Russian-Made Crash Notification

I dunno about that. Was the F-4 the very first with splitter plates? I've never heard of an F-4 being captured by the USSR.

They had very little in the way of hands-on intelligence on Western aircraft overall. One or two F-5s were captured from the RVNAF by the North Vietnamese and sent to the Soviets, and they got a (by then enormously outdated) F-84F from Yugoslavia in the 1980s or so. That's about it (not counting fragments of the U-2, the D-21 etc).

Anyway, the MiG-23 started with half-cone inlets, similar to the French Mirages and many others, ie essentially a MiG-21 inlet cut in half, movable cone and all, and moved to the sides.

They then moved onto splitter plates instead, and made the inlets more rectangular, not sure why. The many small holes were for boundary layer control, they suck (I mean, literally).

Dr.Snufflebug wrote:I dunno about that. Was the F-4 the very first with splitter plates? I've never heard of an F-4 being captured by the USSR.

They had very little in the way of hands-on intelligence on Western aircraft overall. One or two F-5s were captured from the RVNAF by the North Vietnamese and sent to the Soviets, and they got a (by then enormously outdated) F-84F from Yugoslavia in the 1980s or so. That's about it (not counting fragments of the U-2, the D-21 etc).

Anyway, the MiG-23 started with half-cone inlets, similar to the French Mirages and many others, ie essentially a MiG-21 inlet cut in half, movable cone and all, and moved to the sides.

They then moved onto splitter plates instead, and made the inlets more rectangular, not sure why. The many small holes were for boundary layer control, they suck (I mean, literally).

Just so everyone knows, this is what he said in the walkaround video. It's not something I'm saying since I never knew anything about that lol. Don't shoot the messenger I just thought it was fascinating and the intakes do look almost identical.

He explains the story about the captured F-4 Phantom here @ minute 5 exactly is where it starts. He even said the back space behind that flat panel had sharp metal bars that were specifically engineered for the Phantoms so that when the naval versions would emergency land on a carrier which needed to deploy the drag/stop net barrier, those sharp "blades" would cut through the net right at that location to allow the nose through the net and grab the wings which apparently worked better to slow the plane down and stop it. He then proceeded to say the Soviets even made those cutting bars to the exact specs, despite not knowing what they were for at the time. Maybe he's got it wrong? Take a look if you have a couple of minutes.

Yeah, I heard. Sounds a bit urban legend-ish to be honest.

He also says the Soviets painted the cockpits green/teal to, I quote: "have a calming effect on the pilot, 'all is well, you're not going to die'"

No, they painted them green/teal to reduce eye strain. The Soviet system of standards, GOST which regulated everything from the recipes of particular sausages to what color an instrument panel should be painted in says it clearly. They did research on it and found that greenish-blue colors in the 480-510nm range were the easiest on the eyes for prolonged viewing. That's why civilian planes from the era all have it as well, and all kinds of non aviation-related instrument panels too. Nothing to do with calming the pilots ahead of their inevitable demise (which is what he's hinting at). (1)

Soviet aerospace engineers weren't dumb. However, like all engineers all over the planet, they of course looked at what others were doing, to see what could be learned from it, that did happen (but I'm still not sure about the MiG-23 splitter plates)... They didn't blindly copy things just because, they were competent enough to figure out *why* other guys did this or that.

(1) And when MFDs started taking over completely in the 1990's and over time became larger and larger, it became less relevant. So while some modern Russian aircraft still sport teal-ish "dashboards" just by tradition, most have gone grey or black. Because you hardly see it anyway, screens take up everything.

https://t.me/milinfolive/105056

Training aircraft L-39 crashed in the Krasnodar Territory during a planned training flight, according to preliminary information, one of the crew members died - Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.

caveat emptor wrote:https://t.me/milinfolive/105056

Training aircraft L-39 crashed in the Krasnodar Territory during a planned training flight, according to preliminary information, one of the crew members died - Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.

Not to be that guy, but was it Russia-made? (I mean, considering the topic)... I thought all L-39s were (and still are, as "Alcas" and what not) made in Czechia?

