Can't help but notice they are counting ALL combat losses as well. Including planes lost on the ground and ground support missions. Take those out just use air-to-air losses and lets see what those numbers look like.
The majority of those were West German F-104’s that were ad hoc’d into the ground attack role… which is clearly not what the design was made for. The Starfighter should have been pulled from service once the role it was supposed to fill (Bomber interceptor) was redundant.
The F-104 Starfighter was not designed as a dogfighter. It was an intended to quickly intercept Soviet bombers before they could deliver their ordnance. Using it as a fighter is like using a Ferrari to haul cargo.
I don’t consider airplanes blown up while they are on the ground as part of air combat losses. They are overall loses, sure, but they were simply not in the fight when they are sitting ducks on the ground.
The mig 29s killed tices f16 and other planes in the gulf war and only two were lost. The Serbian migs were missing engines, radar etc. The floggers were bombers. Idiot video.
@@armoredp I see your point, but if those museum pieces are being flown in a combat operation, they are in play. There are a number of cases where obsolete weapons are used against modern ones and come out on top in a particular engagement.
2 mins into the video and already this list of "fighters" includes a pure interceptor, the MiG-25. The 25 NEVER was intended to fight fighters. It was the ultimate bomber-killer of its time. Designed with that tremendous speed to cover vast areas of Russia quickly. It's had a powerful radar to locate the bombers at high altitude (thus no look-down/shoot-down capability). And long range IR missiles that while not sensitive enough to track fighters most of the time, was more than capable of tracking bomber engines.
@@Riceball01That's the history book version...but what are you going to do with a perfect mach 3 interceptor....eliminate all threat of B-52s, B-1s, etc across the entirely of northern Russia.
@@surgemeister01 I'd imagine that the Russians/Soviets keep/kept many of their MiG-25s forward deployed near wherever they felt were either likely entry points and/or targets for NATO bombers. Remember, a lot of MiGs and SUs were built with rough field capability, not sure if the MiG-25 is one of them but if it is, then that means that they could (theoretically) have a squadron of MiG-25s parked out on a grass field 100 miles outside of Moscow to intercept B-52s; one again, in theory and assuming that they had rough field capability.
@@surgemeister01 Range: 1,860 km (1,160 mi, 1,000 nmi) at Mach 0.9 1,630 km (1,013 mi) at Mach 2.35[120] Ferry range: 2,575 km (1,600 mi, 1,390 nmi) This will be my last post on the subject. I'm not here to educate the world or stop trolls.
Some jet fighters have a reputation, partly because the training of pilots was not suited to the battle environment. The Northrop F5 Tiger II is not state of the art, but it is tough, maneuverable and easy to maintain-it was mainly used in air to ground combat, such as in Vietnam. The USAF and Navy still uses the F5E for air-to-air combat training.
True but it's mostly used for target practice there days and is soon to be replaced by automated F-16s that have been all used up. Don't get me wrong it stood the test of time but time has caught up with the fighter. Personally I wouldn't mind owning one.
@@gravyd316 it'd likely be a very expensive dust collector. unless you have that income, getting enough fuel to take it for a spin would drive you into bancrupcy. not talking about maintenance fees either.
@@bosermann4963 It'd be a cool dust collector though. A custom dragon paint job or something like that. Either way it's well beyond my budget. Who knows? Maybe one day. I have to be optimistic about the future.
During the attack on Serbia in 1999. NATO attacked with hundreds of aeroplanes, with Avax above all. 20 modern planess(+Avax) vs 1 obsolete MIG was not a fair fight, so It should not count like this.
yet they updated them to modern standards and werent shithole countries also iraq had skilled pilots that downed alot of coalition aircrafts in the gulf war including one F15 downed by a mig25 also the iraqi casualties numbers given by the US are fake in the battle of kafji they said they destroyed 500 tanks but cuz it is a city and its not hard for reporters to get there they later reported only 11 tanks were destroyed iraq also used alot of decoy vehicles and 90% of the destroyed iraqi aircrafts were on the ground and this video includes air to ground kills too @@SandMartin
@@GreatWhiteNanuk even if it was fake its better than your war stories which are complete bullshit Lmao some marine goes into the middle of the open and takes down two T55s that are shooting over him? Not even indians thought about this one If u want fake war stories read your own yankee
10:25 We see a downed MiG-23UB. It was NOT shot down. It crashed during the Thunder over Michigan airshow next to an apartment building. How do I know? I WAS THERE! I took several photos including one that MATCHES that photo, right down to the trees and the branch laying over it. I'm not faulting The Buzz for this, but I think its absolutely hilarious that I have a photo almost identical to it on my phone that I took.
MiG-23 has a 25-102 kill/loss ratio. So while you might wanna ride Soviet crap, sucks for you they all got decimated by USAF fighters. Even the Mig-21 got 3:1’ed by the F-4, and that’s the closest they ever came to having a somewhat competitive aircraft in the skies. Since then the gap between American and Russian aircraft has grown into a Grand Canyon sized chasm
@@tylerclayton6081 keep in mind that U.S. forces lost over 10,000 aircraft in the Vietnam conflict. That includes fighters, missiles, bullets, sappers, mortars and maybe even a spitball or two. That’s a lot of airplanes. Several types were withdrawn from service because they basically ran out of them and could no longer be used perform their missions. And in at least one case, closed production lines were restarted to produce replacements.
@@michellebrown4903Because at the time the US would not sell any fighters to Israel. The Israelis flew Mirage III's and V's until US policy changed and F-4's were offered.
The thing is these numbers don't tell the full picture, the Migs pretty much never faced an equal foe, other smaller countries bought these from Russia and usually then they're not in their prime, used and old but have to face newest and greatest western jets that have the support of AVAX and a numerical advantage, so of course migs are going down and there you go, western jets seem like wonder weapons and game changers when in fact in an equal environment they're no better.
The mig-29 I’m almost every conflict was heavily outnumbers by its enemy, always had either outdated weapons or no weapons like in some cases in Yugoslavia. 1v1 the mig will give any fighter a run for its money , especially in a dog fight.
@@BarryAllen__1A23 well it depends, and pilots and tactics actually matter a lot, and sometimes it can be pure luck as well. An Indian Mig21 ended up on tail of retreating Pakistani F16s in 2019, mainly due to his comms being jammed. A pair of Mig21s were intercepting F16s who were firing BVRs on Su30s, and he was not able to hear the command to go cold while his wingman retreated, and he was able to get an easy InfraRed lock and kill on an F16. Although missile had a big role in that, R73 is one of the best close range IR missiles.
@@nipun9504 Ofc it all comes down to pilot skills and sometimes luck. A bad pilot wont make a great plane work. Im just saying that if both pilots have an equal skills then f-16 will win any day.
@@BarryAllen__1A23 Beyond visual range, yes. A F-16 that finds itself in a dog fight with a MiG-29 is at a serious disadvantage though. Following the reunification of East Germany and West Germany, the German Luftwaffe held wargames between their MiG-29 and F-16s. They learned that the MiG-29 radar left a lot to be desired but that competant MiG-29 pilots would routinely kill F-16s once they closed to within about 10 miles of each other. The MiG-29 allowed the pilot to launch infrared-seeking missiles wherever the pilots head was looking; the United States eventually also added this capability to their Sidewinder missiles in the late 90s or early 2000s.
@@michaelgross7724 Thats because f-16 pilots didnt know the full capabilities of the mig-29. Yes the mig-29 is a great jet but its limited visibility over the f-16 really makes a huge problem for the mig-29 pilots. If both jets faced each other , with both pilots have an equal skills but neither knew the full capabilities of their counterparts, the mig-29 will come out on top. But since nato had already knew the max capabilities of mig-29 jets, the f-16 will win.
It did not face newer planes in the war with Iranians. Its main adversary was the Iranian F14, but by the time the F1 entered service in Iraq, Iranian F14s and F4s had very little to no spare parts or missiles to conduct the war with. The Iranian tactics were to frighten the Iraqis off by locking their radars on them, but only and only fire the missile if it were absolutely necessary. A few of the F1s were shot down in close dogfights with the F4s and the F14s, but mostly they were destroyed at medium range using AIM-54 and AIM-7 missiles. Iraqi pilots were well trained and experienced by then. This was out of the mouth of an Iranian F14 ace who said that by then these guys were not frightened of us anymore and were willing to engage us if the numbers were in their favour. @@imperialdawg4167
they were destroyed on the ground and iraq used alot of decoy vehicles plus iraqi pilots were never badly trained they shot down F15s and did a big amount of air to air kills against the coalition the video for some reason uses air to ground losses too which is very wrong and should not be counted @@imperialdawg4167
I also believe that some of the aircraft mentioned here with particularly high losses were the result of larger nations sending cheaper, lesser-equipped variants of their aircraft to lesser-developed countries. The Mig-23 was one of the worst examples, as the export versions often had less or no countermeasures and wings that couldn't sustain G-forces as high as other variants (I could be wrong about this, it's just what I've heard).
The footage of MiG 25's on the ground in the desert sand, were buried by the Iraqis in anticipation of American forces. The Iraqis buried them in hopes of digging them back up after the Americans left. I know because that's my unit, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment. What you didn't show was comedian and Price is Right host Drew Carey, in one of the unit tanks, jumping over one of these MiG-25, using its wing as a ramp
AS far as I know they didn't have russian fighters to use in Top Gun so they used a small mig like one instead. Brasil still has a lot of F-5s in service, slowly being replaced by the Gripen
Have to take into account the training of the pilots, the 80s Iranian pilots were mostly newer pilots not trained properly, many pilots fled before and after the revolution
The tier one pilots were all executed by the regime, a few managed to get away including a friend of mine who was a graduate of the Top Gun School and flew F14s, in fact he was an instructor.Those who were left were still superior to anything in the region but the Israelis perhaps. Their training is a joke nowadays.
