Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Found And Explained" channel.

  1.  @guaporeturns9472  that's a totally false argument. It was designed to "counter" the F-16. Do you know what "counter" means? the fact that sales are nonexistent, and most countries have already traded in their Mig29s for something else while F-16 ownership and sales are still strong tells you how good they each are. And their kill records. the F-16 has one of the highest kill ratios in history, and the Mig29 is in the negative big time with far more losses than victories. I have nothing to cope about. but you keep trying to defend an obsolete aircraft that was obsolete to the F-16 for longer than most people have been alive.
    110
  2.  @guaporeturns9472  How many nations are still operating Mig29? When did the last foreign country buy a brand new Mig29 from russia? How many F-16 are still being sold? How many nations are still operating the F-16? If it was designed to counter the F-16, then it failed.
    100
  3. yup, not a stealth, wouldn't be able to find the F-22, or hide from it.
    58
  4.  @phunkracy  "this is just a bad take. MiG-29 wasnt designed to last more than 20 years because with the tempo of cold war armaments, it would be replaced by a next gen plane by that time." proving it was inferior to the F-16 all along. In 1991, the following US aircraft were still in active service. A-4, F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, F-4, C-130, B-52, U-2, SR-71, and aircraft like the F-8 and F-106 had only just been retired from US service. Aircraft of good design always last. also, development of armaments was always slowing down as technology and costs increased, look at the F-22 and Seawolf submarine.... The reason the Soviet Union collapsed was partially economic. They could never spend enough to keep up with the US. and look at the Russian economy today compared to the US. What is a typical Russian income compared to the US? How much do teachers make? how about a college graduate with a bachelors in engineering? Russia was running out of money Long before the collapse. "MiG couldnt compete because there was no competition. " correct, it always lost in combat. It's kill ration in Desert storm alone was 0.03:1 🤣 how embarrassing. And it's kill ratio is much worse when you factor in total losses in all conflicts. The only country who seems to have managed to make them work was Ukraine. And Ukraine used them to defeat "superior" Russian aircraft/missiles. 38 countries operated it. "Russia itself had to cut the 29 in favour of Su-27 because it couldn't afford to keep two platforms." further proving my point. And it was so bad even Russia didn't want it. When poorer nations than Russia can afford Mig29s but Russia can't.....that tells you something.
    29
  5. fighter jets have been slowing down. With missiles, drones, and smart weapons, speed for the fighter plane is no longer critical. Speed of the weapon is still important though. F-35, F-18 and others don't even go Mach 2, and weren't designed to, nor required to.
    19
  6. aviation has not changed. South Korea, Japan, Turkey, and others have also flown stealth prototypes. US have been operating tens of stealth aircraft for 5 decades already.
    16
  7.  @discover3024  not just fly by wire, it's radar, targeting, weapon systems, etc. is worse too.
    14
  8.  @DonVigaDeFierro  Not true, that issue has been solved, fly-by-wire is not required anymore, and flying wings are now superior to traditional designs in many ways. Depends on your application.
    11
  9. Problem is that it has always had inferior avionics to the F-16. It was a good performer, but never had the electronics required to capitalize on that.
    10
  10. correct, the Mig31 is no real threat to the F-15. the Mig31 is not an advanced fighter at all.
    9
  11. well said. I agree with your assessment. It had potential, but Russia never had the ability to realize that potential.
    8
  12.  @ViolentCabbage-ym7ko  Mig29 also doesn't last as long as something like the F-16. 700hrs vs what, 10,000hrs? while Mig29 could be CAPABLE of having all those toys, the vast majority do not, thus obsolete. and who is lining up to get their upgraded? Even all that top tier Russian radar, missiles, etc. is failing to give Russia air superiority or supremacy over Ukraine. and if that's teh best Russia has, then it's ALL obsolete. Drop tanks have been around since before WW2. That's just a basic feature all jets should have at a minimum.
    8
  13. Jack Northrop was fascinated with flying wings before ever knowing of teh Ho-229
    7
  14. it did engage V-1s
    7
  15. anyone can draw crazy ideas on a page. Russia is also good at failing to make their ideas functional in reality.
    6
  16. ....in the past year alone
    6
  17. Vne is a structural limitation, has noting to do with the ability to cruise at 1000kph. The Horten did not use the bell shape lift distribution Al Bowers talked about. The Bell shape was primarily the innovation of Prandtl, not the Hortens.
    5
  18.  @ГеоргийМурзич  Mig31 does not have a better radar than the F-15, and longer range missiles are also easier to defeat than a closer range kill shot would be. While long range shots are possible, they are also harder to pull off against an unwilling or uncooperative opponent.
    5
  19. A-12 was the first aircraft designed to be intentionally stealthy, and the YF-12 was the fighter interceptor version. Canted twin vertical fins, fuselage chines, leading edge features, materials, internal weapons bays.....it had all the hallmarks of a 5th gen stealth fighter.
    5
  20. Ukraine and Russia have bother used them in contested airspace, as the US has used the A-10 in contested airspace (Iraq and Syria).
    5
  21. nope, Allies won either way
    5
  22. the Mig29 would still have already been obsolete in the year 2000
    5
  23. WIG has nothing to do with the engines. It's ALL about the wing being close to the ground. Using engines to enhance the concept is ok, but not required to be a WIG. The exhaust of the engines doesn't magically change direction and deflect downward as depicted. And if you're going to augment lift of a wing with engine exhaust, you want the higher velocity air moving over the Top of the wing, not the Bottom.