Dr.Snufflebug wrote:Yeah, I heard. Sounds a bit urban legend-ish to be honest.

He also says the Soviets painted the cockpits green/teal to, I quote: "have a calming effect on the pilot, 'all is well, you're not going to die'"

Digging a little bit into this interesting story, I found a couple of articles which mention what is more likely the root of this claim about the F-4 Phantom captured by the USSR.
Hard to tell if both the Phantom & Mirage are wrapped in something or if they are mockups.

Another curious development from behind the Iron Curtain was this photo of a what seems to be a McDonnell-Douglas F-4 Phantom aircraft (or mock-up) under a tarp at the famous Zhukovskiy airfield near Moscow. The photo is allegedly from Aug. 11, 1971. It includes a French-built Mirage aircraft, also under cover, parked next to it. The massive Myasishchev M-4 Molot strategic bomber in front of the F-4 and the Mirage add some scale to the image.



https://theaviationist.com/2017/06/14/russian-video-of-captured-u-s-f-5a-tiger-jet-dogfighting-against-mig-21-in-tests-raises-question-do-they-still-operate-american-jets/

Dr.Snufflebug wrote:No, they painted them green/teal to reduce eye strain. The Soviet system of standards, GOST which regulated everything from the recipes of particular sausages to what color an instrument panel should be painted in says it clearly. They did research on it and found that greenish-blue colors in the 480-510nm range were the easiest on the eyes for prolonged viewing. That's why civilian planes from the era all have it as well, and all kinds of non aviation-related instrument panels too. Nothing to do with calming the pilots ahead of their inevitable demise (which is what he's hinting at). (1)

Soviet aerospace engineers weren't dumb. However, like all engineers all over the planet, they of course looked at what others were doing, to see what could be learned from it, that did happen (but I'm still not sure about the MiG-23 splitter plates)... They didn't blindly copy things just because, they were competent enough to figure out *why* other guys did this or that.

(1) And when MFDs started taking over completely in the 1990's and over time became larger and larger, it became less relevant. So while some modern Russian aircraft still sport teal-ish "dashboards" just by tradition, most have gone grey or black. Because you hardly see it anyway, screens take up everything.

Makes sense. The eye strain most likely morphed into urban legend as calming effect lol. You know, one tells a story to someone by the time it reaches the 10th individual it's a completely embellished story to the original hahaha.

I'd wager those are either mockups for RCS testing or target recogntion, or simply some good old psyops stuff as they sure had access to plenty of photos showing the general appearance of these aircraft and perhaps wanted to throw satellite surveillance and its analysts off a bit. Never heard of any *actual* Mirage III or F-4 ever making its way to the USSR, as I said.

Soviet trainer variants of all fighters had no radar. It's cheaper this way. Then when they learn to fly it they can go learn the radar on the real combat fighter.

Mig-29UB kept the irst and could still use r-73 but not r-27.

They seem to change that nowadays. Su-30m2 is the trainer variant of su-30SM and it seems to keep its radar and weapon system. But it's not at the level of su-30SM.

IMO it was better to keep it affordable by removing expensive radars and weapon systems. Now they lack trainer aircraft in good numbers and the su-30m2 is very bad for modern standards. Pretty useless to have it carry a shittier radar that is still quite expensive.

The modern Russian jet trainer fleet consists of L-39s and Yak-130s, both lack radar (but the latter has a "radar simulator", and can be fitted with proper targeting pods etc, that can run through the simulation software, much like its flight control system is customizable to mimic particular aircraft).

Really, the 130 is the perfect trainer for them, but I don't know how many they field now, They built 200+ altogether so far, but a good chunk has been sold abroad.

edit: MiG-29UB used to be the go-to 2nd (or 3rd I guess) trainer, but it's outdated, lacks radar as noted, and hasn't been upgraded at all for 30 years. The Sukhoi two-seaters are on the other hand fully combat capable, so they're not "trainers" per se.

Radar operation as well as comms can be simulated on the ground. There is no need to spend thousand dollars per hours flying any jet to just learn how to operate the radar.

