVR combat, once in the no escape zone, there is a very miniscule chance that manuvering will allow you to avoid a missile. Your best chance is ECM, afterburning away from it and hoping you get lucky, or bailing.

I'm not going to really comment on WVR/IR missiles. Very unlikely to get used. IRIS-T looks like it will be a great missile for what it does, and I think Europe is becoming the leader in A2A missiles, with Meteor, IRIS-T, Mica, etc. I would choose a MICA over pretty much any A2A missile though, because you get the range of a BVR missile, with the seeker and agility of an IR missile(or EM seeker, if the mission dictates).

I wouldn't speak volumes for the Mig-29. Germany pretty much gave them away to poland, and while there are more reasons than ability for that, germany could go the russian route if it really wanted. It likes its Eurofighter, Tornado's, and F-4's just fine atm.

Final comment: The russians have an outdated idea of Air to air combat. While slowly getting out of it, their aircraft and missiles have been less about radar ability, less about avionics, etc, more about agility and dogfighting. Too bad that advanced nations really don't dogfight anymore, and probably won't ever do it on a regular basis again, unless ECM really picks up over ECCM to the point where missiles just get beaten up.

The American engineers had the advantage of lots of technology and funding. The Soviet engineers had lower technology and less cash. They then learned how to make decent planes with less money. American engineers are undoubtedly brilliant, but the Soviet engineers were probably a little better.
But you know something? There's almost no partial credit in Air to Air combat. It's either win, lose, or bug out.

When I was an A-6 B/N, we always trained for the last option. My favorite acronym was RTFOOBAG -- Run the fuc... out of bullets and gas.