@@lensman5762no they were not all executed...yes i do agee that was the plan but when iraq invaded the Iranian authorities had no choice to release them as they badly needed pilots
The most capable were executed in two waves. One according to a list, apparently drawn up by an aiforce general who turned out to be an Islamist, an dthen in that fake NOJEH coup d etat, which according to the intelligenec chief of the regime at the time was a KGB trap with the help of the TuDEH party. Anyone who was left were later released to take part in the fight. Just how many top pilots and officers do you think Iran had at the time? The size of the professional army was in the 40000, region.@@jaws666
What needs to be taken into account, is the apponant that took these aircraft down! For example, the MiG-25 was never a fighter, so being taken down by an F-15 ,which is far more advanced, and designed for that specific requirement, is no surprise to anyone!
While I share your point of making that distinction, in that case it WAS a surprise. At first the Americans thought the MiG-25 was a fast and manouvreable air superiority fighter. The F-15 was actually a reaction to what they wrongly thought the MiG-25 was.
I flew three of these aircraft at Nellis (F-5, MiG-21, MiG-23,) and at the hands of a skilled pilot, they can be useful. However, no one who flies these in actual combat has pilots with that skill. So, kinda moot point.
@@robandcheryls When I first saw the A-10, I as in my twenties and I wasn’t building models anymore. That would have been an awesome model to build. I wish I would stayed with modeling as that hobby would helped me relieve a lot of stress.
Yeah, another guy also claimed an F-15 was shot down by a MiG-25 during Desert Storm… Iraq reported a kill, the pilot of the F-15 flew back to base and landed😂 Edit: That’s the same guy I just forgot to look at the username
The fact with the phantom poor kill ratio in vietnam was not because the phantoms could not maneuver against the MIGs, but that the early vietnam pilots was not trained to maneuver the phantoms due to the BVR only Doctrine of that time. To prove this point you had pilots who was trained to Dogfight in WWII who became ACEs in the phantom during Vietnam.. Also once the Ault Doctrine showed that the missiles failed 90% of the time combined with the now visual ID of every encounter this put the BVR pilots in Dogfights without a gun and no Dogfighter training. However Dan Pedersen the Founder of Top Gun with the phantoms changed the Kill ratio from 2:1 to 24:1 by the end of vietnam. this proves the case of the phantoms was a great fighter however the BVR only doctrine left the Phantoms woefully under equipped during the LBJ administration. And if not for the LBJ administration letting Hanoi know where and when the phantoms would be bombing, the Phantoms could have ended that war in Six months..
Before you comment something stupid like "What about training!", the soviets fought against the Israelis in the air, and they lost even worse than how the egyptians did.
Anyone remember ‘The Right Stuff’ 1983 when (Sam Shepard) Chuck Yeager takes a Starfighter to about 90,000 ft and it stalls and goes into a dive. He survives of course, just.
@@darthsaren6519 It's according to the title/description of the video. The MiG's suffered heavy losses in pretty much any conflict they were in. Because they either were 3rd world nations fighting amongst each other or 3rd world nations fighting the US. For instance, while the MiG-21 was pretty succesful in the beginning, it soon started to loose out against the F-4's after their arrival in Vietnam and tactics were changed.
If a fighter refers to an aircraft designed to shoot down other aircraft, then an interceptor IS a fighter, it's just not an AIR SUPERIORITY fighter. Air superiority fighters are the ones meant to kill other fighters and are often good at dogfighting. Interceptors are a different sub-class of fighter that are meant to go really fast in a straight line, destroy a bomber or cargo aircraft, and then haul ass out of there. There are different specializations in every role. Not all fighters are meant to dogfight. You have air superiority fighters (F-15, F-22) which attack other fighters, interceptors (MiG-31, F-101, MiG-25) which go really fast to chase down big targets which cannot fight back, strike fighters/ fighter-bombers (F-105, F-15E) which are air superiority fighters modified to be good at ground attack missions as well, light fighters (F-5, MiG-21), and you have multi-role fighters (F-16, MiG-29, F-4) which can do multiple roles. The F-16 for example, is good at ground attack, excellent as an air superiority fighter due to its agility, and is probably good as an interceptor too, since it's fast. You also have ground attack aircraft like the A-10 which are NOT fighters and it annoys the fuck out of me when people *call* them fighters.
Vietnamese MiG 21 shot down 78 aircraft and suffer 60-65 losses. Considering our fighter pilots at that time had only some hundred flying hours, that's an impressive result.
@@mrmakhno3030heroes they were every last one of them. If only JFK hadn't been assassinated your nation wouldn't probably have had suffered a long war
You missed the worst! During the Korean war USA claimed that 86 Sabres had a 9:1 or 10:1 victory over the Mig 15’s so the Migs must have a ratio around 1:10
Kill over-claiming by both sides was common at that time. Also, before the Sabres, the MiGs managed to claim many kills against B-29 bombers and early U.S. jet fighters at the start of the Chinese involvement.
What he said, 15s were a menace to yanks at first, later the turntables happened, but yeah it was also a bit of overkill reporting, that's the case till today, just today confirnation is much more rigorous, korea was still ww2 confirmation accuracy level.
Until now, the United States is trying to correct the overall outcome of the air war. Thus, in the Encyclopedia of Aviation (New York, 1977), it is noted that a total of 2,300 aircraft of the USSR, China and the DPRK were shot down by American pilots during the war, the losses of the United States and its allies were 114. The ratio is 20:1. Impressive? However, immediately after the war, when it was difficult to hide the total losses, the documentary book "Air Power is the Decisive force in Korea" was published (Toronto - New York - London, 1957), It stated that the US Air Force only lost about 2,000 aircraft in combat battles, they then lost "communist" aircraft it was estimated more modestly - about 1,000 aircraft. However, these figures are most likely far from the truth. As of today, the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces has declassified some documents from the Korean War. Here is the general data. Soviet pilots of the 64th Fighter Aviation Corps (during the war, ten divisions were included in it alternately - from six months to one year) conducted 1,872 air battles, during which 1,106 enemy aircraft were shot down, of which F-86 - 650 units. Hull losses: 335 aircraft. The ratio is 3:1 in favor of Soviet pilots, including the latest machines (MiG-15 and F-86 "Sabre") - 2:1. The data of the opposing sides differ not only as a result of subjectivity. We have different counting technologies with the Americans. The Americans recorded their victories only by photokinopulemet (PCF), because the situation in Korea did not allow them to receive confirmation from the ground. This method, according to the Hero of the Soviet Union K.V. Sukhov, was effective by about 75%, since only a hit was recorded, which did not always mean the destruction of the aircraft. In Soviet aviation units, there was a stricter procedure for registering victories. First of all, the personnel of the FCP. Then - the testimony of partners. But the main thing was the confirmation of ground units, without which the downed aircraft, as a rule, was not counted. In addition, representatives of the regiment left. The Korean War record holder Nikolai Sutyagin conducted 66 air battles, personally shot down 21 aircraft. He has 15 F-86 Sabre, 2 F-80 Shooting Star, 2 F-84 Thunderjet and 2 piston Gloucester Meteor.
Whoever put this video together has zero understanding of the function of each of these aircraft. For example, the F-5 costs next to nothing to manufacture and maintain, with excellent combat readiness levels, while almost all other fighters are extremely costly to manufacture and labor intensive to keep operational. With info in hand, a 1:1 kill ratio is outstanding as you can bankrupt your opponent and eventually overwhelm them as your plane is always ready to fly while theirs are stuck being serviced in their hangers.
Quote from an article about the confrontation in the skies of Vietnam: It should be recognized that the rivalry of MiGs and "Phantoms" in the Vietnamese sky ended in the defeat of the American machine as a whole: F-4 fighters managed to shoot down 54 MiG-21 aircraft during the entire period of hostilities from 1966 to 1972, during the same period the "twenty-first" destroyed 103 "Phantom". In addition, the loss of one American aircraft, as a rule, led to the death or capture of two crew members. In addition, the "Phantom" cost American taxpayers an amount several times higher than the cost of one MiG-21. Here is another article: If we talk about the overall results of the air war over the DRV, the data are as follows. According to American sources, their pilots shot down 196 Vietnamese planes in air battles, including 86 MiG-21s. According to the types of armed forces, the victories are distributed as follows: 68 MiG-21s on the account of Air Force pilots, 17 - Navy and one - KMP. Of the pilots, the largest number of MiG-21s were shot down by a representative of the US Air Force, Captain Richard Steve Ritchie. As for the American losses in air battles, they amounted, according to the Pentagon, to 81 vehicles: 79 aircraft and two helicopters. Of these, 63 aircraft belonged to the Air Force, 15 to the Navy, two to the Army and one to the KMP. However, it is not indicated how many victories are accounted for by the pilots who fought on the MiG-21. The data is slightly different The Vietnamese data is somewhat different from the American ones. According to them, the number of downed aircraft was about three hundred cars. At least half of this number is in the "asset" of the MiG-21. The most distinguished is considered to be the v / h (aviation regiment) No. 921, which fought from the first days of the air war on the MiG-17, and then on the "twenty-first". His pilots have 137 victories on their account. history-doc.ru/vojny/itogi-vozdushnoj-vojny-na-vetnamom 🤔🙈🙉🙊😏
There was actually fairly little air-to-air combat over Vietnam as compared to other wars; most USAF and USN losses were due to missiles and radar-guided AAA. The big problem for the MiGs of all versions was that they were guided from the GROUND; which could be readily jammed by Yankee ECM. Add to that while their firepower, with most having twin 23-mm cannon, was impressive, it's effective range was LESS than the B-52 quad-50s in the tail, so lining up from behind was extremely dangerous for most MiGs! However, the F-105 "Thud", so named for OBVIOUS reason, had no rear-firing defensive armament at all, so, when laded down with bombs, it was a lumbering TARGET for the NVAAF. The only saving grace for the 'Thunderchief" was that once it had dropped its ordnance, THEN it could defend itself.