Despite the claims made by rostec, Yak-130 doesn't simulate supersonic flight neither the caracteristics of a su-35 manoeuvrability. You still need something like a mig-35UB, su-30UB which role is done by su-30M2... to really learn to fly these machine. And since they are trainer variants they are more used than real fighter so the cheaper the better. Su-30m2 by the way is specially bought for training and nothing more even if it could be used for plenty of mission. Even in way time you still need trainer aircraft.

Dr.Snufflebug wrote:

Not to be that guy, but was it Russia-made? (I mean, considering the topic)... I thought all L-39s were (and still are, as "Alcas" and what not) made in Czechia?

I believe that Czechoslovakia was the only country that built them. I didn't know that RuAF is still using them. I remember that there was a talk they want to get rid of them, when Yak-130 started to arrive to the troops.

Off-topic: original GOST-compliant Soviet sausage is amazing. The docs are all online these days, whether concerning cockpits or cheese.

The other thing that was cool was the air intakes. He said the Soviet Union "acquired" an F-4 Phantom and ended up reverse engineering the air intakes and duplicating the exact ones for the MiG-23. Makes sense once you look at them, especially that flat plate.

Yankee bullshit.

The story is actually that the MiG-23 has a few extra bleed holes in their intake plates because the plate they examined had some battle damage and they are so fucking stupid they just copied the bullet holes along with everything else.

Why did the Cold War take so long when the Americans invented and made everything and the stupid Soviets just made bad copies.

They did research on it and found that greenish-blue colors in the 480-510nm range were the easiest on the eyes for prolonged viewing. That's why civilian planes from the era all have it as well, and all kinds of non aviation-related instrument panels too. Nothing to do with calming the pilots ahead of their inevitable demise (which is what he's hinting at). (1)

In fact it is pretty obvious that the black cockpits in the west make the displays harder to read especially when not in good light conditions, and they tested white but it became too bright in conditions of direct sunlight so the green teal colour was found to be the best... not blinding in direct sunlight, but it increases the light inside the cockpit so it is easier to read the instruments.

Note the Americans also claim the Polikarpov I-16 fighter was a copy of the US Geebee racer, except it wasn't.

The I-16 didn't need wing bracing for the wings and its wheels were retractable... even if it was a manual retraction.

Digging a little bit into this interesting story, I found a couple of articles which mention what is more likely the root of this claim about the F-4 Phantom captured by the USSR.
Hard to tell if both the Phantom & Mirage are wrapped in something or if they are mockups.

America also claim the Iranians handed the Soviets one of their F-14s and then the Soviets invented the MiG-31 with the R-33 missile.

Except the radar of the MiG-31 is a PESA and totally different from the radar in the F-14 and the R-33 is nothing like the Phoenix missiles.

It is just US ego.

Soviet trainer variants of all fighters had no radar. It's cheaper this way.

Soviet trainer variants of aircraft were trainers and had no need of radar.

The exception was the Su-27UB which had fully operational radar and IRST and reduced fuel to carry the extra pilot.

The Su-27UB eventually became the Su-30 which is also an operational aircraft.

Mig-29UB kept the irst and could still use r-73 but not r-27.

The first models of the MiG-29 could only carry the SARH R-27 and R-60s and R-73s. Later upgraded models added the IR guided R-27s and the extended range model R-27E. The later model MiG-29UB could also carry the IR guided R-27 and R-27E, as well as TV guided bombs.

Su-30m2 is the trainer variant of su-30SM and it seems to keep its radar and weapon system. But it's not at the level of su-30SM.

The Su-27UB is the Flanker training aircraft and the Su-30 is an improved version of that so it does not need a trainer model, they are operational aircraft.

The MiG-29K has replaced the trainer version of the Su-25 used on their carrier, but is also a fully operational fighter bomber.

The Su-33 is only the single seat model so the Su-33 pilot trains for carrier operations by flying the two seat MiS-29K.

You still need something like a mig-35UB, su-30UB which role is done by su-30M2... to really learn to fly these machine. And since they are trainer variants they are more used than real fighter so the cheaper the better. Su-30m2 by the way is specially bought for training and nothing more even if it could be used for plenty of mission. Even in way time you still need trainer aircraft.

