It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mig's or US Fighters, Which one is better?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   
U read the Subject so which planes of the both nations sides are the ultimate planes of destruction?
I've Heard many stories about migs where better in Vietnam then the f-4 phantoms but still through the years the speed can't mean so much right now?

[edit on 7-9-2006 by Spiers]

[edit on 7-9-2006 by Spiers]

Mod edit: Corrected title

[edit on 7-9-2006 by UK Wizard]




posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   
May I suggest lengthening your post as i don't believe 1 sentence replys are allowed never mind 1 sentence topic.

About the planes issue I think that's pretty obvious with all Russian jets being technologically inferior probably more migs have been shot down than any other plane in recent history. Not to mention the fact that all Russian equipment is basicly Rust these days.

Lesson is if you want to lose a fight use a Mig If you want to win buy American.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   
I still think that the russian army might have developed new better MIG's taht we haven't seen in action,i mean all the russain equipment can't rust.Thanks for tip btw



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   
i'd have to put a vote forth on US technology and training.
leaning more on the training side.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   
The US definately has an advantage as far technology goes, but as far as training it would be a lot closer, russia has some very good pilots that i believe would be very capeable of competingif not out doing their oposite numbers in the US



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   
This thread convinces me that there are more Bill O'Reillys in this world than Walter Cronkites. Don't ask questions, just make everything a "vs." fight.


Originally posted by Shamanator
About the planes issue I think that's pretty obvious with all Russian jets being technologically inferior probably more migs have been shot down than any other plane in recent history. Not to mention the fact that all Russian equipment is basicly Rust these days.

Lesson is if you want to lose a fight use a Mig If you want to win buy American.


A very poor argument. The reason why MiGs have been shot down more than U.S. planes is because MiGs, especially the "Fishbed," are the most prevalent aircraft in the world today. THINKING, yes, THINKING, allows us to conclude that because the Fishbed is the most prevalent aircraft in the world and has been with countres that have seen FAR MORE military action than the U.S. has, the MiG is by default the most shot-down aircraft in the world.

If the U.S. was involved as many wars as Third World countries were and for longer times and higher intensity, I guarantee U.S. aircraft losses would be alarming.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   
it think sweatmonicaIdo has a point.The US army haven't been in so many Air to Air combat as Russia maybe that is making the bad reputation.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 01:40 PM
link   
I can sum it up quite easilly,

Russia has the cost advantage, America has the avionics advantage, Russia doesn't have stealth aircraft yet but do have excellent missiles and some of the best SAMs in the world.

Training is probably on par, but Russia seems to be bigger in the aerobatics department since they fly few combat missions these days, I don't know if they fly missions over Chechnya.

The reason the US has high succes rate in air combat is because the US always face enemies with inferior training and equipment, the MiG-29's the Iraqi's employed were export versions inferior to what Russia flies, very much like the stripped F-16's the US sells to friendly countries.

The US would not fare so well against a more developed nation like Iran or even North Korea, even though they are not on par with Russia, they have received training from Russians (albeit in the past for NK).



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 03:37 AM
link   
Its really the old argument of QUALITY vs QUANTITY...


Through history, there are cases of both sides winning.


What I would say is important, is that the machines of the side with more need to be of reasonable quality so they aren't sitting ducks.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spiers
U read the Subject so which planes of the both nations sides are the ultimate planes of destruction?
I've Heard many stories about migs where better in Vietnam then the f-4 phantoms but still through the years the speed can't mean so much right now?

[edit on 7-9-2006 by Spiers]

[edit on 7-9-2006 by Spiers]

Mod edit: Corrected title

[edit on 7-9-2006 by UK Wizard]

Speed does matter.how about short range interception.you do need a fast plane to intercept before the enemy planes get near the base.how about mig 25 foxbat.
mach3.2(clean)
mach 2.83 loaded.as i said it does matter



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 08:17 AM
link   
I prefer the US fighers because they have better cockpit technology. Now don't get me wrong, Migs aren't bad planes, in fact they have some advantages in combat. However, when it's all said and done, I'd go for the US fighters, altough I can think of some improvement in the US designs that wouldn't hurt!

Tim



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   
May I refer everyone to this topped note from one of our mods:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

These type of threads dissolve in back and forth arguments with no end and from experience bring nothing but heated bickering with a minute amount of debate.

sweatmonicaIdo pointed this out as well.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join