    5
  24. with L-133: Allies win the war without L-133: allies win the war outcome would not have changed
    4
  25. there is nothing controversial about building warplanes in a time of war. why is everyone overly sensitive these days?
    4
  26. tons of videos of them getting shot down and crashing over Ukraine
    4
  27. British: "The TSR2!" US: "We already had the A-5, it was better anyways." Canadians: "Avro Arrow!" US: "What about the F-108?!?! Don't act like you were the only ones who lost a potent aircraft." British: "The Electric Lightning!" US: "We already had the F-106, and it was faster, had far better range, and far better and more weapons."
    4
  28. yet another weapon that had literally NO chance of delaying the war's outcome. Just like the failed Japanese Ohka. If anything it accelerated the war's end by diverting precious german resources.
    4
  29.  @ViolentCabbage-ym7ko  "That's a ridiculous statement. BVR missile is a fire and forget type missile that cannot differentiate friend from foe." Wrong. The Mig29 lacks sufficient long range radar, as Ukraine shows. US missiles and radar are more advanced, and US datalink and such CAN differentiate friend and foe in BVR and provide targeting guidance to the missile. Thus the Mig29 never gets close enough to maneuver with teh F-18, and since they never get close enough, teh missile doesn't have to worry about friendlies mixed with enemies in BVR shots. Russia can't distinguish friend from foe, but US can, as ukraine is proving. "In 2019 The Indian Air Force confirmed that it shot down one of its own helicopters during clashes with Pakistan in February over Kashmir, killing all six on board. " exactly, flying russian aircraft, lacking US friend or foe technology in teh F-18. "BVR missiles, according to data from the Gulf war, the accuracy of BVR missiles is only 34%." the Gulf War was OVER 30 YEARS AGO!!!!! Shit has changed since then, in the US (not in Russia). "Nowadays, there are many countermeasures such as flares, missile decoys, electronic warfare system and laser to misdirect, disrupt or blind oncoming missiles." which modern US and Israeli systems have been designed to ignore.
    4
  30. that Junkers design you showed was not a flying wing. it was a forward canard configuration with vertical stabilizers.
    4
  31. they are being taken down easily by a single hit from MANPADs
    4
  32.  @ViolentCabbage-ym7ko  lack of radar, lack of sensors, lack of capability. was designed to be directed from ground rather than operated independently. it's being replaced by those who can afford to buy something better. Even Russian doesn't use it. How many Russian oeprated Mig29 have we seen in teh skies over Ukraine?
    4
  33.  @Magiktcup  well, it failed to counter the F-16 both in the air, in sales. Even the Mig21 has a better combat record than the Mig29
    4
  34.  @sheevinit1490  "It's not the plane, it's the pilot. Is the F-16 a better airplane than the MiG-29? Yes." yes, exactly, the F-16 is a better plane, and so with equal pilots, the F-16 wins. With better pilots the F-16 always wins. It would require a better than average Mig29 pilot, against a lesser F-16 pilot, and/or element of surprise or vastly superior numbers to beat the F-16. This also means that Ukraine has better pilots than Russia since they have been able to survive and defeat superior Su-27 family aircraft and weapons using inferior Mig29. This is why russia fears Ukraine getting F-16, as they know it's a better plane and that Ukraine has the better pilots. "In the hands of a skilled pilot and armed with equivalent weaponry, the MiG-29 is easily a counter to the F-16." yes, if you stack the deck in the Mig29 favor, it's possible.
    4
  35. So many inaccuracies and misconceptions in this videos, it would take a whole video to set the record straight. Th Hortens never fully understood or used the bell lift distribution, and they didn't figure out how birds fly.
    3
  36. the invincible jet......that is getting slaughtered in Ukraine.....
    3
  37. Mig31 is dogmeat in a modern air battle with Western the gen and 5th gen aircraft. Even Ukraine has managed to destroy a bunch of Mig31.
    3
  38.  @discover3024  US fought Desert storm with Soviet Era equipment. US was decades ahead and always was. A few times on low hanging fruit Russia managed to keep in the game. But they lacked the experience and technology to keep pace. this came down to economics and killing scientists who were too good at their jobs. Even with Post-Soviet aircraft, Russia fails to Defeat Ukraine with Soviet era aircraft in inferior numbers. if that's the best Russia can must after more than 30yrs...... Keep in mind that Russian tech and performance today in Ukraine, is still far inferior to US tech and equipment in Iraq in 1991. And if Russia can't match the US in 1991 with today's equipment, then they stood even less chance back then with 30yrs less tech development.
    3
  39.  @ozymandiasnullifidian5590  Russia never developed this. It was nothing more than doodles on paper. other countries simply don't waste their time entertaining such impractical things to begin with.
    3
  40.  @zerofighterfairy  F-8, F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, Bird of Prey, X-29, F-16XL, F-4, AH-64, AH-66, etc. And unlike Russia, the US built these, and have concepts for far more.
    3
  41. problem in Europe was the unsinkable aircraft carriers. Land based airfields everywhere. carriers along the coasts of Europe are vulnerable, and Germany was hemmed in on all sides by potential enemy airfields, putting the carrier at almost daily risk of being sunk.
    3
  42.  @TakNuke  Well said again. And just think, Western training doctrine doesn't even come close to combat operation tempo either. Meaning Russian aircraft wear out still faster in combat, as we seem to be seeing in Ukraine.