All Su-30s are two seat aircraft and can be used as operational aircraft and for training. The new MiGs are single seat or two seat aircraft can be be operational aircraft or training aircraft because they retain all military equipment including radar.

I believe that Czechoslovakia was the only country that built them. I didn't know that RuAF is still using them. I remember that there was a talk they want to get rid of them, when Yak-130 started to arrive to the troops.

That is the problem with following Russian military stuff... just because they are producing Yak-130s does not mean all the L-39s are gone... and the Yak-152 is still not in service AFAIK so any L39s will still be in use even just as the airfield hack to keep flight hours up.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39824/this-myth-busting-walk-around-of-the-soviet-mig-23-flogger-fighter-is-a-must-watch

No, the intake design wasn’t stolen from the F-4

Ward also takes on another Western fallacy about the MiG-23, which supposes that the designers at Mikoyan-Gurevich took the engine intake design from the F-4 Phantom II and used it on the Flogger. Not true, says Ward, who points out that, while the form and function are similar, the MiG-23 has a completely different intake with different dimensions.

The cleverly engineered intake serves to manage the turbulent boundary layer airflow over the airframe, with a splitter plate and variable ramps in the intake ensuring the airflow is decelerated to subsonic speed before feeding the engine, preventing unstable supersonic air from slamming into the engine and maintaining efficiency.

Trainer aircraft are more likely to crash due to the fact that untrained pilots are flying them.

Su-30 can do training and combat missions but they won't use the SM variant for training (at least not for training new pilots). They buy the cheaper and weaker M2 variant for training.

That's why I say I prefer soviet philosophy of removing expensive stuff from trainer variant like on mig-29UB. There is no need to risk to loose a mig-35 when you could just buy for 1/4 its price a mig-29UB without the expensive ram coating, radars, datalinks and so on.

When they master the UB variant thry will continue their training on actual fighter anyway. Every time they fly in peace time is a training but to teach new pilots you don't really want to use an expebsive su-30SM. Even the M2 is too much for such role.

Trainer aircraft are more likely to crash due to the fact that untrained pilots are flying them.

Well there should be an experienced pilot in the aircraft with them to correct bad piloting mistakes and also to guide them.

Equally trainer aircraft are not test aircraft... they wont be testing dangerous flight profiles in the training aircraft.

Operational aircraft like strike aircraft will involve flying very low and very fast which of course increases the chances of a crash due to bird strike or hitting wires or ground objects like trees or the tips of hills and mountains.

Su-30 can do training and combat missions but they won't use the SM variant for training (at least not for training new pilots). They buy the cheaper and weaker M2 variant for training.

Being a two seat aircraft with dual flight controls they can use it for training... I dare say that their might be a few older Su-27UBs and Su-30Ms available for them to train in... there are no two seat Su-35 aircraft and no two seat Su-33 aircraft, but the Flankers are supposed to be rather easier to fly than previous aircraft like the Su-27 and old model MiG-29s whose handling was very good but low level of computing power meant a lot of functions were manual.

With the new aircraft it is all automated and much easier.

And the simulators are pretty realistic too.

That's why I say I prefer soviet philosophy of removing expensive stuff from trainer variant like on mig-29UB. There is no need to risk to loose a mig-35 when you could just buy for 1/4 its price a mig-29UB without the expensive ram coating, radars, datalinks and so on.

It is funny you say that because the new MiG-29M and MiG-29K and MiG-35 have a unified design so they can be single seat or two seat, they all have a two seat canopy and layout, but fitting the extra seat is optional... you can make it a single seat or a twin seat at overhaul level AFAIK.

It makes the parts the same and standardises them and for some missions having two crew is a good thing and they are fully operational with all weapons and equipment available to both aircraft configurations.