I think it is inappropriate to count kills by gound air defense systems. This does distorts the air to air capability of the aircraft. If you are going to include ground to air kills, then you should also include air to ground "kills".
I am Iranian. Iranians did not use the F5 as a dog fighter in the war with the Iraqis. that role was left to the F4s and the F14s if and only when absolutely necessary, as Iran was under universal sanctions and Iran did not want to put the precious fighters she had in danger. Iraqis had no such problems and were being constantly armed by the Soviets an dthe French. F5 is a light plane without any BVR missile capability. Its air defence armament is limited to two wingtip mounted AIM-9 Sidewinders and a 20mm Canon , well two of them actually. Iranians used the F5s as close support aircraft ( they had no choice as the Islamists had all but destroyed the Iranain army after the revolution ) and as a light bomber, roles for which the little F5 was not really designed. As such their losses were higher than should have been. The F5s did very well in their missions.
1) F-5 Tiger II, in Iranian service: By the time the upgraded F-5s were used in combat during the Iraq-Iran war (1980 to 1989), the Iranian Air Force, while still under the Shah, had already converted to the F-14 "Tomcat" for the air superiority role. After the Islamic revolution of 1979, the Iranian military received no more assistance from the USA and Israel, so its training was curtailed due to lack of spares. Combat losses can be explained by the replacement of the initial "old stuff" on the part of the Iraqis with better French and Soviet-supplied ECM and missiles, as relatively little dogfighting actually went on between the respective combatants, and the need for the F-5 in the ground attack role. 2) MiG-25: Intended strictly as an interceptor to catch the USAF B-58 "Hustler" and B-70 "Valkyrie" supersonic bombers. More a high-speed missile carrier, definitely NOT a dogfighter. It's high speed made it useful also for the recon role. More a case of whose missiles were better as well as respective pilot training and combat doctrine. 3) F-104: Like the MiG-25, NOT a dogfighter at all! Original role was high-speed, high-altitude interception. Used for high-speed recon, where the Starfighters may or may not have "violated" opposing air space (often the Chicoms attacked outside THEIR airspace, but we did also encroach upon them), an inherently danger role, but one where evaluation by "kill vs. loss" is not applicable. The Starfighter also had a bad reputation as a "widow maker", especially with the West German Air Force, there was a bribery scandal involving Lockheed, the West Germans, and the F-104G. 4) MiG-21: This model really took it on the chin, but again, not necessarily due to inherent airframe defects. In 'Nam, the MiG-21s were probably piloted by Soviets/Russians, and that entails its own problems when your pilots can't talk in their native tongue and don't generally speak Vietnamese! Also, the USA ECM countermeasures were effective, though not ENTIRELY. The easiest pickings for MiGs were actually F-105 "Thuds", laden with ordnance in the strike role. B-52s were actually hard for MiGs to down, as the tail radar and quad fifties had a longer "reach" than did the ground guidance for the MiGs. With Egypt, a lot of MiGs were caught ON THE GROUND in that IAF surprise strike on June 5, 1967, that more or less wiped out their Air Force. 5) MiG-29: Lopsided losses, but again, probably more the respective skills of the air forces engaged, or, as in Ethiopia/Eretria, or the recent Russia/Ukraine conflict, STINGER missiles. 6) MiG-23: Combination of Mig-21 and MIG-29 issues above. This "giveaway/takeaway" ratio discussion goes all the way back to WWII, with lopsided losses for the Luftwaffe's Bf-109s versus the overrated Supermarine Spitfire and/or the Hawker Hurricane (which probably had more to do with RAF success in the Battle of Britain). The inherent problem for the Luftwaffe in flying CAP and/or bomber escort is that the RAF, figuring out that its biggest problem was having enough proficient pilots, and not necessarily available aircraft, as the UK fighter production was already exceeding that of Germany, so the RAF was selective as to when it would engage, picking obviously favorable situations or defending higher-priority targets. The Bf-109s were limited to thirty minutes flying time over Metropolitan London and had practically no loiter time over the Midlands, always being unable to do anything but run for it on their return leg over the Channel or North Sea. If downed over either, often the pilot who'd otherwise live to fight another day was lost due to drowning and/or hypothermia. Downed RAF pilots obviously fared better if not killed or badly injured; they could be returned to duty, and some did, on the SAME DAY. Likewise in the Pacific, the Japanese A6M "Zeke" or "Zero" at first enjoyed an advantage over the relatively ponderous USN carrier aircraft like the Brewster Buffalo or the AAF's P-40 Tomahawk, due to its faster speed and better climb rate, but an examination of a downed Zero in the Aleutians revealed its fatal flaw: it was UN-armored! Along with delivery of better fighters to both the Army Air Force and the Navy, the Americans learned to close with the Zero with confidence, as once engaged in a dogfight, it was comparatively helpless, and the kill/loss ratio titled wildly in the Yankees' favor...most emphatically in June 1944 during the "Great Marianas Turkey Shoot", with about a 5:1 exchange experienced in favor of the USN! To be fair, several factors, the main one being that Japanese naval codes had been broken, their defensive plans captured in the wreckage of an aircraft of one of their top admirals, and, worse for Japan, its inability, by then, to give new pilots adequate training, being short of aircraft and gasoline, plus better radar and proximity fuzing for AAA, played into that lopsided battle.
You must take into account what country is employing the plane, and what the country it is going up against has. Take the F5-it was designed as a simple, low cost plane mainly aimed at the export market. Chances are it will be flown by someone with less training against a nation with the budget for more advanced planes, and pilots with more advanced training. Or take Israel versus Syria or Jordan. The Israelis benefit from US involvement in pilot training, and have top of the line US built aircraft--the F4 in the day, then F15--up against pilots thàt couldn't match their training, in Soviet hardware probably a generation behind what the Soviets themselves had.
you don't take into consideration a lot of factors, as maintenance status, aircraft role and situation in which it is lost, pilot training level .... in a nutshell, it is much harder to make this list...
I tought I was going to find the Mirage III EA used by Fuerza Aerea Argentina, it had a poor kill to lose ratio against 4th generation Sea Harriet's. Are there statistics?
They seem to be only taking into consideration type broadly speaking, in general the Mirage III should be doing pretty well on account of its service with Israel. Argentine MirageIIIEA had, IIRC, two losses, but soon afterwards these were held in reserve to defend Argentina against possible Vulcan raids.
The FAA A4 Skyhawks actually did fairly well. The Mirages were needed as carriers for the relatively few "Exocet" missiles the "Argies" had, once of which crippled the HMS Sheffield, which had to be scuttled as they had no tug available. Any FAA fighters would have been at the extreme of their range from their bases; so the Harriers had the advantage of having more "loiter" time over the theater. The obvious problem for the Royal Navy was defending the Hermes, as its loss would have been an embarrassing blow that would have had huge political repercussions for PM Thatcher's government.
@@selfdo the Harriers used in the Falklands conflict had very short legs. They were quite limited in range. The A-4 Skyhawks had the range to reach the Falklands from the mainland, but just barley. Their big disadvantage is they had limited long range scanning and radar support and capability. So they could not fly directly to their targets. And they were armed for attack missions, not air to air encounters. If Skyhawks had some sidewinders and a decent radar support, in my opinion, they could have successfully chowed down on some harriers. But they didn’t because their targets were the ships and ground targets. I think overall, they did a decent job. The Royal Navy did lose some ships.
Well then u have to count the biggest % of this were in a 10v1 proportion, like serbia for example they had like 20-30 mig29 vs probably +600 nato jets, if 20 f22 raptors fight 100 su35 they would perish as well so those things are a bit useless, for f5 mig29 mig23-21 etcetc
In former Yugoslavia NATO was attacking at least 10:1 and from every neighboring country. AWACS would detect one MiG-29 from the 1980s, without maintenance, not to mention modernization, NATO fighters would fire a dozen rockets and flee away and that was a war in the air!
When you can skillfully conduct large scale air operations and literally just wallhack the entire time so that you don’t even need to run into enemy planes. Western Air Forces OP plz nerf
Why would NATO need to "fire a dozen rockets" when one would suffice. The current failure of the the aging dictator Putin in Ukraine has shone a bright light on how garbage Russian equipment truly is. All the Russian have manage to do is hit civilians.
@@PeterMuskrat6968not much of a brag considering yugoslavia colapsed and a very large part of the infrastructure required to maintain and properly use the aircraft was Lost completely.
Obsolescence, poor manteinance and bad training was often source of these results, rather then, design failures. These fighters were deployed in to the "poor sides" of conflicts, and after facing much more sophisticated and modern machines. Employing planes in the wrong role, also won't help in "kill to death ratio", like using a Mig 25 as an air superiority fighter. F104 losses in Vietnam were due to people being lost and shot from below by ground directed Chinese fighter. Only a single F104 was lost by a Mig 19, the other two being shot down by SA2 missiles (theF104c lacking a RWR system). This brings the kill to death ratio above 1.1.