    3
  43. @mitchellcouchman6589 F-4 finished vietnam with a 2.5:1 kill ratio, with many of those being AIM-9 and gun kills in maneuvering and close quarters visual fighting. And many Sparrow kills were also made in visual range. Even in Desert Storm few kills were BVR due to lack of positive ID capabilities. And properly trained US F-4 pilots were achieving as high as 11:1. the Mig21 is even worse when it comes to maneuverability. the Mig17 was better at pure maneuver than the F-4, being smaller, slower, etc. But it was still defeated.
    3
  44.  @shrawankumar5264  "That zaslon radar has more power output than 90 eagles." no, it does not. and power consumed does not translate into effectiveness. highly inefficient circuits draw a lot of power and achieve little. "Btw it can just blast through jammers and fry aircraft avionics, so it wouldn't need to get in a dogfight." no, it can't
    3
  45.  @davidz7858  nope. only one country can even claim to have anything 6th gen (the US). everyone else is just building 5th gen and catching up to where the US was 50yrs ago. SKorea, Japan, Turkey, Russia, China, etc. aircraft aren't even as good as US 5th gen aircraft.
    3
  46. @ because you're an uneducated 2cent army propagandist for the CCP. a 5th gen is any modern fighter with stealth. and most of these stealth aircrft aren't nearly as stealthy as the F-22 nor F-35. Stealth is expensive. and the better it is, the more it costs. US has been building low observable and stealth operational aircraft since the 1960s. and spent a lot of time and money researching it. No other country has done nearly as much research or spending to match it. Others are just getting started, dipping their toe in and copying the low hanging fruit that doesn't cost nearly as much. And with far less capability. "who said in 2024 that he hope China would have a lot of cars now..." see, i never would have hoped that. I wanted the CCP to face revolution over their famine rather than resort to temporary limited capitalism to keep their dictatorship in power. Bad people need to face the consequences of their actions. CP needed to be overthrown.
    3
  47.  @arnavsrivastava1158  that is true, the way in which they won may have changed, but the outcome would largely be the same.
    3
  48.  @mpondachongo1138  Wow, talk about a typo on my part. I must have been trying to type one thing while starting to think about something else.
    3
  49. but the A-7 didn't come from nowhere like the X-32 did. The A-7 was a modified F-8, which was a great looking and capable aircraft that had proven itself.
    3
  50. the barge was Not "fully submerge-able".
    2
  51.  @granatmof  but F-14 was FAR more capable overall than any Mig25/31.
    2
  52.  @9999AWC  2 on the ground, 1 crashed. only one Mi-8 helicopter kill is credited to a Mig31. That's one kill for 3 losses.
    2
  53.  @theelectricbrain97  but they count as losses.
    2
  54. AH-64? AH-1? No, CAS is not dead, not even close. AT-6 Texan II? OV-10?
    2
  55.  @Apollo-tj1vm  AH-64? AT-6 Texan II? OA-1K Sky Warden? AH-1? OV-10? A-29? AH-6? F/A-18? EA-18G? A-10? F-15E? AC-130? C-130J gunships? these are all dedicated CAS aircraft in US military service. And then you have the F-16, F-15EX, F-35, Reaper, Predator, etc...built for multirole, that includes CAS. CAS, observation, and transport is the whole reason airpower even exists. Air power is just airborne artillery. Firepower with the high ground (range) to support ground troops as they advance on the ground.
    2
  56. It's literally an F-16 with a delta wing and canards.
    2
  57.  @discover3024  F-16 variants and targeting pods have IRST too. Also, IRST is no good if you get shot down long before being able to use it. And yet the Mig29 never gets the kill, especially against the F-16. Mig29 kill ratio in Desert Storm was 0.03:1, and it's lifetime kill ratio is not much better. F-16 lifetime kill ratio is something like 104:1 Helmet sight? did I just hear you claim the Mig29 helmet sight made it superior? Have you seen the F-16 helmet sight? Need I remind you of the F-16 kill ratio against Mig29s?
    2
  58.  @zerofighterfairy  to you....
    2
  59.  @TakNuke  Conformal fuel tanks for the F-18 do exist, and have for years now.
    2
  60.  @TakNuke  It's not unlike the fact that more advanced versions of the F-16 exist, yet the USAF still has mostly older model F-16s. One, it's costly to just throw away perfectly good existing aircraft before the nd of their useful life. but other times, it is probably just politics and shifting priorities. "we want to build more ships for the navy" "ok, then you can't buy those jet upgrades." I don't know why they haven't fielded the F-18 tanks either, especially given the preparation for possible war with china going on. I suspect it has to do with the USN replacing existing F-18 with F-35 rather than new F-18 with conformal tanks.
    2
  61.  @TakNuke  "to ground troops through CAS and have the ability to operate from rough fields as SU-17 had both swing wings for STOL and robust landing gear." CAS ability is not determined by landing gear nor STOL capability. The F-5, F-8, F-4 all achieved dominant kill ratios against Russian Migs, and when evaluated head to head scientifically in the US and in Russia in some cases, the US jets were found to be superior both by the US and Russian evaluators. But as it was, the US pilots were superior trained in the end. Not only that, but Western fighter pilot doctrine has always been superior to the Communist nations. Individual pilot initiative vs ground directed operations. The F11F-1F is one of the greatest tragedies in fighter jet history, one of the single greatest missed opportunities. And teh XF8U-3 was no slouch either, and regarded as the better aircraft (competing against the F-4) in every way other than the 2-seat requirement. It was ridiculously fast too, even by today's standards. One of the fastest jet fighters ever built. The USAF produced more aces in Vietnam than the USN. Olds is said to have scored 7 kills, but wouldn't take credit so he could stay in combat. Ritchie was the famous ace for the USAF, but multiple RIOs achieved ace status as well, with one getting 6 kills.