One of the advantages the Russian AF liked about the Su-27UB is that it was a training aircraft but was capable of armed operations... the Su-30M was developed from that and was going to be used by the PVO as a heavy interceptor and radar plane that operates with smaller aircraft where the Su-30M uses its bigger more powerful radar to find targets and the smaller lighter fighters operating with it are able to climb and accelerate and launch missiles from altitude and high speed closer to the enemy aircraft than the Su-30M was flying... the smaller aircraft would zoom climb and accelerate to top speed and launch and then turn and fly away from the enemy aircraft with the Su-30M detecting the target and sending course corrections to the missiles the lighter aircraft launched to impact.

If the enemy don't use their radar they will only know the Su-30M is there... they wont detect the much closer smaller aircraft launching their missiles and leaving.

An important part of flying an Su-30 in combat is cooperation between the two crew and communication so you work together and don't get in each others way.

No one will go straight from flying Yak-130s to front line operational Su-30.

The Yak-130 is fully armed and able to simulate all sorts of weapons use, so you can practice all sorts of things.

It doesn't fly supersonically but its digital flight control system can be adjusted to simulate the flight characteristics of a range of aircraft including modern fighters and transport aircraft.

Interesting interview with the back seat pilot of the Mig 23. He called the ejection and pulled the handles 

Dr.Snufflebug wrote:I've never heard of an F-4 being captured by the USSR.

They had very little in the way of hands-on intelligence on Western aircraft overall. One or two F-5s were captured from the RVNAF by the North Vietnamese and sent to the Soviets, and they got a (by then enormously outdated) F-84F from Yugoslavia in the 1980s or so. That's about it (not counting fragments of the U-2, the D-21 etc).

Anyway, the MiG-23 started with half-cone inlets, similar to the French Mirages and many others, ie essentially a MiG-21 inlet cut in half, movable cone and all, and moved to the sides.

There are rumors of the Chinese even having access to the F-111 radar and avionics. The thing is, even if no F-4 was captured intact, enough were brought down during the Vietnam War that it is likely portions of the aircraft were indeed captured, and reverse engineered.

Being a two seat aircraft with dual flight controls they can use it for training... I dare say that their might be a few older Su-27UBs and Su-30Ms available for them to train in... there are no two seat Su-35 aircraft and no two seat Su-33 aircraft, but the Flankers are supposed to be rather easier to fly than previous aircraft like the Su-27 and old model MiG-29s whose handling was very good but low level of computing power meant a lot of functions were manual.

With the new aircraft it is all automated and much easier.

And the simulators are pretty realistic too.

They are not using the SM for training. Well...like I said no for training new pilots to fly such aircraft.

Of course they use the SM or even the su-35 to train experienced pilots and make them keep their knowledge. But that's another form of training.

It is funny you say that because the new MiG-29M and MiG-29K and MiG-35 have a unified design so they can be single seat or two seat, they all have a two seat canopy and layout, but fitting the extra seat is optional... you can make it a single seat or a twin seat at overhaul level AFAIK.

Two seat fighters are made to reduce load of the pilot.

Don't confuse them with training aircraft.

No one will go straight from flying Yak-130s to front line operational Su-30

Exactly. That's why you need a cheap variant of the end fighter. In this case they use a su-30M2. For mig-29 they used mig-29U. And I think they should have an even cheaper su-30UB for su-30SM/35 training and even an su-57UB without expensive stuff like RAM coating, radar, EW... for training for su-57.

Not only do they reduce loses of real fighter but they can also use them more because they are way cheaper to maintain, basically by maintaining flight controls and engines only.

It's common sense to have a cheaper model to train on. Yak-130 can't reproduce them totally and training on the real models puts them in danger.

They have lost a lot of them in training flight eanwhile number are far lower than during soviet times. Only 100 su-35 when they used to have hundreds if not thousands mig-25 or mig-21 for exemple.

I personally think that it's way too much of a coincidence that the intake plate on the MiG-23 ended up looking exactly like the one on the F-4 Phantom and that what the owner of that MiG-23 said does make sense.  There is a reason for the disagreements.

Whether it was a captured F-4 from the Vietnamese or a mockup or whatever, doesn't matter since all it takes is someone photographing or filming it to be able to reverse engineer it, especially with the skills of all the engineers of the cold war era.  I don't mean to minimize the effort since there is A LOT of experience and engineering qualities to make that work.