How much Starfighters were actually destroyed in accidents? Bundeswehr got the Starfighter in the 60s it was quite infamous for its unreliability and many crashes till it was nicknamed the Widow maker
There was also a controversy that the Luftwaffe version, the F-104G, with extra "goodies" that the Germans wanted, was riddled with "bugs" as it employed what was then a lot of new tech in its upgrades, and this was masked by Lockheed BRIBING West German officials. Led to several laws being passed that severely punish that. To be fair, MANY combat aircraft would more than "earn" that dubious distinction of a "widow maker", including our own B-47 Stratojet. The main problem with the B-47 was that its design heavily borrowed from the He 132, and many German aeronautical engineers and scientists (Operation "Paperclip") were involved in its development. Beyond the obvious language and cultural problems, the USAF didn't realize that it took the concept of "Schnellbomber", as in FAST, quite seriously. For a time, it was the fastest combat aircraft in service, a real "hot rod"! B-17, B-24, and B-29 pilots, used to a more lumbering aircraft, often had issues with handling the finnicky beast, while the few fighter pilots that migrated into the program weren't used to a large aircraft at all. It's an inherent problem where you've got an large combat aircraft that operates at least 50 percent faster than the planes your pilots trained on, and the bird can turn with the best of fighters as well. I wouldn't be surprised if a few of them had the stunt pulled by a USAF pilot in Vietnam with a B-57 Canberra...last flight, was going to get his "hose down" once he landed, the man buzzes the airfield...at fifty feet...INVERTED! Probably had his cowboy hat on, as did many USAF pilots in those days, in the manner of the fictional Major "King" Kong in "Dr Strangelove".
Missing 1 wellknown jet. turkish F16 entered greak territorry 1996 and was shot/missile by Greek Mirage 2000-C , strangely this the the only time F16 and mirage 2000 ever did air to air combat ( not only between both but ever)
Re: Balkans example, but others similarly - when you have an air attack of LITERALLY 120+ NATO planes in the air, which are met by 2 Mig-29s that were sent late and just to die for propaganda, it's kind of shitty to count it against kill:loss ratio...
I love fighters I worked at Mcdonnell Douglas in St louis where we built when i was there F15 no F15 to my knowledge has ever bin shot down , please correct me if i'm wrong i'm getting old we also built F18's and av8b Harrier jump jets with a license for England,
PS there are many stages of how secret informing just how secret that info is,, My job was hunting down he info they wanted,, I would go to the building thay had so many buildings its hard to remember where they all were , but i had top clearance you could not work there with out Government clearance I would go to the building that had what my boss wanted, There is a guard at every door, They knew i was coning and when i signed in I would take a guard with me so he could watch me and he would unlock any cabinet i need or doors or even safe or vault i needed, the guards loved when i came when i was there they could go any place i did and they were not sitting at the door all day so we were friends One night oh yea i worked at night when it was just me the guards and the maintenance crew were there,,One night i was in a vice presidents secretary's office ,The cabinet i needed opened the cabinet was silver secret Thats like the 3rd highest of the levels of how much value the info,, I asked the guard to unlock and open that cabinet foor me , of all the top secret desk i looked at this silver top secret cabnet was full of Hostess twinkies and other candy,, Was a very funny me and the guard were laughing so hard it took 15 mins to recover, True story
Allmost all the date are not actual anymore. In case of some planes - it's rubbish. Example? MiG-21. K/D ratio of Vietnam war up to 3:1 (sad but true) during Israeli wars - many of them were lost, and K/D ratio also significantly dropped down. It's worth to mention, that first MiG-21 - was gen II fighter, and the last was gen III. All with completely combat results. Summary gives confusing effect. Same is in case of F-5. MiG-29 - not actual anymore.
And despite being an interceptor, it performed decently as a ground pounder. The MiG-21bis under Indian Air Force command has had a questionable safety record (largely because of age & those maintaining them). But USAF pilots that flew against them in exercises compared their combat to first Blocks F-16s.
The data on MiG 21 is incorrect. During the 1971 Indo Pak war the MiG 21 outperformed the F104. During the Vietnam War too the MiG 21 was a formidable opponent against the F-4 phantom II.
Let’s not forget that the F-5 was never meant to be an air superiority fighter. Nato used it almost exclusively as a fighter-bomber in the ground support role.
It is certain that Russian fighter aircraft are superior to those of the US and Nato. Let's take the K-36D ejection seat system as an example. The Americans once tested the Russian K-36D ejection seat beat the ACES II system, and the result was that the K-36D was completely more stable than the ACES II. Not stopping there, Russian fighter jets often have higher speeds, longer ranges and higher flight ceilings than US and Nato fighter jets. Not to mention Russian fighter jets also have thick armor, the Su-25 is known as the "flying tank" which no US or Nato fighter jet has this nickname. Although US and Nato fighter jets have more modern electronic and radar systems, they are more error prone, for example here are the F-35s, which have 871 errors including software and hardware errors.
The Mig-21 just like Mig-15/17 still being one of the best in the time it deloy. but many countries using for too long and it have to facing more model jets without any upgrade 😅 same story with Mig-29. the F4/5 and F104 should be a good jets but some stupid though only missile is enough make them being one of the bad jets in first time they was deloy 😅
The 1971 war was the liberation war of Bangladesh in which India joined at the very last stage. Naming it 'Indo-Pak' war is very dishonoring for us and our freedom fighters.
the bad luck of all those migs, and the good luck of f15/16 /harriers is that the migs where used by bad skilled pilots in completely asimetrical conflicts
Yeah, yeah, Soviets tried to prove exactly this point to Egyptians in 1968, and that attempt ended in a catastrophe to Soviets with several MiG-21 and Soviet pilots lost.
The greatest factor is that the fighters with poor ratios were the ones who were kept in service beyond their obsolescence. They were kept on line due to budget limitations and political access problems.
most of these comparisons are at best questionable, like counting downings of MIG29 in conflicts were there were completely outmatched, and most likely flown while not being fully combat ready. It's just a lot of buzz....
Arab nations are evidently not the better non-Soviet users of Soviet aircraft. In fact they're comparable to Pakistan and Iran's usage of American aircraft. Some excellent examples of nations that shined in battle deploying Soviet/Russian aircraft are India and Vietnam. Likewise Israel has been highly successful in deploying American/Western weaponry.
You have to wonder how much of these results were skewed due to doctrine and pilot training quality...rather than airframe quality.
Can't help but notice they are counting ALL combat losses as well. Including planes lost on the ground and ground support missions. Take those out just use air-to-air losses and lets see what those numbers look like.
Yes should tell who’s planes and what planes
Agree. Also some of these planes were losing well past their best used by date to newer air frames.
You have to wonder how many of these results were skewed by poor research!
Absolutely, the plane is only as good as the pilot flying it.
The F104 killed more pilots in training accidents than any adversaries achieved in combat.
I’m sure the UK’s sea harrier was quite capable of killing it’s pilot as well.
I think it had the ability to flip upside down in the blink of an eye.
The F104 sure was a pretty plane. We had them at GAFB in 1960's.
The majority of those were West German F-104’s that were ad hoc’d into the ground attack role… which is clearly not what the design was made for.
The Starfighter should have been pulled from service once the role it was supposed to fill (Bomber interceptor) was redundant.
Almost the same for the f35.
Not sure why the RCAF purchased them. 🇨🇦 Vet
The F-104 Starfighter was not designed as a dogfighter. It was an intended to quickly intercept Soviet bombers before they could deliver their ordnance. Using it as a fighter is like using a Ferrari to haul cargo.
I think a better term is asking concorde to dogfight
Same for the Mig 25
Agreed
@@billm2078 at least the 25 was good at that role and the recon role it took up later
I agree. The Lockheed Lawn Dart shouldn't be here because it is an interceptor, not really a fighter.
I don’t consider airplanes blown up while they are on the ground as part of air combat losses. They are overall loses, sure, but they were simply not in the fight when they are sitting ducks on the ground.
The mig 29s killed tices f16 and other planes in the gulf war and only two were lost. The Serbian migs were missing engines, radar etc. The floggers were bombers. Idiot video.
Honestly feel like really outdated fighters getting annihilated should also not be counted. But that's just me.
@@armoredp I see your point, but if those museum pieces are being flown in a combat operation, they are in play. There are a number of cases where obsolete weapons are used against modern ones and come out on top in a particular engagement.
2 mins into the video and already this list of "fighters" includes a pure interceptor, the MiG-25. The 25 NEVER was intended to fight fighters. It was the ultimate bomber-killer of its time. Designed with that tremendous speed to cover vast areas of Russia quickly. It's had a powerful radar to locate the bombers at high altitude (thus no look-down/shoot-down capability). And long range IR missiles that while not sensitive enough to track fighters most of the time, was more than capable of tracking bomber engines.
From what I understand, it was specifically designed to shoot down the XB-70 Valkyrie which never entered service.
@@Riceball01That's the history book version...but what are you going to do with a perfect mach 3 interceptor....eliminate all threat of B-52s, B-1s, etc across the entirely of northern Russia.
With a combat radius of 186 miles, it's not going to cover much of those vast distances.
@@surgemeister01 I'd imagine that the Russians/Soviets keep/kept many of their MiG-25s forward deployed near wherever they felt were either likely entry points and/or targets for NATO bombers. Remember, a lot of MiGs and SUs were built with rough field capability, not sure if the MiG-25 is one of them but if it is, then that means that they could (theoretically) have a squadron of MiG-25s parked out on a grass field 100 miles outside of Moscow to intercept B-52s; one again, in theory and assuming that they had rough field capability.
@@surgemeister01 Range: 1,860 km (1,160 mi, 1,000 nmi) at Mach 0.9
1,630 km (1,013 mi) at Mach 2.35[120]
Ferry range: 2,575 km (1,600 mi, 1,390 nmi)
This will be my last post on the subject. I'm not here to educate the world or stop trolls.
Some jet fighters have a reputation, partly because the training of pilots was not suited to the battle environment. The Northrop F5 Tiger II is not state of the art, but it is tough, maneuverable and easy to maintain-it was mainly used in air to ground combat, such as in Vietnam. The USAF and Navy still uses the F5E for air-to-air combat training.