    2
  62. nonsense. Mig31 doesn't even make the top 20 F-22 F-15 F-16 F-14 Rafale Typhoon F-35 ..... Even the F-4 is better overall than the Mig31
    2
  63. Mig-29/35 will never get within range of an F/A-18 in real combat to do a visual dogfight.
    2
  64. easy to make improvements when you already have a great starting point for further refinement. you get an unfair advantage over teh original designers by having benefit of hindsight, newer materials and updated technology and knowledge. and then you can focus on making small refinements over starting completely from scratch, thus reducing development risks and cost.
    2
  65. the Me-262 was NOT the world's first jet fighter. that was the He280. Me262 was the first OPERATIONAL jet fighter. societal and academic standards are so low these days.
    2
  66.  @pygmy2  the CA-15 wasn't nothing. For having a limited aerospace industry, rather impressive. And now working with the US on unmanned aircraft.
    2
  67. probably because it was purely a concept and speculation more than anything else. The XF-108 saw more development effort than this particular airplane. And neither were ever built.
    2
  68. "first 2-seater 5th gen aircraft in the world." That's false. B-2
    2
  69. radar in the nose? what are you smoking? was not relevant at that time.
    2
  70. it was not painted white, that's just the lighting giving it a light gray look
    2
  71. USMC K-MAX, RQ-7 Shadow, MQ-1, MQ-9, RQ-4 global hawk, RQ-11 Raven, RQ-170 Sentinel, RQ-20 Puma, RQ-16 T-Hawk, and more. All used operationally. I personally saw or used or worked with the following in Iraq and Afghanistan: RQ-20 Puma, RQ-16 T-Hawk, RQ-11 Raven, K-MAX, RQ-7 Shadow, MQ-1, MQ-9, and a sentinel crashed and recovered by Iran when I was in Afghanistan.
    2
  72. consider this Part 1, as the P-80 was made from this design
    2
  73. Russia can build a plane (good looking, maneuverable, fast). but the problem is their avionics/electronics always sucked. And they are/were dependent upon others for their electronics. Their equipment is more "durable" and less fragile, but wears out Faster too under such conditions, as Ukraine has proven.
    2
  74.  @Magiktcup  overseas sales shows if people have confidence in a design. When people trade in their Mig29s for F-16s, that tells you something. The mig21 does not have a better combat record than the F-35. thus far the F-35 has no air kills I am aware of, but nor has it been shot down, but it has combat experience. F-22 is not for export, F-16 and Mig29 are. Pretty dumb attempt at an argument. "Also military equipment purchases are political. Canada is not going to buy a Chinese J-20 over an F-35 no matter how good a deal they are going to get. It just wouldn't happen." shows how little you know about Canada...
    2
  75. @Zet Studios the carrier itself would remain well beyond SAM range and launch fighters instead. It could also serve to refuel those same fighters. The Fighters could also be launched to defend it, same as a navy carrier. Plus, anti-aircraft weapons weren't as good back then. and Nowadays we have actual laser weapons that can engage and destroy something like 4 incoming missile and/or projectiles in a matter of seconds.
    2
  76.  @onelemon1476 I think you're right, A-6 is a much more apt comparison. You can learn to love it, but it is still hard to look at sometimes.
    2
  77. If people look more into the history of US fighter competitions, they'll find that often the more technically advanced and capable plane loses. The XF8U-3 Crusader 3 and XF-107 are prime examples. And the F-14 is a good example of a fighter program that learned from those lessons and took steps to ensure they didn't deliver such a technically complex aircraft that wasn't actually ready for production. The F-14 program divided their 3 main technical hurdles into 3 separate programs to ensure all were adequately developed and mature technology upon delivery. The F-22 in my mind is another case where the YF-23 was just too complex and costly by comparison for duty as a frontline fighter. It was a good design, but Lockheed understood the right combinations of tech and readiness to win. The YF-23 still had development to finish before it was ready, and the F-22 seemed a more balanced design. And speed alone wasn't as important anymore, so the potential speed of the YF-23 just doesn't matter.
    2
  78.  @DonVigaDeFierro  why is a citation needed?
    1
  79.  @VanNguyen-nn1xs  doesn't make it stealth.
    1
  80.  @VanNguyen-nn1xs  no, no it's not. The F-16 has stealth paint. It's not a stealth.
    1
  81.  @chargedx5768  yeah, what ground radar? F-35 has been flying through S300 sites in Syria with impunity. What radar unit is picking them up and relaying that data? Other countries don't have the networking and datalink capabilities of the west.
    1
  82.  @midisebrahim  under perfect conditions, and still with a bit of luck.
    1
  83.  @midisebrahim  correct, stealth is reduced visibility. basically invisible beyond 20-30miles.
    1
  84. "They say it would be interceptor capable of Mach 4" russian propaganda fueled by pure vodka. nobody is building such a fighter, least of all russia. They can't even keep their obsolete migs/Sukhois flying, and their Mig-31 keeps crashing. The Su-57 is still AWOL from combat, the Su-75 is still a plywood mockup.
    1
  85. what a useless scenario. you have to dump all your ordnance to run, making the jet pointless to even be flying.