The overall shape is identical.  The intake openings, variable ramps, boundary layer splitter plates are the same shape and the drilled holes are identical (or almost identical) and placed in the same exact location.  The fact that there are exact cutting blades behind the plates for not only the net-cutting factor mentioned, but to brace the plate and obviously for the intake splitter plate BL space are also identical.

Let's assume those two 'shapes' at Zhukovsky are mockups; the fact that there is also a Mirage sitting right next to the F-4 is another indication of the chain of events as the first design was also identical to the cone inlet of the Mirage III, as @Gary mentioned.  And the timing of those two aircraft being there with the subsequent building and introduction of the MiG-23 corresponds accordingly with that chain of events.  Changing the intake from the Mirage style to the Phantom style was most likely the result of the former not working properly or having issues.  That's just speculation on my part.

And there's nothing to be ashamed of for that being the case.  It actually shows excellent technological & engineering capabilities.  It's not a demeaning quality or anything of the sort.  Quite the contrary.  Look at the Chinese and how much they've designed their own stuff based on other entities' designs, including western and Russian stuff.

The actual reason for the cockpit teal color that @Dr.Snufflebug described makes complete sense.  A calming effect rather that less eye straining is completely valid.  

I know I'm going to get some flack from this post loool, but there should be room for valid and honest counterpoints, especially from a huuuugeah fan of Russian aviation.

GarryB wrote:https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39824/this-myth-busting-walk-around-of-the-soviet-mig-23-flogger-fighter-is-a-must-watch

No, the intake design wasn’t stolen from the F-4

Ward also takes on another Western fallacy about the MiG-23, which supposes that the designers at Mikoyan-Gurevich took the engine intake design from the F-4 Phantom II and used it on the Flogger. Not true, says Ward, who points out that, while the form and function are similar, the MiG-23 has a completely different intake with different dimensions.

The cleverly engineered intake serves to manage the turbulent boundary layer airflow over the airframe, with a splitter plate and variable ramps in the intake ensuring the airflow is decelerated to subsonic speed before feeding the engine, preventing unstable supersonic air from slamming into the engine and maintaining efficiency.

"Falacy"?  "Completely different"?  The only difference is the size.  Of course it needs to be proportionally correct to the corresponding intake opening on the MiG-23.  The intake openings are smaller in size, yes, causing the plate to be smaller which then makes for lesser holes needed and those are the differences he's talking about.  The functioning process with changes in air speed is also the same.

I think the cause of all this hoopla is calling it "the same exact intakes".  That means the plate, the opening of the air intake and the total dimensions are exactly the same in shape AND size.  Obviously they're not the same size and that's the only differences as a result of customizing them to fit and work properly with the existing fuselage/airframe of the MiG-23.

Isos wrote:Being a two seat aircraft with dual flight controls they can use it for training... I dare say that their might be a few older Su-27UBs and Su-30Ms available for them to train in... there are no two seat Su-35 aircraft and no two seat Su-33 aircraft, but the Flankers are supposed to be rather easier to fly than previous aircraft like the Su-27 and old model MiG-29s whose handling was very good but low level of computing power meant a lot of functions were manual.

With the new aircraft it is all automated and much easier.

And the simulators are pretty realistic too.

What about new cadets straight out of the academy?  Do they use the MiG-29UB and simulator and then jump into the Su-35?

No su-35 pilots are the ones that used to fly su-30SM.

For the new ones they will train on su-30m2.  You can't go from a yak 130 to a su-35.

Mig-29UB doesn't really reproduce su-35 but it's still better than just using yak-130.

The thing is, even if no F-4 was captured intact, enough were brought down during the Vietnam War that it is likely portions of the aircraft were indeed captured, and reverse engineered.

Sounds like a lot of effort for an obsolete old aircraft...

Why bother reverse engineering it?

They are not using the SM for training. Well...like I said no for training new pilots to fly such aircraft.

You are missing the point... the two seater aircraft operate with operational units in operational situations... they wont be getting anyone who doesn't know how a plane works and doesn't know how to fly an aircraft.