True but it's mostly used for target practice there days and is soon to be replaced by automated F-16s that have been all used up. Don't get me wrong it stood the test of time but time has caught up with the fighter. Personally I wouldn't mind owning one.
@@gravyd316 it'd likely be a very expensive dust collector. unless you have that income, getting enough fuel to take it for a spin would drive you into bancrupcy. not talking about maintenance fees either.
@@bosermann4963 It'd be a cool dust collector though. A custom dragon paint job or something like that. Either way it's well beyond my budget. Who knows? Maybe one day. I have to be optimistic about the future.
During the attack on Serbia in 1999. NATO attacked with hundreds of aeroplanes, with Avax above all. 20 modern planess(+Avax) vs 1 obsolete MIG was not a fair fight, so It should not count like this.
+serbia and iraq has export version of fulcrums - mig29b
yet they updated them to modern standards and werent shithole countries also iraq had skilled pilots that downed alot of coalition aircrafts in the gulf war including one F15 downed by a mig25
also the iraqi casualties numbers given by the US are fake
in the battle of kafji they said they destroyed 500 tanks but cuz it is a city and its not hard for reporters to get there they later reported only 11 tanks were destroyed
iraq also used alot of decoy vehicles and 90% of the destroyed iraqi aircrafts were on the ground and this video includes air to ground kills too
@@SandMartin
@@husseinoskovjino9398 Nice fanfic, bro. Baghdad Bob would be proud.
@@GreatWhiteNanuk even if it was fake its better than your war stories which are complete bullshit
Lmao some marine goes into the middle of the open and takes down two T55s that are shooting over him?
Not even indians thought about this one
If u want fake war stories read your own yankee
@@husseinoskovjino9398you mixing up f15 with f/18
10:25 We see a downed MiG-23UB. It was NOT shot down. It crashed during the Thunder over Michigan airshow next to an apartment building. How do I know? I WAS THERE! I took several photos including one that MATCHES that photo, right down to the trees and the branch laying over it. I'm not faulting The Buzz for this, but I think its absolutely hilarious that I have a photo almost identical to it on my phone that I took.
They're just trying to show the aircraft
@@SiriusMinedseriously 😂
MiG-23 has a 25-102 kill/loss ratio. So while you might wanna ride Soviet crap, sucks for you they all got decimated by USAF fighters. Even the Mig-21 got 3:1’ed by the F-4, and that’s the closest they ever came to having a somewhat competitive aircraft in the skies. Since then the gap between American and Russian aircraft has grown into a Grand Canyon sized chasm
@@tylerclayton6081 keep in mind that U.S. forces lost over 10,000 aircraft in the Vietnam conflict. That includes fighters, missiles, bullets, sappers, mortars and maybe even a spitball or two. That’s a lot of airplanes. Several types were withdrawn from service because they basically ran out of them and could no longer be used perform their missions. And in at least one case, closed production lines were restarted to produce replacements.
@@tylerclayton6081 i will never understand US people being this mad over "soviet crap". relax dude its not that serious
I was a crew chief on the F-5E Tiger II (527th TFTAS) and it'll always be my fav jet.
I've always liked the F5 . How come the Israelis never bought any . They were relatively cheap , and packed a punch .
@@michellebrown4903Because at the time the US would not sell any fighters to Israel. The Israelis flew Mirage III's and V's until US policy changed and F-4's were offered.
Definitely a very cool-looking aircraft.
Ground distruction should not be considered in the calculation, for example in the statistic of the MiG 21
and the MiG-25 too, iraqi grounded a lot of them
The thing is these numbers don't tell the full picture, the Migs pretty much never faced an equal foe, other smaller countries bought these from Russia and usually then they're not in their prime, used and old but have to face newest and greatest western jets that have the support of AVAX and a numerical advantage, so of course migs are going down and there you go, western jets seem like wonder weapons and game changers when in fact in an equal environment they're no better.
The Mig -25 is NOT a fighter..it was designed as a high speed intetceptor....the Mig-25 has the turning circle of a cruise ship.
The mig-29 I’m almost every conflict was heavily outnumbers by its enemy, always had either outdated weapons or no weapons like in some cases in Yugoslavia.
1v1 the mig will give any fighter a run for its money , especially in a dog fight.
Uh no? F-16 will dunk over Mig-29 at any opportunity
@@BarryAllen__1A23 well it depends, and pilots and tactics actually matter a lot, and sometimes it can be pure luck as well. An Indian Mig21 ended up on tail of retreating Pakistani F16s in 2019, mainly due to his comms being jammed. A pair of Mig21s were intercepting F16s who were firing BVRs on Su30s, and he was not able to hear the command to go cold while his wingman retreated, and he was able to get an easy InfraRed lock and kill on an F16. Although missile had a big role in that, R73 is one of the best close range IR missiles.
@@nipun9504 Ofc it all comes down to pilot skills and sometimes luck. A bad pilot wont make a great plane work. Im just saying that if both pilots have an equal skills then f-16 will win any day.
@@BarryAllen__1A23 Beyond visual range, yes. A F-16 that finds itself in a dog fight with a MiG-29 is at a serious disadvantage though. Following the reunification of East Germany and West Germany, the German Luftwaffe held wargames between their MiG-29 and F-16s. They learned that the MiG-29 radar left a lot to be desired but that competant MiG-29 pilots would routinely kill F-16s once they closed to within about 10 miles of each other. The MiG-29 allowed the pilot to launch infrared-seeking missiles wherever the pilots head was looking; the United States eventually also added this capability to their Sidewinder missiles in the late 90s or early 2000s.
@@michaelgross7724 Thats because f-16 pilots didnt know the full capabilities of the mig-29. Yes the mig-29 is a great jet but its limited visibility over the f-16 really makes a huge problem for the mig-29 pilots. If both jets faced each other , with both pilots have an equal skills but neither knew the full capabilities of their counterparts, the mig-29 will come out on top. But since nato had already knew the max capabilities of mig-29 jets, the f-16 will win.
Mirage F.1 24 kills 44 A-A losses
Alto-Cenapa War (Equador) 2: 0
Iran-Iraq War (Iraq) 15: 35
Gulf War (Iraq) 0: 8
Gulf War (Kuwait) 3: 0
Angola Border War (South Africa) 4: 0
Aegean Sea clashes (Greece) 0: 1
To put in context most of its losses were because it usually faced newer planes and was flown by badly trained pilots in iraq
It did not face newer planes in the war with Iranians. Its main adversary was the Iranian F14, but by the time the F1 entered service in Iraq, Iranian F14s and F4s had very little to no spare parts or missiles to conduct the war with. The Iranian tactics were to frighten the Iraqis off by locking their radars on them, but only and only fire the missile if it were absolutely necessary. A few of the F1s were shot down in close dogfights with the F4s and the F14s, but mostly they were destroyed at medium range using AIM-54 and AIM-7 missiles. Iraqi pilots were well trained and experienced by then. This was out of the mouth of an Iranian F14 ace who said that by then these guys were not frightened of us anymore and were willing to engage us if the numbers were in their favour. @@imperialdawg4167
@@imperialdawg4167 unlike those planes mentioned in the videos?
they were destroyed on the ground and iraq used alot of decoy vehicles plus iraqi pilots were never badly trained they shot down F15s and did a big amount of air to air kills against the coalition the video for some reason uses air to ground losses too which is very wrong and should not be counted
@@imperialdawg4167
Ecuador as always pure class, thanks for the info I guess it was during the cenepa war
PILOT training has a lot to do with this.
True. That was definitely Germany's problem with the F-104 Lawn Dart.
I also believe that some of the aircraft mentioned here with particularly high losses were the result of larger nations sending cheaper, lesser-equipped variants of their aircraft to lesser-developed countries. The Mig-23 was one of the worst examples, as the export versions often had less or no countermeasures and wings that couldn't sustain G-forces as high as other variants (I could be wrong about this, it's just what I've heard).
The footage of MiG 25's on the ground in the desert sand, were buried by the Iraqis in anticipation of American forces. The Iraqis buried them in hopes of digging them back up after the Americans left. I know because that's my unit, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment. What you didn't show was comedian and Price is Right host Drew Carey, in one of the unit tanks, jumping over one of these MiG-25, using its wing as a ramp
Carey was a marine. What was he doing in an army unit's tank?
He was also discharged from the Marines in 1987. What was he even doing in Iraq when he was still filming the Drew Carey Show?
That's so cool 👍
@vintagethrifteruso2114
The F-5 is beautiful. Probably why it is used in so many Hollywood movies featuring jet fighters.
AS far as I know they didn't have russian fighters to use in Top Gun so they used a small mig like one instead.
Brasil still has a lot of F-5s in service, slowly being replaced by the Gripen
The very low cost per flight hour also had something to do with that
Have to take into account the training of the pilots, the 80s Iranian pilots were mostly newer pilots not trained properly, many pilots fled before and after the revolution
The tier one pilots were all executed by the regime, a few managed to get away including a friend of mine who was a graduate of the Top Gun School and flew F14s, in fact he was an instructor.Those who were left were still superior to anything in the region but the Israelis perhaps. Their training is a joke nowadays.
@@lensman5762no they were not all executed...yes i do agee that was the plan but when iraq invaded the Iranian authorities had no choice to release them as they badly needed pilots
The most capable were executed in two waves. One according to a list, apparently drawn up by an aiforce general who turned out to be an Islamist, an dthen in that fake NOJEH coup d etat, which according to the intelligenec chief of the regime at the time was a KGB trap with the help of the TuDEH party. Anyone who was left were later released to take part in the fight. Just how many top pilots and officers do you think Iran had at the time? The size of the professional army was in the 40000, region.@@jaws666
What needs to be taken into account, is the apponant that took these aircraft down! For example, the MiG-25 was never a fighter, so being taken down by an F-15 ,which is far more advanced, and designed for that specific requirement, is no surprise to anyone!