    1
  86.  @martinbose7163  the roof does not submerge, the dock was not water tight. It is just a normal floating drydock, nothing more. It can Mostly submerge the hull, but that is all.
    1
  87.  @theelectricbrain97  3 Mig31 have been lost by Russia, and one Mig31 is credited with an Mi-8 helicopter kill.
    1
  88.  @pyronuke4768  "but sometimes that's all you need to get lucky" You said it, Mig31 just needs to get lucky to win a dogfight with a modern western 4th/5th gen fighter.
    1
  89.  @dilbertfirestorm4851  maybe, but you can only win as fast as teh ground forces can advance. and this plane does nothing to speed up that part of the war.
    1
  90. smaller than B-2, smaller payload, literally no reason to have 4 engines. 4 engines takes more fuel, more maintenance, and reduces range.
    1
  91.  @DefinitelyNotEmma  F-15E, F-15EX, F-35, F-16, F/A-18, EA-18G, AC-130, KC-130J gunships with hellfires, AH-64, AH-1, AH-6, A-29, OV-10, OA-1K Sky Warde, A-10, etc.
    1
  92. "changed aviation forever"? really, how so? I don't see any impact on aviation, built or not.
    1
  93.  @nzKnut  the F-16XL was amazing, and designed to do things the LAVI couldn't.
    1
  94.  @Красиваясоветскаядевушка  "Wow, you americans must really feel so cool with those fancy 104:1 kill ratios achieved against 3rd world armies with badly trained pilots, air supperiority and not state of the art soviet technology." As opposed to taking a numerically and Technologically superior air force into Ukraine and getting curb stomped?!!??! Don't forget all the times US and Russian pilots faced off in Korea, Vietnam, etc. with the US coming out on top. Keep in mind that MOST F-16 kills were NOT scored by US pilots/aircraft, same is true for the F-15 and F-14. Most F-16 kills were also scored by other nation's pilots. Hahahahaha! "The most modern soviet jets were always better than the most modern american jets, thats why the americans never dared to attack the soviet union" Wow, drinking the koolaid I see. P-39 > Yak3 P-51 > La5 F-5 > Mig25 F-104 > Mig21 F-86 > Mig15 F-4 > Mig21 F-8 > Mig21 F-16 > everything russian F-15 > everything russian F-14 > everything russian F-18 > everything russian F-22 > EVERYTHING F-35 > EVERYTHING but the F-22 US only never attacked due to lack of public support, and due to threat of nuclear war, nothing else. Russia was always decades behind the US. Russia had to Copy the nuke, B-29, british jet engines, AIM-9, U-2, Custer Channelwing, Space Shuttle, and more just to struggle to keep up. "One has to know that the USSR never exported its most modern equipment and soviet pilots were by far superior to any pilots of the world" you mean those jets crashing and getting shot down in Ukraine? You man that Su57 with a radar cross section the same size as that of an F-18 Super Hornet? How is the Armata tank doing? Hypersonic war-winning missiles? Why haven't you taken out the Patriot battery yet? Why can't you find HIMARs launchers? Even got your Black Sea Fleet flagship sunk by a nation without a navy.
    1
  95.  @discover3024  you're such a Russian troll. yet, Su-35, Su-30, Su-27 are getting slaughtered in the skids over Ukraine. Can't even achieve air dominance over inferior Mig29s. The F-15 is undefeated in actual combat, just like many claim F-22 kills in training, but once you learn the details of the "fight" it's clear it's nonsense. Yes, F-14, F-16, and F-22 have beaten the F-15 in training too. But that comes down to the pilot. But we can point to F-15 success against all manner of russian fighters, and yet cannot do the same for russian fighters. Russian pilots are as bad or worse trained than 3rd world pilots. look how many russian pilots crashed or were shot down in 2022 alone, and now they have to scramble to train new pilots. Inferior aircraft, inferior training, inferior weapons, inferior avionics.
    1
  96. Osprey, not Offspray
    1
  97.  @zerofighterfairy  exactly, good looks is subjective.
    1
  98. your 3D render of teh exhaust outlets are definitely not accurate
    1
  99. And the Horten flying wings didn't use the bell distribution either.
    1
  100. how so?
    1
  101.  @123456qwful  More fuel = more vulnerable. More armor where? protecting what? Not to mention you already used up the weight for more fuel. Why do you need all that extra fuel anyways? You do realize most CAS occurs at the frontline, within short distance of friendly airspace, right? Using a Su-25 for a suicide attack? missiles are cheaper. why spend all t money to convert it to a drone with extra fuel and armor, just to blow it up anyways in a one time use? The jet already runs on diesel. Jet fuel is diesel. It already takes off from short and rough fields close to teh front, with a pilot, no need for drone capability. Drone introduces jamming risk, latency issues, less responsive to unexpected threats, etc. You clearly have no clue what you're talking about, and haven't thought this through. You're probably a kid that's a military/war junkie and thinks he knows all after reading a few paragraphs about the Su-25 and watching a video on it.
    1
  102.  @TakNuke  don't forget the F-8, F11F-1F, XF8U-3, and F-5. the US lacked pilot training in air combat, not a lack of capable aircraft. And all of these aircraft, including the F-4, were designed and first flown in the 1950s, well before Vietnam. And all of them were superior to the Russian Migs in Vietnam.