When they get to the operational unit they will be allocated to second seater while the learn the differences of the new aircraft compared with aircraft they are familiar with flying. The two crew are generally two pilots rather than a pilot and a specialised weapons officer.

Two seat fighters are made to reduce load of the pilot.

Two seater fighters are normally used for roles where two crew work better than one, but equally their new aircraft automate things to the point where the aircraft might be a two seat but only fly with a single person on board.

Don't confuse them with training aircraft.

The MiG-29M and MiG-29K and MiG-35 are able to carry two seats with two crew and are operational trainers... essentially the next step up from the Yak-130.

Exactly. That's why you need a cheap variant of the end fighter. In this case they use a su-30M2.

The Su-30M2 is not a cheap trainer aircraft, it is an upgrade of the Su-30M, which is an operational aircraft based on the Su-27UB which is an operational trainer... operational trainer meaning it can carry two pilots but retains full combat capability in terms of weapons and radar etc etc.

When new pilots go to an operational unit they will fly in the Su-30M2 but not in the front as a student pilot with an instructor in the back monitoring them... they will be in the back looking and feeling what the aircraft is like while the pilot in the front performs operational missions... the guy in the back will get to take over to get experience a couple of times before he is on his own in the plane or any other plane.

For mig-29 they used mig-29U.

You mean the MiG-29UB which was unpopular because it lacks a proper radar which means it really is only good for training so essentially it was a non combat capable aircraft operating at the front line.

MiG learned from Sukhoi with their Su-27UB and developed their new generation MiGs which are also fully combat capable and able to be fitted with one or two seats.

And I think they should have an even cheaper su-30UB for su-30SM/35 training and even an su-57UB without expensive stuff like RAM coating, radar, EW... for training for su-57.

No... you say they are cheap but they are not.... when you have squadrons in operational units with fighter aircraft with no functioning radar that can't carry most of the weapons the other aircraft in the unit can carry then you have a dog.

Look at their carrier aviation.... with the Su-33 on the Kuznetsov they needed a two seat aircraft for training at carrier landing so they used a converted version of the Su-25 which has its gun removed and most of its weapon pylons so it can tow targets but has no combat capability at all.

When they got the MiG-29K it can be converted from single seat to two seat and back as you need so it can be used for training so the Su-25 becomes redundant but more importantly the MiG-29K that replaces it can be used in combat so the combat capacity of the ship is slightly improved... even if it does cost more than the Su-25.

Not only do they reduce loses of real fighter but they can also use them more because they are way cheaper to maintain, basically by maintaining flight controls and engines only.

The role of the instructor is to monitor the trainee pilot and make sure they don't get into situations they can't get out of... the trainee pilot at an operational unit is not the same as a trainee pilot learning to fly with little real flight experience.

Operational units can't afford to have a quarter or a fifth or whatever of their warbirds being useless for combat... even if it prevents one or two planes being lost.

It's common sense to have a cheaper model to train on. Yak-130 can't reproduce them totally and training on the real models puts them in danger.

The Yak-130 was chosen because of its digital flight control system that did allow it to recreate the flight performance of a range of aircraft.

They have lost a lot of them in training flight eanwhile number are far lower than during soviet times. Only 100 su-35 when they used to have hundreds if not thousands mig-25 or mig-21 for exemple.

They operate in extreme conditions in a dangerous line of work... if you want zero losses then don't fly.

I personally think that it's way too much of a coincidence that the intake plate on the MiG-23 ended up looking exactly like the one on the F-4 Phantom and that what the owner of that MiG-23 said does make sense. There is a reason for the disagreements.

Are you surprised that the tires look similar too?

Who copied what?

The soviets were happy to copy where it made sense but surely if they had the multrole F-4 and were copying it then why didn't they make the MiG-23 multirole too... instead they had the fighter version MiG-23 and the strike version MiG-27...

Western aircraft technology was not that much more advanced than Soviet technology of the time... it was just a case that the Soviets went for simple designed that were likely more practical.

The core feature of the Phantom was BVR missiles in the form of the Sparrows... and lets face it... they were rubbish.