While I share your point of making that distinction, in that case it WAS a surprise. At first the Americans thought the MiG-25 was a fast and manouvreable air superiority fighter. The F-15 was actually a reaction to what they wrongly thought the MiG-25 was.
The MiG-23 is also used for Interceptor, in fact that's the best function for it
I flew three of these aircraft at Nellis (F-5, MiG-21, MiG-23,) and at the hands of a skilled pilot, they can be useful. However, no one who flies these in actual combat has pilots with that skill. So, kinda moot point.
The first jet plastic model I built was a F-5 at age 11. My next jet model was a F-105 Thunderchief. I built these between various WW2 fighters.
F-5, F-4, A-10
@@robandcheryls When I first saw the A-10, I as in my twenties and I wasn’t building models anymore. That would have been an awesome model to build. I wish I would stayed with modeling as that hobby would helped me relieve a lot of stress.
F-4 Phantom, F-8 Crusader, Bristol Type 156 Beaufighter and later many many more....
@Ronin no US F15 has ever been shot down in combat.
Yeah, another guy also claimed an F-15 was shot down by a MiG-25 during Desert Storm…
Iraq reported a kill, the pilot of the F-15 flew back to base and landed😂
Edit: That’s the same guy I just forgot to look at the username
@@PeterMuskrat6968there is no F-15 shot down in air to air kill, it was sam kill to F-15E in desert strom.
@@PeterMuskrat6968
The F15 has never had an encounter with a jet that can shoot back;)
I had a hard time following the kill ratio in this documentary.
The fact with the phantom poor kill ratio in vietnam was not because the phantoms could not maneuver against the MIGs, but that the early vietnam pilots was not trained to maneuver the phantoms due to the BVR only Doctrine of that time. To prove this point you had pilots who was trained to Dogfight in WWII who became ACEs in the phantom during Vietnam.. Also once the Ault Doctrine showed that the missiles failed 90% of the time combined with the now visual ID of every encounter this put the BVR pilots in Dogfights without a gun and no Dogfighter training. However Dan Pedersen the Founder of Top Gun with the phantoms changed the Kill ratio from 2:1 to 24:1 by the end of vietnam. this proves the case of the phantoms was a great fighter however the BVR only doctrine left the Phantoms woefully under equipped during the LBJ administration. And if not for the LBJ administration letting Hanoi know where and when the phantoms would be bombing, the Phantoms could have ended that war in Six months..
Before you comment something stupid like "What about training!", the soviets fought against the Israelis in the air, and they lost even worse than how the egyptians did.
Anyone remember ‘The Right Stuff’ 1983 when (Sam Shepard) Chuck Yeager takes a Starfighter to about 90,000 ft and it stalls and goes into a dive. He survives of course, just.
Clearly, English is not the AI's first language lol
The MiG-29 is a great jet. But there seem to very few competent pilots for them.
cant you see the whole top 3 is comprised of russian "bad fighters" Long live USA , that the idea :) so much propaganda geez louise.
@@darthsaren6519 It's according to the title/description of the video. The MiG's suffered heavy losses in pretty much any conflict they were in. Because they either were 3rd world nations fighting amongst each other or 3rd world nations fighting the US. For instance, while the MiG-21 was pretty succesful in the beginning, it soon started to loose out against the F-4's after their arrival in Vietnam and tactics were changed.
If a fighter refers to an aircraft designed to shoot down other aircraft, then an interceptor IS a fighter, it's just not an AIR SUPERIORITY fighter. Air superiority fighters are the ones meant to kill other fighters and are often good at dogfighting.
Interceptors are a different sub-class of fighter that are meant to go really fast in a straight line, destroy a bomber or cargo aircraft, and then haul ass out of there. There are different specializations in every role. Not all fighters are meant to dogfight. You have air superiority fighters (F-15, F-22) which attack other fighters, interceptors (MiG-31, F-101, MiG-25) which go really fast to chase down big targets which cannot fight back, strike fighters/ fighter-bombers (F-105, F-15E) which are air superiority fighters modified to be good at ground attack missions as well, light fighters (F-5, MiG-21), and you have multi-role fighters (F-16, MiG-29, F-4) which can do multiple roles. The F-16 for example, is good at ground attack, excellent as an air superiority fighter due to its agility, and is probably good as an interceptor too, since it's fast.
You also have ground attack aircraft like the A-10 which are NOT fighters and it annoys the fuck out of me when people *call* them fighters.
I didn’t hear the MIG 21 stats from Vietnam. I thought it did quite well there. I guess Egypt, Syria and Iraq made up for it.
Vietnamese MiG 21 shot down 78 aircraft and suffer 60-65 losses. Considering our fighter pilots at that time had only some hundred flying hours, that's an impressive result.
@@mrmakhno3030heroes they were every last one of them. If only JFK hadn't been assassinated your nation wouldn't probably have had suffered a long war
India also had an impressive stat with MiG-21s. Approx 8-13 kills for 2 losses in 1971 war alone
You missed the worst! During the Korean war USA claimed that 86 Sabres had a 9:1 or 10:1 victory over the Mig 15’s so the Migs must have a ratio around 1:10
Kill over-claiming by both sides was common at that time. Also, before the Sabres, the MiGs managed to claim many kills against B-29 bombers and early U.S. jet fighters at the start of the Chinese involvement.
NOT migs piloted by russians
What he said, 15s were a menace to yanks at first, later the turntables happened, but yeah it was also a bit of overkill reporting, that's the case till today, just today confirnation is much more rigorous, korea was still ww2 confirmation accuracy level.
Until now, the United States is trying to correct the overall outcome of the air war. Thus, in the Encyclopedia of Aviation (New York, 1977), it is noted that a total of 2,300 aircraft of the USSR, China and the DPRK were shot down by American pilots during the war, the losses of the United States and its allies were 114. The ratio is 20:1. Impressive? However, immediately after the war, when it was difficult to hide the total losses, the documentary book "Air Power is the Decisive force in Korea" was published (Toronto - New York - London, 1957), It stated that the US Air Force only lost about 2,000 aircraft in combat battles, they then lost "communist" aircraft it was estimated more modestly - about 1,000 aircraft. However, these figures are most likely far from the truth.
As of today, the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces has declassified some documents from the Korean War. Here is the general data. Soviet pilots of the 64th Fighter Aviation Corps (during the war, ten divisions were included in it alternately - from six months to one year) conducted 1,872 air battles, during which 1,106 enemy aircraft were shot down, of which F-86 - 650 units. Hull losses: 335 aircraft. The ratio is 3:1 in favor of Soviet pilots, including the latest machines (MiG-15 and F-86 "Sabre") - 2:1.
The data of the opposing sides differ not only as a result of subjectivity. We have different counting technologies with the Americans. The Americans recorded their victories only by photokinopulemet (PCF), because the situation in Korea did not allow them to receive confirmation from the ground. This method, according to the Hero of the Soviet Union K.V. Sukhov, was effective by about 75%, since only a hit was recorded, which did not always mean the destruction of the aircraft.
In Soviet aviation units, there was a stricter procedure for registering victories. First of all, the personnel of the FCP. Then - the testimony of partners. But the main thing was the confirmation of ground units, without which the downed aircraft, as a rule, was not counted. In addition, representatives of the regiment left.
The Korean War record holder Nikolai Sutyagin conducted 66 air battles, personally shot down 21 aircraft. He has 15 F-86 Sabre, 2 F-80 Shooting Star, 2 F-84 Thunderjet and 2 piston Gloucester Meteor.
@swenhtet2861 irrelevat to ole's post
The worst thing the F-104 killed was the prototype B-71.🙄🤣😂🤣
It was a picture perfect moment against the XB-70 Valkyrie.
F5 still used as aggressors,with navy/ marines
moral of story: dont give fighters to poorer countries with badder training or else they screw up ur planes reputation
Spanish Air Force flew the F104 for a decade without a single loss.
They didn’t fight in any wars
@@friki143and neither did the Germans!
Whoever put this video together has zero understanding of the function of each of these aircraft. For example, the F-5 costs next to nothing to manufacture and maintain, with excellent combat readiness levels, while almost all other fighters are extremely costly to manufacture and labor intensive to keep operational. With info in hand, a 1:1 kill ratio is outstanding as you can bankrupt your opponent and eventually overwhelm them as your plane is always ready to fly while theirs are stuck being serviced in their hangers.
A plane is only as good as the pilot.
Quote from an article about the confrontation in the skies of Vietnam: It should be recognized that the rivalry of MiGs and "Phantoms" in the Vietnamese sky ended in the defeat of the American machine as a whole: F-4 fighters managed to shoot down 54 MiG-21 aircraft during the entire period of hostilities from 1966 to 1972, during the same period the "twenty-first" destroyed 103 "Phantom". In addition, the loss of one American aircraft, as a rule, led to the death or capture of two crew members. In addition, the "Phantom" cost American taxpayers an amount several times higher than the cost of one MiG-21.
Here is another article: If we talk about the overall results of the air war over the DRV, the data are as follows. According to American sources, their pilots shot down 196 Vietnamese planes in air battles, including 86 MiG-21s. According to the types of armed forces, the victories are distributed as follows: 68 MiG-21s on the account of Air Force pilots, 17 - Navy and one - KMP.
Of the pilots, the largest number of MiG-21s were shot down by a representative of the US Air Force, Captain Richard Steve Ritchie. As for the American losses in air battles, they amounted, according to the Pentagon, to 81 vehicles: 79 aircraft and two helicopters.
Of these, 63 aircraft belonged to the Air Force, 15 to the Navy, two to the Army and one to the KMP. However, it is not indicated how many victories are accounted for by the pilots who fought on the MiG-21.