    1
  103. Anyone claiming it's better is a fool. it hasn't flown yet, we know very little about it, and it's made at significantly less cost and development. There is only so much a plane can do given all that. Only as more info comes out can we start assessing it properly.
    1
  104.  @ГеоргийМурзич  may consume more electricity, but that alone doesn't make a good radar. "If that was the case everyone would stick to R-73s and Aim-9s. And yet we see that even americans made a long range missile - Aim-174" you're assumptions and reasoning is childishly bad and horribly flawed. Everyone Still DOES stick to carrying heat seekers, as they are still relevant. but also, as the ranges close, teh long range radar missiles get more deadly, even beyond the ranges of Heat Seekers. The AIM174 is for special long range shots, but still can be defeated at long range if you know it's coming. If not, it's a great sneak attack weapon. And you can't carry a lot of AIM174.
    1
  105.  @essaidchibane6612  "claim" is the key word. They claim to have done it. And even if they did get one, that doesn't mean it can do it every time, and a Su-27 is NOT indicative of a 5th gen. That little missile and the launch aircraft can't even detect a 5th gen at such ranges. You have to get inside of 30miles for a Russian radar to start to even have a chance. And as Israel has proven multiple times now, Russian radars cannot see the F-35 in Syria nor in Iran. meanwhile, Russia is losing the war in Ukraine and can't gain air superiority.
    1
  106.  @simba1113  yes, the F-111 is easy to hate, but it did perform surprisingly well in actual combat none the less.
    1
  107.  @pyronuke4768  the F-4 had an 11:1 kill ratio in Vietnam and got better with upgraded weapons and sensors over time. It was Mach2+ fast, more maneuverable than the Mig25/31, and had better radar and such too. Mig31 is credited with only one Mi-8 helicopter kill over Ukraine, for 3 losses (1 crashed, 2 destroyed on the ground). And Russia is afraid to operate teh Mig31 over Ukraine airspace, launching ground attack cruise missiles from inside Russia instead.
    1
  108.  @pyronuke4768  yes, the early losses were about 1:1, but that was because they never even bothered to tell the pilots how the AIM9 and AIM7 even worked. It was not an aircraft issue, it was a pilot/training issue. and once that was resolved, the F-4 was kicking butt. and no, the US did NOT have air superiority over Vietnam at any point during the war. "The 31 is to the 25 what the Super Hornet is to the Legacy Hornet. " yes. Mig25 sucked Mig31 still sucks "In everything except maneuverability the MiG-31 was roughly the equivalent of the F-14A." Meaning it wasn't as good as the F-14. "it would smoke an F-4 in BVR long before it got to the merge." you cannot guarantee that. US pilots are smarter and operate in teams. Also, US radar is superior. And there are multiple ways to dodge missiles, especially when BVR. How many missiles can the Mig31 carry? Only have to wait for them to run out. "The reason it doesn't have the KD ratio of the Phantom II is because the Soviet Union didn't stick around long enough to put it to good use and the Russian Federation that replaced them are utterly incompetent." same excuse why every Soviet/Russian fighter today sucks and has been shot down a ton. Mig29, Su-27, Su-3, Su-30, Su-35, Su-31, Su-25, etc. Even Su-57 have been destroyed in combat already.
    1
  109.  @elstiffmeister  "plus mig21 can easily erase the f4 in a dogfight in close range" yes, if the F-4 pilot has no clue. but if the F-4 pilot knows, he wont lose against the inferior Mig21
    1
  110.  @Eye_of_Typhoon  KD late in teh war was more like 11:1 doing an overall average denies how disadvantaged the Mig21 was when the F-4 was flown properly and pilots were actually trained on how the missiles worked. And the Mig21 never recovered in any conflict since.
    1
  111.  @Eye_of_Typhoon  the losses of other jets does not count towards the Phantom's loss ratio. but you make a good point that the phantom's overall kill ratio includes the smaller mig17, not just the mig21. But regardless, late in the war, the phantoms got far better and were consistently scoring high over the Migs of all types regardless. most of their early losses dragged the ratio down, which is what you're falsely sticking to out of context from what I am arguing. you cherry pick and manipulate teh data to suit your narrative and refuse to acknowledge what actually happened and why. "The US losses total of 9902 Aircraft and North Vietnam only losses 164 aircraft." most were helicopter and such, and lost to AAA, not to migs. again, you misuse data.
    1
  112.  @Eye_of_Typhoon  "North Vietnam MiG-21s claimed" there is your problem right there
    1
  113.  @Eye_of_Typhoon  North Vietnam lost every single major military engagement and offensive. And claiming who won has no impact on aircraft kill ratios, meaning you know you're losing and so are introducing red herrings and changing hte goal posts. It was only after two major US military offensives that North Vietnam agreed to an end, and the US left. the US won militarily the whole time, lost politically, largely becasue we never should have been there in the first place. Also, communist records are not trustworthy at all, never have been, never will be. US keeps immaculate records and tracks ridiculous amounts of detail from every mission. Speaking as a combat veteran myself. early in war the ratio is one-to-one, later in the war the ratio jumps to four-to-one, and later jumps to as high as eleven-to-one. But when you stupidly and moronically average them out like you keep doing, you get closer to two-to-one. In the first few years of the war, teh US pilots weren't even taught how to dogfight at all. and when they were, they trained against large less agile aircraft and thus didn't even know how to digfight the smaller more agile fighters. And on top of that, the pilots were never even told how the missiles worked nor how to use them. They were never taugh tthe AIM9 needed a solid tone before firing, nor that AIM7 needed four seconds to send target info to seeker before firing. they were never taught about the G-limits of the missiles and tail end firing cones they needed to be within before firing. They couldn't dogfight, nor use the missiles and kept firing them without any lock. This is not the fault of the missiles nor the Phantom, but of pilot training and knowledge. Once they were taught how to dogfight and fire the missiles properly, and they finally knew how to fly teh Phantoms properly to its potential. the Migs never stood a chance after that ever again. Your ignorance and propagandist mindset prevents you from having an intelligent and nuanced discussion of the facts from an objective standpoint. you prefer to be brainwashed and to attempt to brainwash others instead.