The Soviets had lots of large BVR AAMs but they were designed to shoot down bombers and not fighters.

Whether it was a captured F-4 from the Vietnamese or a mockup or whatever, doesn't matter since all it takes is someone photographing or filming it to be able to reverse engineer it, especially with the skills of all the engineers of the cold war era. I don't mean to minimize the effort since there is A LOT of experience and engineering qualities to make that work.

Yeah... stupid commies can't make air intake plates for fighter planes so they have to copy American designs... right...

There were examples where the Soviets did copy and they admit to that.... the Sidewinder, the Tu-4, the Space Shuttle, but there are plenty of examples where the west copied the Soviets... assault rifles and BMPs and the F-15 was a US copy of the MiG-25.

The overall shape is identical. The intake openings, variable ramps, boundary layer splitter plates are the same shape and the drilled holes are identical (or almost identical) and placed in the same exact location. The fact that there are exact cutting blades behind the plates for not only the net-cutting factor mentioned, but to brace the plate and obviously for the intake splitter plate BL space are also identical.

Yeah, the people making the claim it was a copy also state this... but that is no surprise... I guess delta wing designs are patented too so the first wins and any other plane that uses that is a copy...

The Soviets were first into space so everyone that follows is just copying?

And there's nothing to be ashamed of for that being the case. It actually shows excellent technological & engineering capabilities.

My problem is that Americans claiming to invent everything and having other copy them... they had tens of thousands of men working designing everything from wings to nuts and bolts but they have to copy an engine intake from an American plane.... yeah right.

It's not a demeaning quality or anything of the sort.

Any western publication that mentions claims of copying always imply that mistakes are made so not only are they incompetent but they can't even copy properly... they only have jet engines because the British and Germans gave them all their jet engine technology.

The actual reason for the cockpit teal color that @Dr.Snufflebug described makes complete sense. A calming effect rather that less eye straining is completely valid.

What do you mean by calming effect. Are you suggesting if all kitchens were painted this colour domestic abuse would completely stop?

I know I'm going to get some flack from this post loool, but there should be room for valid and honest counterpoints, especially from a huuuugeah fan of Russian aviation.

Hey, I understand the cold war mentality so I can see why it made western people feel better thinking the Soviets were idiots and I would agree with you but there is no point in both of us being wrong.

"Falacy"? "Completely different"? The only difference is the size. Of course it needs to be proportionally correct to the corresponding intake opening on the MiG-23. The intake openings are smaller in size, yes, causing the plate to be smaller which then makes for lesser holes needed and those are the differences he's talking about. The functioning process with changes in air speed is also the same.

Hang on... didn't you just say that size and shape they were identical...

in fact...

The overall shape is identical. The intake openings, variable ramps, boundary layer splitter plates are the same shape and the drilled holes are identical (or almost identical) and placed in the same exact location. The fact that there are exact cutting blades behind the plates for not only the net-cutting factor mentioned, but to brace the plate and obviously for the intake splitter plate BL space are also identical.

Or has the word identical changed meaning...

What about new cadets straight out of the academy? Do they use the MiG-29UB and simulator and then jump into the Su-35?

I would suspect no one leaves the academy and goes straight to Su-35s.

Mig-29UB doesn't really reproduce su-35 but it's still better than just using yak-130.

The MiG-29UB aircraft are in operational squadrons that operate MiG-29 type fighters... it is an aircraft specific trainer for those pilots that will be flying the MiG-29 or its derivatives.

The Su-27UB and Su-30 two seat aircraft perform that function in Flanker squadrons so there is no need for a separate trainer type.

They will also have an airfield hack that is an L-39 or something so pilots can keep their flight hours up...

Su-24M

https://t.me/milinfolive/106333

Baza reports that a Su-24 plane crashed in the Volgograd region. According to initial information, the plane crashed in the Kalachevsky district, 5 kilometers from the Loshki farm. There were two crew members on board. The causes of the crash are still unknown.

Rescue services arrived at the scene.

Military Informant

Just to clarify I like that the news was posted, not the content of the news.

Su-34 jet crashed in Voronezh