
How the MiG-15 grounded the U.S. bomber fleet in Korea (2013) - lujim
http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/the-jet-that-shocked-the-west-180947758/
======
nl
There was a post in HN some weeks ago where a comment claimed that US fighters
were always superior to Soviet fighters.

I didn't have the energy to dispute it then, but this piece does a pretty good
job. The MiG 15 was very much comparable to the Sabre, and the MiG 17 and MiG
21 were better than the F-100, F-105 and the F-104 (ha!)[1].

It was only when the F-4 became available that the US could match the MiG-21
(which was one of the reasons that the Israelis mostly flew Mirages until the
mid-1970s).

[1] eg,
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter#Ind...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter#India.E2.80.93Pakistan_Wars)

~~~
lujim
I think the consensus was that the Mig-15 had the slight edge on the F-86, but
US pilots were better trained than North Korean pilots. As it turns out Soviet
pilots occasionally flew in Korea and gave US pilots a run for their money.

Mig-15,17, and 19s were giving F-4's a run for their money in Vietnam until
Phantom pilots quit trying to turn with the smaller Migs and just used their
giant J79 engines w/ afterburner to fight vertically. I believe the Phantoms
always had the advantage but it was obscene to lose a 2 crew multirole state
of the art fighter like an f-4 for every one or two outdated Mig-15s that were
shot down.

The Mig-21 was a point defense interceptor intended to zoom up to altitude
quickly and intercept US bombers. It was a reasonable fighter because it's
wing. Delta wings don't have a sharp stall angle like other types of wings,
they just start piling on drag as the angle of attack increases. The closest
US fighter is terms of design is probably the f-104, but the Mig-21 was really
in the same class performance wise as the f-4.

The Mig-29, SU-27 and on are solid first class fighters and probably have the
edge on the F-16 and F-15.

~~~
noir_lord
The training thing is addressed in the article, as near as historians can tell
when facing soviet pilots the kill ratio was 1.4 to 1 (favouring the Sabre)
but rose to 9:1 when flying against non-soviet pilots.

> The Mig-29, SU-27 and on are solid first class fighters and probably have
> the edge on the F-16 and F-15.

As a pure dog fighting aircraft possibly but as an air intercept fighter I
think the F15 (with the except of the F22 and the EF2000) is still the thing
to beat.

~~~
lujim
Probably true. The f15 has shot down a satellite, landed without one of it's
wings, and has never lost a fight. Not bad for something that first flew 43
years ago.

~~~
noir_lord
The F15 is an interesting story, it was created in part as a reaction to the
terrifying intelligence they had about the Mig25, they went all out to create
something to beat something that turned out not to exist in a sense (The
Mig-25 existed of course but it's actual characteristics where very different
to what intelligence suggested, it was big and fast and that was about it, if
it ran at full speed the engines ate themselves).

In doing so they created the best air intercept fighter of it's generation and
a design that is still considered premier-tier, the US consider it obsolete
because it lacks stealth but not every country has fully adopted the stealth
mantra (the Russians never really did or possibly didn't have the
manufacturing capability).

It will be interesting to see if they continue it's development, there where
nominal plans for new variant called the Silent Eagle which adopted some radar
reduction measures and upgraded it's electronics to state of the art, I think
once you except stealth that we are at a point with fighters where the
airframe is secondary to the avionics and weapons, they all have the
capability to kill the pilot from G forces so maneuverability isn't really an
issue anymore.

It's interesting to see what the Indians have done with their Mig-21 upgrade
program, with modern avionics and weapons it's reputedly as potent as a
middle-bloc F16 which considering that's a 60 year old air frame design is
incredible.

~~~
spacehome
its

~~~
nl
No, "it's" is correct. It is a contraction of it is, used appropriately in
this context.

[http://grammarist.com/spelling/its-its/](http://grammarist.com/spelling/its-
its/)

~~~
spacehome
> The Mig-25 existed of course but it's actual characteristics where very
> different to what intelligence suggested ...

You're saying this should read "... but it is actual characteristics ..."?

------
ansible
In case you haven't seen them, here are Greg Goebel's articles on the fighters
talked about in the article.

F-86 Sabre:

[http://airvectors.net/avf86.html](http://airvectors.net/avf86.html)

MIG-15:

[http://airvectors.net/avmig15.html](http://airvectors.net/avmig15.html)

------
ZanyProgrammer
Hint: The bomber the US used as the backbone of the Strategic Air Command
wasn't used in Korea.

~~~
wycx
Convair B-36?

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
Yep. Not surprising the B-29 would be quickly outclassed.