    1
  114. you have terrible analysis skills, so many bad assumptions in this videos.
    1
  115.  @pygmy2  what are you talking about? The CA-15 wasn't a jet. And the Boomerang vs A6M has nothing to do with it either.
    1
  116.  @pygmy2  nobody said it was produced. Can nobody read these days? illiteracy really is on the rise.
    1
  117. if Boeing had built something closer to teh production model, they would have fared better in the competition. what they built was ugly from every angle.
    1
  118. US put the F-15E into service in 1985 Russia put the Su-34 into service in 2006 (21yrs later!!!) and still has to rely upon US-made civilian Garmin GPS taped to the dash to navigate and uses mostly dumb bombs in actual combat. Russia put into service the Su-30 in 1992, 7yrs after the F-15E, and many have been shot down in Ukraine. F-15E : never shot down in combat Su-34: most of them have been shot down or destroyed on the ground in combat with Ukraine, a nation with almost no air force or air defenses. Su-34 seems an objective failure to me and over 20yrs late in responding to the F-15E. Su-30 was the actual response to the F-15E, and they have performed better in Ukraine with fewer losses, but they have also accomplished little.
    1
  119. "Raid-er" not "radar"
    1
  120. perfect answer? you mean that Su-34 aircraft that came 21yrs after the F-15E and is getting slaughtered in Ukraine against a nation with almost no air force?
    1
  121. looks matter
    1
  122. ​ @DefinitelyNotEmma  the F-15E was NOT designed for SEAD. The F-15E doesn't even do SEAD. The F-16, F-35, and EA-18G does SEAD. Russia was using their Su-30 for SEAD, and their Su-34 are tactical bombers, and got shot down in large numbers in Ukraine. Not very good SEAD aircraft at all.
    1
  123. LOL The Boomerang is a neat plane, but the KA-15 is teh Australian aircraft of most interest to me personally.
    1
  124. Mig31 =/= technologically advanced Mig31 is no match for the F-15 Mig31 have been destroyed in the air and on the ground in teh Ukraine war, against a nation with almost no military or air defenses. Mig31 is so "advanced" it can only launch long range weapons from outside the combat zone to avoid being shot down.
    1
  125. a few decades to get it to work properly? you're a moron. they got the P-80 working before wars end. your research and historical interpretations in context are trash. radar in the nose? what are you smoking? was not relevant or being considered at that time.
    1
  126. Problem with most such Russian projects is that they never left the paper. Many US concepts also never left the paper, but a huge number did.
    1
  127. this thing was basically a homemade mockup toy. it was not a serious design even remotely close to being a production airplane.
    1
  128.  @Iskelderon  worse this thing was smaller than a Cessna 150
    1
  129. 6:34 Me-262 was not supersonic, and the Me163, Horten flying wings, Dunne D.5, and many others had swept wings long before the Me-262 ever existed. 6:49 false, the delta wing design came from Lippisch. The XF-92 flown by Chuck Yeager and designed by Lippisch formalized the delta wing concept and brought it into common usage. Many production delta wing fighters preceded the Mirage delta fighters, such as the F4D. 7:56 wrong. The Elevons control roll and pitch, not yaw. 8:00 Saab 35 is not a tailless flying wing, it has a vertical tail and rudder. apparently you're blind.
    1
  130. it's a Honda Jet in a Halloween costume, nothing more.
    1
  131.  @guaporeturns9472  "Imagine getting mad at a complete stranger in a comment section on YouTube about airplanes?" yes, you should work on your social skills. You shouldn't get upset when people are having a facts based reasonable and rational discussion. "I SO just won! " how do you figure that? what argument have you won? what facts have you shared in support of that argument? Throwing a tantrum and declaring yourself the winner doesn't make it so. That's what children do when losing a game, they try to change the rules suddenly and declare themselves the winner. You can only win on the merits of the argument you make, and the facts you present to support your argument. Thus far you've proved nothing.
    1
  132.  @tanzimhasan2460 "ok, now question your self what side was using the migs and what kind of support that country had in favour of their fighters, did they have any AWACS? No. Did they even have any radars? No, most of the radars were destroyed within the 1st couple of days of operation sandstorm, did they even have the latest armaments? No If you still say it was a failure then I gotta say you know nothing about air combat" WTF are you talking about? how about repeating that in coherent English so we can understand what you're saying. It's like you switched POV in teh middle of you argument or something.... Are you having a stroke?
    1
  133.  @monsterhoodlum  there is no grater test than war, and in war, US fighters clobber the Russian aircraft.
    1
  134. @@mitchellcouchman6589 Saddam's aircraft were so soundly beaten, that in 2003, he didn't even both putting up a fight in the air. Also, the US wasn't the only country involved in Desert Storm, and so there were others verifying the claims. Saddam doesn't share his records out of embarassment. and yet Ukraine is killing Russian aircraft with outdated lower spec Mig29s.....
