4 ms·

This is quite surprising. I'd expect this level of hacked-togetherness from a freedom fighting / terrorist org. Surely Russia has the means to make "real" UAVs

This is quite surprising. I'd expect this level of hacked-togetherness from a freedom fighting / terrorist org. Surely Russia has the means to make "real" UAVs? I mean, the migs are very much real and capable planes, in many ways better than their US counterparts (especially so with how the F-35 has turned out). Edit: I would sincerely like to know why this is getting downvoted

arcticbull 5y ago
This is legitimately the kind of thing I'd expect to see out of ISIS, not the world's ostensibly 3rd strongest military. [edit] It's pretty embarrassing, and I think tells a bigger story. I strongly suspect that part of the reason the Ukraine invasion was so bungled is that the military procurement folks were getting cheap knock-off equipment and pocketing the difference. Leadership was told stories of cutting-edge tech while reality on the ground was very different. I suspect the whole army looks either like this - mixed in with whatever was left over after the collapse of the Soviet Union. I do agree that the PJSC United Aircraft Corporation [2] (a merger of Ilyushin, Irkut, Mikoyan, Sukhoi, Tupolev and Yakovlev design bureaus) has some decent, modern designs but I'd argue a lot of that is carry-over from the cold war too. Their F-35 competitor (Su-35S/Su-27M) are improved variants of the Su-27 which debuted in 1977. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Aircraft_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Aircraft_Corporation
- agumonkey 5y ago
  It's possible that they didn't have enough production capacity and filled the voids with cheap hacks.
spacemanmatt 5y ago
One of the predictable problems of military dictatorships is money directed to military readiness flows through too many fraudulent hands. Better salaries might have helped.
sofixa 5y ago
> I mean, the migs are very much real and capable planes, in many ways better than their US counterparts (especially so with how the F-35 has turned out). The last truly new Russian jets ( MiG or Sukhoi, doesn't matter) to enter mass production are the Su-27 and MiG-29 from the 1980s. Everything since has been new versions of those designs, or failures ( Su-57). They aren't bad planes, and might have some specific advantages (e.g. IIRC a MiG-29 is a better interceptor than an F-16), but they're old. They're certainly cheaper, easier to maintain and with good training and systems can do plenty of damage in good circumstances and with some luck, but saying they're "in many ways better than their US counterparts" is a stretch.
- noir_lord 5y ago
  > IIRC a MiG-29 is a better interceptor than an F-16 Not really, it might be more manoeuvrable than the F-16 (questionable in itself) but as an effective weapon system the F16 wins in every way. This isn't me been nationalist, I'm British and we don't operate the F-16 - its simply that the F-16 in service now isn't the F-16 from the 70's where the Mig-29's in service now largely are and not even well maintained 70's. The Block 50/52 F-16's are essentially a significant technological leap over any Mig-29 in service. I mean the Russian Airfoce is using hiking GPS to navigate their fighters - I'd almost feel sad for them if they weren't butchering innocent civilians with their obsolete crap.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    Yeah, maybe i should have said was a better interceptor. The hiking GPS were for ground attack planes if I'm not mistaken, but still funny.
    - noir_lord 5y ago
      It's a tricky one, lots of people (obviously not saying yourself) equate effectiveness of a fighter/interceptor with manoeuvrability alone but that is only a tiny part of what makes a modern fighter effective and a relatively negligible one at that. Missiles, Radar, Datalinks and Avionics are what matters on the F16 with stealth added on the F22/F35. If the F16 can see the Mig29 first (either via it's on-board radar or a datalink to a loitering AWACS) and has weapons that can reach further then the Mig29 is at a catastrophic disadvantage before the fight is even joined properly. The reports I've seen where F-16's have gone against Mig-29's all seem to reach the same conclusion, Mig-29 is more manoeuvrable below 200kn where F-16 is more at +200kn. Thing is actual gun range dogfights are rare outside of exercises and if you are doing 200kn in one then you are at a severe disadvantage against an opponent who isn't since preservation of energy is the key criteria in a gun fight. All that said though if an F-16 finds itself in that kind of a fight with a Mig-29 outside of an exercise then something has gone very wrong. https://theaviationgeekclub.com/f-16-vs-mig-29-when-the-mighty-viper-dogfighted-with-the-fulcrum-for-the-first-time/ https://theaviationgeekclub.com/f-16-vs-mig-29-when-the-migh... a good read.