The data is slightly different
The Vietnamese data is somewhat different from the American ones. According to them, the number of downed aircraft was about three hundred cars. At least half of this number is in the "asset" of the MiG-21. The most distinguished is considered to be the v / h (aviation regiment) No. 921, which fought from the first days of the air war on the MiG-17, and then on the "twenty-first". His pilots have 137 victories on their account.
history-doc.ru/vojny/itogi-vozdushnoj-vojny-na-vetnamom
🤔🙈🙉🙊😏
vietnam war;mig21 was the best 20 north vietnames pilots were air aces with 5 to 10 kills ;all on mig21 the best was nguyen van coc
There was actually fairly little air-to-air combat over Vietnam as compared to other wars; most USAF and USN losses were due to missiles and radar-guided AAA. The big problem for the MiGs of all versions was that they were guided from the GROUND; which could be readily jammed by Yankee ECM. Add to that while their firepower, with most having twin 23-mm cannon, was impressive, it's effective range was LESS than the B-52 quad-50s in the tail, so lining up from behind was extremely dangerous for most MiGs! However, the F-105 "Thud", so named for OBVIOUS reason, had no rear-firing defensive armament at all, so, when laded down with bombs, it was a lumbering TARGET for the NVAAF. The only saving grace for the 'Thunderchief" was that once it had dropped its ordnance, THEN it could defend itself.
I think it is inappropriate to count kills by gound air defense systems. This does distorts the air to air capability of the aircraft. If you are going to include ground to air kills, then you should also include air to ground "kills".
B-52 has entered the chat.
Airwolf accounts for half of these kills.
Soviet and Russian jets are mediocre, in general!
@@MannyLoxx2010not according to nato reports but go on i Guess
impressive numbers of the MiG-21.
I love it.. lets talk about jets that are 20-20+ years older than the competition... Yeah... okay.
I am Iranian. Iranians did not use the F5 as a dog fighter in the war with the Iraqis. that role was left to the F4s and the F14s if and only when absolutely necessary, as Iran was under universal sanctions and Iran did not want to put the precious fighters she had in danger. Iraqis had no such problems and were being constantly armed by the Soviets an dthe French. F5 is a light plane without any BVR missile capability. Its air defence armament is limited to two wingtip mounted AIM-9 Sidewinders and a 20mm Canon , well two of them actually. Iranians used the F5s as close support aircraft ( they had no choice as the Islamists had all but destroyed the Iranain army after the revolution ) and as a light bomber, roles for which the little F5 was not really designed. As such their losses were higher than should have been. The F5s did very well in their missions.
Mig21 Shut down a F16 Fighter jet in Pulwama India Pakistan conflict
No it didn't, no mig21 ever shot down any f16 in any conflict.
@@AZMAH777 Please check out
Mig-25 is an interceptor.
Very Nice video and coincise ideed!
Much more interesting than a "trophy" list.
Also, pilot training and experience factors into the number of kills and losses.
F 5 kill MIG 25????????? Absolutely wrong.
SUGGESTED!
bruh, did you even pay attention
some of these performed very well under select air forces , other air forces just used them as pawns of cold war
The full chart appears at 10:14.
1) F-5 Tiger II, in Iranian service: By the time the upgraded F-5s were used in combat during the Iraq-Iran war (1980 to 1989), the Iranian Air Force, while still under the Shah, had already converted to the F-14 "Tomcat" for the air superiority role. After the Islamic revolution of 1979, the Iranian military received no more assistance from the USA and Israel, so its training was curtailed due to lack of spares. Combat losses can be explained by the replacement of the initial "old stuff" on the part of the Iraqis with better French and Soviet-supplied ECM and missiles, as relatively little dogfighting actually went on between the respective combatants, and the need for the F-5 in the ground attack role.
2) MiG-25: Intended strictly as an interceptor to catch the USAF B-58 "Hustler" and B-70 "Valkyrie" supersonic bombers. More a high-speed missile carrier, definitely NOT a dogfighter. It's high speed made it useful also for the recon role. More a case of whose missiles were better as well as respective pilot training and combat doctrine.
3) F-104: Like the MiG-25, NOT a dogfighter at all! Original role was high-speed, high-altitude interception. Used for high-speed recon, where the Starfighters may or may not have "violated" opposing air space (often the Chicoms attacked outside THEIR airspace, but we did also encroach upon them), an inherently danger role, but one where evaluation by "kill vs. loss" is not applicable. The Starfighter also had a bad reputation as a "widow maker", especially with the West German Air Force, there was a bribery scandal involving Lockheed, the West Germans, and the F-104G.
4) MiG-21: This model really took it on the chin, but again, not necessarily due to inherent airframe defects. In 'Nam, the MiG-21s were probably piloted by Soviets/Russians, and that entails its own problems when your pilots can't talk in their native tongue and don't generally speak Vietnamese! Also, the USA ECM countermeasures were effective, though not ENTIRELY. The easiest pickings for MiGs were actually F-105 "Thuds", laden with ordnance in the strike role. B-52s were actually hard for MiGs to down, as the tail radar and quad fifties had a longer "reach" than did the ground guidance for the MiGs. With Egypt, a lot of MiGs were caught ON THE GROUND in that IAF surprise strike on June 5, 1967, that more or less wiped out their Air Force.
5) MiG-29: Lopsided losses, but again, probably more the respective skills of the air forces engaged, or, as in Ethiopia/Eretria, or the recent Russia/Ukraine conflict, STINGER missiles.
6) MiG-23: Combination of Mig-21 and MIG-29 issues above.
This "giveaway/takeaway" ratio discussion goes all the way back to WWII, with lopsided losses for the Luftwaffe's Bf-109s versus the overrated Supermarine Spitfire and/or the Hawker Hurricane (which probably had more to do with RAF success in the Battle of Britain). The inherent problem for the Luftwaffe in flying CAP and/or bomber escort is that the RAF, figuring out that its biggest problem was having enough proficient pilots, and not necessarily available aircraft, as the UK fighter production was already exceeding that of Germany, so the RAF was selective as to when it would engage, picking obviously favorable situations or defending higher-priority targets. The Bf-109s were limited to thirty minutes flying time over Metropolitan London and had practically no loiter time over the Midlands, always being unable to do anything but run for it on their return leg over the Channel or North Sea. If downed over either, often the pilot who'd otherwise live to fight another day was lost due to drowning and/or hypothermia. Downed RAF pilots obviously fared better if not killed or badly injured; they could be returned to duty, and some did, on the SAME DAY. Likewise in the Pacific, the Japanese A6M "Zeke" or "Zero" at first enjoyed an advantage over the relatively ponderous USN carrier aircraft like the Brewster Buffalo or the AAF's P-40 Tomahawk, due to its faster speed and better climb rate, but an examination of a downed Zero in the Aleutians revealed its fatal flaw: it was UN-armored! Along with delivery of better fighters to both the Army Air Force and the Navy, the Americans learned to close with the Zero with confidence, as once engaged in a dogfight, it was comparatively helpless, and the kill/loss ratio titled wildly in the Yankees' favor...most emphatically in June 1944 during the "Great Marianas Turkey Shoot", with about a 5:1 exchange experienced in favor of the USN! To be fair, several factors, the main one being that Japanese naval codes had been broken, their defensive plans captured in the wreckage of an aircraft of one of their top admirals, and, worse for Japan, its inability, by then, to give new pilots adequate training, being short of aircraft and gasoline, plus better radar and proximity fuzing for AAA, played into that lopsided battle.
The F-14 Tomcat was dubbed the "Widow Maker" due to its many "mishaps" on Deck both during launching as well as landing.
I didn't know this was also attributed to the Tomcat; certainly had been to the F-104.
A MiG 29 inspired trash can would be the best looking design for kitchen refuse container.
Confused as to why the video zooms in on a Panavia Tornado when talking about the MiG29
typical propaganda they never report kills by the other side
You must take into account what country is employing the plane, and what the country it is going up against has.
Take the F5-it was designed as a simple, low cost plane mainly aimed at the export market. Chances are it will be flown by someone with less training against a nation with the budget for more advanced planes, and pilots with more advanced training.
Or take Israel versus Syria or Jordan. The Israelis benefit from US involvement in pilot training, and have top of the line US built aircraft--the F4 in the day, then F15--up against pilots thàt couldn't match their training, in Soviet hardware probably a generation behind what the Soviets themselves had.
you don't take into consideration a lot of factors, as maintenance status, aircraft role and situation in which it is lost, pilot training level ....
in a nutshell, it is much harder to make this list...
Angola: september 27th 1987: A cuban mig 23 down a Mirage F1 (cap. Arthur Piercy)
Pilot training and experience probably has as much to do with kill ratios as aircraft quality.
The F-5 is still a super cool jet though.
I tought I was going to find the Mirage III EA used by Fuerza Aerea Argentina, it had a poor kill to lose ratio against 4th generation Sea Harriet's. Are there statistics?
They seem to be only taking into consideration type broadly speaking, in general the Mirage III should be doing pretty well on account of its service with Israel.
Argentine MirageIIIEA had, IIRC, two losses, but soon afterwards these were held in reserve to defend Argentina against possible Vulcan raids.
Good old Harriet. She did well.
The FAA A4 Skyhawks actually did fairly well. The Mirages were needed as carriers for the relatively few "Exocet" missiles the "Argies" had, once of which crippled the HMS Sheffield, which had to be scuttled as they had no tug available. Any FAA fighters would have been at the extreme of their range from their bases; so the Harriers had the advantage of having more "loiter" time over the theater. The obvious problem for the Royal Navy was defending the Hermes, as its loss would have been an embarrassing blow that would have had huge political repercussions for PM Thatcher's government.