    1
  135. ​ @monsterhoodlum  "a mig 21 shot down an f16." when? are you claiming the lie of teh Indian shoot down of Pakistan aircraft? that neither India nor Pakistan ever confirmed? that no one ever produced a shred of evidence to support? No crash photos, no dead pilot, etc. Bear in mind, any jet can be shot down, and surprised. but claimed kills require evidence.
    1
  136.  @defaultarab  well, it makes no sense to be dependent upon your enemy for weapons, parts, technology, etc. now does it. But look at Ukraine. They were "friendly" and "allied" with Russia until recently, and they had very obsolete equipment. NATO allies are afforded access to higher tech weapons and systems, as well as a a wider range of options too. NATO nations also tend not to be attacked by NATO. the Same cannot be said for allies of Russia (Georgia, Chechnya, Ukraine, China, Germany, etc.).
    1
  137.  @daexion  "I have no idea why you want to get into a pissing contest on the Internet, but it's childish." speak for yourself. This comment thread is months old, but you seem hell bent on keeping it alive. "Listing aircraft still in service also doesn't prove the MiG-29 is inferior, it proves those aircraft were still in service at that time and nothing more." it proves no one wants teh Mig29, despite it being more affordable than the plans people are opting to buy. this alone proves it is inferior. But we can get into technical details about the aircraft and its lack of relevant capabilities (as Ukraine is proving) and see again that it is obsolete. This is not opinion, but simple fact. And its poor combat record is a third point of proof of its inferiority. "It's a faulty claim to say "because a country couldn't afford to develop two airplanes, the one it didn't keep developing was bad". " then why did you make that claim? "Planes don't lose in combat, the pilot in the box does." A mig29 couldn't win against an F-22 or F-35 if it tried. Doesn't matter how good the pilot is, if the capabilities are that far apart. A P-51 would be shot down form tens of miles away without ever knowing a modern fighter jet was engaging it. So too would a Mig29 die to many modern fighter jets in service today (and it has died that way too, in actual combat).
    1
  138.  @hugo-di6xm  and it failed at that.
    1
  139.  @RH-om1ph  F-16 is an older design than the Mig29, and the F-16A models are the OLDEST F-16s. Latest F-16 variants would crush any variant of Mig29 with ease. And even in a merged dogfight, the early F-16A could curb stomp the early Mig29
    1
  140.  @RH-om1ph  "not to mention, design on the fulcrum occured in the 60's before the viper" it happened in the 1970s and 3+yrs after teh viper.
    1
  141.  @RH-om1ph  if you take the most modern Mig35 variant, then you have to take teh most modern F-16 variant which is NOT the ancient C model. you need the MATV and the block70 or other models. and they will wipe the floor with the Mig35. F-16 can even perform the Cobra Maneuver.
    1
  142.  @RH-om1ph  you're cherry picking, and no Mig pilot can force an F-16 pilot to fly to teh Mig's strengths. the F-16 will simply remain fast and kill teh mIg.
    1
  143.  @RH-om1ph  a new F-16 would clobber the latest Mig29/35 variants. And yes, with the VISTA thrust vectoring nozzle and fly by wire settings, it can perform the cobra, a useless dogfighting maneuver, but one that proves the F-16 is able to go to high AOA. And the Vista continues to be used as a dogfighting trainer and testbed. You don't get to cherry pick the best Mig variants and ignore the best F-16 varaints.
    1
  144.  @RH-om1ph  "Detailed design work on the resultant Mikoyan Product 9, designated MiG-29A, began in 1974, with the first flight taking place on 6 October 1977" but didn't enter service until 1981. F-16 started design in 1972 (2yrs earlier) and first flew in 1974 (3yrs earlier), and entered service in 1978 (3yrs earlier).
    1
  145.  @RH-om1ph  f-16 has AIM-9X and helmet mounted sights, long range radar, AIM120, stealth canopy and paint, etc. F-16 will out rate the Mig29
    1
  146. my first thought at seeing it was, "that is such a James Bond airplane", and then you had James Bond in the video...
    1
  147. @Zet Studios Not sure what you mean. i never claimed anything was flying at 75k ft.
    1
  148. this thing had no chance against the F-22, not even in the same class. Not even stealthy.
    1
  149.  @piotrd.4850  F-16, F-15, and F-18 don't have that good of range either. There are tradeoffs with stealth, and that is why the 4thg gen fighters aren't dead and we're still buying more. But the YF-23 had things like space shuttle-like heat tiles to maintain, and the range and engines situation is not 100%. Look how much the YF-22 changed between then and production. the YF-23 would have had to change some too, and we don't know exactly how. It's all just guessing and wild speculation. They were comparable designs with comparable performance, and the YF-23 had the same limitations on internal weapons carriage. Sometimes a fighter competition gets two equally capable planes and it can be a tough decision (YF-16 vs YF-17), or you get a weird outcome (F-111 vs F-14, where teh F-111 was chosen but failed as a carrier aircraft so they had to build the F-14 to replace it). People want the YF-23 to be the answer, I like the plane too, and it's an interesting what-if, but we'll never know for sure. The fact is logistics plays a huge part in these competitions, more so than people realize, and all indications I see are that the YF-23 was more logistically challenging and expensive due to certain technology they decided to use.
    1
  150. English must not be your native language? you mispronounce a LOT of words/names.
    1
  151. -2 was possibly an ICBM launcher?
    1