arcticbull 5y ago

This is legitimately the kind of thing I'd expect to see out of ISIS, not the world's ostensibly 3rd strongest military. [edit] It's pretty embarrassing, and I think tells a bigger story. I strongly suspect that part of the reason the Ukraine invasion was so bungled is that the military procurement folks were getting cheap knock-off equipment and pocketing the difference. Leadership was told stories of cutting-edge tech while reality on the ground was very different. I suspect the whole army looks either like this - mixed in with whatever was left over after the collapse of the Soviet Union. I do agree that the PJSC United Aircraft Corporation [2] (a merger of Ilyushin, Irkut, Mikoyan, Sukhoi, Tupolev and Yakovlev design bureaus) has some decent, modern designs but I'd argue a lot of that is carry-over from the cold war too. Their F-35 competitor (Su-35S/Su-27M) are improved variants of the Su-27 which debuted in 1977. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Aircraft_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Aircraft_Corporation

agumonkey 5y ago
It's possible that they didn't have enough production capacity and filled the voids with cheap hacks.

spacemanmatt 5y ago

One of the predictable problems of military dictatorships is money directed to military readiness flows through too many fraudulent hands. Better salaries might have helped.

sofixa 5y ago

> I mean, the migs are very much real and capable planes, in many ways better than their US counterparts (especially so with how the F-35 has turned out). The last truly new Russian jets ( MiG or Sukhoi, doesn't matter) to enter mass production are the Su-27 and MiG-29 from the 1980s. Everything since has been new versions of those designs, or failures ( Su-57). They aren't bad planes, and might have some specific advantages (e.g. IIRC a MiG-29 is a better interceptor than an F-16), but they're old. They're certainly cheaper, easier to maintain and with good training and systems can do plenty of damage in good circumstances and with some luck, but saying they're "in many ways better than their US counterparts" is a stretch.

noir_lord 5y ago
> IIRC a MiG-29 is a better interceptor than an F-16 Not really, it might be more manoeuvrable than the F-16 (questionable in itself) but as an effective weapon system the F16 wins in every way. This isn't me been nationalist, I'm British and we don't operate the F-16 - its simply that the F-16 in service now isn't the F-16 from the 70's where the Mig-29's in service now largely are and not even well maintained 70's. The Block 50/52 F-16's are essentially a significant technological leap over any Mig-29 in service. I mean the Russian Airfoce is using hiking GPS to navigate their fighters - I'd almost feel sad for them if they weren't butchering innocent civilians with their obsolete crap.
- sofixa 5y ago
  Yeah, maybe i should have said was a better interceptor. The hiking GPS were for ground attack planes if I'm not mistaken, but still funny.
  - noir_lord 5y ago
    It's a tricky one, lots of people (obviously not saying yourself) equate effectiveness of a fighter/interceptor with manoeuvrability alone but that is only a tiny part of what makes a modern fighter effective and a relatively negligible one at that. Missiles, Radar, Datalinks and Avionics are what matters on the F16 with stealth added on the F22/F35. If the F16 can see the Mig29 first (either via it's on-board radar or a datalink to a loitering AWACS) and has weapons that can reach further then the Mig29 is at a catastrophic disadvantage before the fight is even joined properly. The reports I've seen where F-16's have gone against Mig-29's all seem to reach the same conclusion, Mig-29 is more manoeuvrable below 200kn where F-16 is more at +200kn. Thing is actual gun range dogfights are rare outside of exercises and if you are doing 200kn in one then you are at a severe disadvantage against an opponent who isn't since preservation of energy is the key criteria in a gun fight. All that said though if an F-16 finds itself in that kind of a fight with a Mig-29 outside of an exercise then something has gone very wrong. https://theaviationgeekclub.com/f-16-vs-mig-29-when-the-mighty-viper-dogfighted-with-the-fulcrum-for-the-first-time/ https://theaviationgeekclub.com/f-16-vs-mig-29-when-the-migh... a good read.