@@selfdo the Harriers used in the Falklands conflict had very short legs. They were quite limited in range. The A-4 Skyhawks had the range to reach the Falklands from the mainland, but just barley. Their big disadvantage is they had limited long range scanning and radar support and capability. So they could not fly directly to their targets. And they were armed for attack missions, not air to air encounters. If Skyhawks had some sidewinders and a decent radar support, in my opinion, they could have successfully chowed down on some harriers. But they didn’t because their targets were the ships and ground targets. I think overall, they did a decent job. The Royal Navy did lose some ships.
@@dongorrie1828Ewwww,Br'i'ish 🤢
Well then u have to count the biggest % of this were in a 10v1 proportion, like serbia for example they had like 20-30 mig29 vs probably +600 nato jets, if 20 f22 raptors fight 100 su35 they would perish as well so those things are a bit useless, for f5 mig29 mig23-21 etcetc
How about the F35 - all losses, no kills all self inflicted
In former Yugoslavia NATO was attacking at least 10:1 and from every neighboring country. AWACS would detect one MiG-29 from the 1980s, without maintenance, not to mention modernization, NATO fighters would fire a dozen rockets and flee away and that was a war in the air!
When you can skillfully conduct large scale air operations and literally just wallhack the entire time so that you don’t even need to run into enemy planes.
Western Air Forces OP plz nerf
Why would NATO need to "fire a dozen rockets" when one would suffice. The current failure of the the aging dictator Putin in Ukraine has shone a bright light on how garbage Russian equipment truly is. All the Russian have manage to do is hit civilians.
@@PeterMuskrat6968not much of a brag considering yugoslavia colapsed and a very large part of the infrastructure required to maintain and properly use the aircraft was Lost completely.
The F-5E (aka The MIG-28)
Obsolescence, poor manteinance and bad training was often source of these results, rather then, design failures.
These fighters were deployed in to the "poor sides" of conflicts, and after facing much more sophisticated and modern machines.
Employing planes in the wrong role, also won't help in "kill to death ratio", like using a Mig 25 as an air superiority fighter.
F104 losses in Vietnam were due to people being lost and shot from below by ground directed Chinese fighter.
Only a single F104 was lost by a Mig 19, the other two being shot down by SA2 missiles (theF104c lacking a RWR system). This brings the kill to death ratio above 1.1.
Counts ground kills, then goes on to say "Air combat".
The Iranian F-5s, were outclassed by 15+ year newer opposition. Hardly a fair comparative.
amazing
Pilot training, armament and dogfight context would have been a much bigger factor than aircraft type.
How much Starfighters were actually destroyed in accidents? Bundeswehr got the Starfighter in the 60s it was quite infamous for its unreliability and many crashes till it was nicknamed the Widow maker
There was also a controversy that the Luftwaffe version, the F-104G, with extra "goodies" that the Germans wanted, was riddled with "bugs" as it employed what was then a lot of new tech in its upgrades, and this was masked by Lockheed BRIBING West German officials. Led to several laws being passed that severely punish that.
To be fair, MANY combat aircraft would more than "earn" that dubious distinction of a "widow maker", including our own B-47 Stratojet. The main problem with the B-47 was that its design heavily borrowed from the He 132, and many German aeronautical engineers and scientists (Operation "Paperclip") were involved in its development. Beyond the obvious language and cultural problems, the USAF didn't realize that it took the concept of "Schnellbomber", as in FAST, quite seriously. For a time, it was the fastest combat aircraft in service, a real "hot rod"! B-17, B-24, and B-29 pilots, used to a more lumbering aircraft, often had issues with handling the finnicky beast, while the few fighter pilots that migrated into the program weren't used to a large aircraft at all. It's an inherent problem where you've got an large combat aircraft that operates at least 50 percent faster than the planes your pilots trained on, and the bird can turn with the best of fighters as well. I wouldn't be surprised if a few of them had the stunt pulled by a USAF pilot in Vietnam with a B-57 Canberra...last flight, was going to get his "hose down" once he landed, the man buzzes the airfield...at fifty feet...INVERTED! Probably had his cowboy hat on, as did many USAF pilots in those days, in the manner of the fictional Major "King" Kong in "Dr Strangelove".
Harrier
It did score some kills in the Falklands
Missing 1 wellknown jet. turkish F16 entered greak territorry 1996 and was shot/missile by Greek Mirage 2000-C , strangely this the the only time F16 and mirage 2000 ever did air to air combat ( not only between both but ever)
Re: Balkans example, but others similarly - when you have an air attack of LITERALLY 120+ NATO planes in the air, which are met by 2 Mig-29s that were sent late and just to die for propaganda, it's kind of shitty to count it against kill:loss ratio...
I love fighters I worked at Mcdonnell Douglas in St louis where we built when i was there F15 no F15 to my knowledge has ever bin shot down , please correct me if i'm wrong i'm getting old we also built F18's and av8b Harrier jump jets with a license for England,
PS there are many stages of how secret informing just how secret that info is,, My job was hunting down he info they wanted,, I would go to the building thay had so many buildings its hard to remember where they all were , but i had top clearance you could not work there with out Government clearance
I would go to the building that had what my boss wanted, There is a guard at every door, They knew i was coning and when i signed in I would take a guard with me so he could watch me and he would unlock any cabinet i need or doors or even safe or vault i needed, the guards loved when i came when i was there they could go any place i did and they were not sitting at the door all day so we were friends One night oh yea i worked at night when it was just me the guards and the maintenance crew were there,,One night i was in a vice presidents secretary's office ,The cabinet i needed opened the cabinet was silver secret Thats like the 3rd highest of the levels of how much value the info,, I asked the guard to unlock and open that cabinet foor me , of all the top secret desk i looked at this silver top secret cabnet was full of Hostess twinkies and other candy,, Was a very funny me and the guard were laughing so hard it took 15 mins to recover, True story
Allmost all the date are not actual anymore. In case of some planes - it's rubbish. Example? MiG-21. K/D ratio of Vietnam war up to 3:1 (sad but true) during Israeli wars - many of them were lost, and K/D ratio also significantly dropped down. It's worth to mention, that first MiG-21 - was gen II fighter, and the last was gen III. All with completely combat results. Summary gives confusing effect. Same is in case of F-5. MiG-29 - not actual anymore.
And despite being an interceptor, it performed decently as a ground pounder. The MiG-21bis under Indian Air Force command has had a questionable safety record (largely because of age & those maintaining them). But USAF pilots that flew against them in exercises compared their combat to first Blocks F-16s.
May be missing in air/air Israël wars F4 Phantoms and Mirage 3000 did some carnage...
The role they were used for was also important!!
This has much more to do with the situation and the pilots flying them.
3:31 lets go he showed a pick from a jet from my country
Could it be that pilot training may have something to do with this also
What about the Ogaden war (F5 against MIG21) and what about the MiG 21 in Vietnam?
He's scared to talk about Vietnamese MiG.
The data on MiG 21 is incorrect. During the 1971 Indo Pak war the MiG 21 outperformed the F104. During the Vietnam War too the MiG 21 was a formidable opponent against the F-4 phantom II.
Let’s not forget that the F-5 was never meant to be an air superiority fighter. Nato used it almost exclusively as a fighter-bomber in the ground support role.
Same like most of the planes in the list...
"Primarily designed for a day air superiority role". Do some research instead of spouting nonsense.
It is certain that Russian fighter aircraft are superior to those of the US and Nato. Let's take the K-36D ejection seat system as an example. The Americans once tested the Russian K-36D ejection seat beat the ACES II system, and the result was that the K-36D was completely more stable than the ACES II. Not stopping there, Russian fighter jets often have higher speeds, longer ranges and higher flight ceilings than US and Nato fighter jets. Not to mention Russian fighter jets also have thick armor, the Su-25 is known as the "flying tank" which no US or Nato fighter jet has this nickname. Although US and Nato fighter jets have more modern electronic and radar systems, they are more error prone, for example here are the F-35s, which have 871 errors including software and hardware errors.
Thank God this list just doesn’t contain Russian fighters.. 😁 there are some US ones as well..
What is the name of the tan-colored fighter at the bottom of the screen at 7:22?
The voice is clearly from Eastern Europe but trying desperately to imitate the American accent
Northrop F-5 a.k.a. MiG-28
The Mig-21 just like Mig-15/17 still being one of the best in the time it deloy. but many countries using for too long and it have to facing more model jets without any upgrade 😅 same story with Mig-29. the F4/5 and F104 should be a good jets but some stupid though only missile is enough make them being one of the bad jets in first time they was deloy 😅
The 1971 war was the liberation war of Bangladesh in which India joined at the very last stage. Naming it 'Indo-Pak' war is very dishonoring for us and our freedom fighters.
the bad luck of all those migs, and the good luck of f15/16 /harriers is that the migs where used by bad skilled pilots in completely asimetrical conflicts
Yeah, yeah, Soviets tried to prove exactly this point to Egyptians in 1968, and that attempt ended in a catastrophe to Soviets with several MiG-21 and Soviet pilots lost.
The greatest factor is that the fighters with poor ratios were the ones who were kept in service beyond their obsolescence. They were kept on line due to budget limitations and political access problems.
4:00 Only one of the US Starfighters was shot down by Chinese MiGs. The other two had a midair collision and crashed.
most of these comparisons are at best questionable, like counting downings of MIG29 in conflicts were there were completely outmatched, and most likely flown while not being fully combat ready. It's just a lot of buzz....
very incorrect comparison while taking into account all aircrafts despite their roles & including ground losses as well
Arab nations are evidently not the better non-Soviet users of Soviet aircraft. In fact they're comparable to Pakistan and Iran's usage of American aircraft. Some excellent examples of nations that shined in battle deploying Soviet/Russian aircraft are India and Vietnam. Likewise Israel has been highly successful in deploying American/Western weaponry.
A plane is only as good as the pilot flying it.