The 11 worst Soviet aircraft

[MigBuster 2,865]

The Soviet Union lasted a mere sixty-nine years (the Spitfire has been flying longer), but in that time produced some of the largest, fastest, toughest and most agile aircraft. Even now, 25 years after its collapse, almost all Russian and Ukrainian aircraft have their roots in the communist super state.  Favouring clever robust design over high technology and refinement, the Soviet approach enabled the mass production of cheap machines. Many of these were outstanding, but some – for reasons of politics, bad luck or incompetence – were diabolical. Let’s pack beer and vobla, and take a walk through the rusting graveyard of the eleven worst Soviet aircraft.

 

 

https://hushkit.net/

[Snailman 517]

Nice article. Some of the planes I never heard of. I would however disagree on the Tu-144, and especially the Yak-38 - but it wasn't a surprise to see it high on the list...

Edited May 26, 2016 by Snailman

[RUSTYMORLEY 162]

Interesting articles, very informative and thanks for posting. I tend to aggree with most of the choices but I think the MIG-23 was okay as a modern warplane when first introduced as a replacement for the widely-exported and used MIG-21, although it is now becoming obsolete as a front-line aircraft. Nevertheless some good choices for lousy aircraft. I mean the Kailinin K-7, what was the designer thinking. It looks like an over-sized bullfrog with wings. It deserved to crash and burn.

[+Trotski 833]

Ahhh Rusty, the Floggers were a bloody nightmare to fly apparently, surprising they kept going so long, they do look cool as  though........Thing is with Russky kit, it is functional and soldier proof by in large, and for some reason, WarPac/Soviet kit, always looks more warlike than Western stuff, the Flanker for example, compared to the F15, the Flanker just looks brutal, the F-15 looks.....well.....supermodelish and as for the Hind.....ugly, brutal, but sexy as hell, and scary as hell too.

[Snailman 517]

I agreed with the Flogger as it was about the MS, which was - as is - a "beta version" downgraded for camel people... Without the main weapon the R-23 series. As with the Yak-38, the initial first impression (of the early series) has put the whole series into the POS box

Edited May 26, 2016 by Snailman

[+Gepard 10,525]

Ahhh Rusty, the Floggers were a bloody nightmare to fly apparently

 

Your words are basing on the statements of american pilots who flew the former egypt MiG-23MS during Red Flag exercises.

And for this version the statement is correct. It is also correct for the MiG-23BN. Both planes had the same autopilot and the MiG-23 pilot needed the support of autopilot.

Without the autopilot support the plane was a beast.

The autopilot of the MiG-23MS and BN were slow and sluggish. They killed some good pilots.

From MiG-23M it became better and the ML had a very good autopilot system.

The MiG-23ML was a good fighter and when the USAF got 12 former LSK MiG-23ML for Red Flag all complains about bad plane behaviour ended. The MLD was even a step better.

 

The list in this article is not my list.

For me the top 7 worst soviet planes would be:

 

1. MiG-19PM, radar was more defect that working. The fuel system was leaking constantly. It was a nightmare for the ground crews

2. MiG-19S, very low readiness level due failure in engine and fuelsystem.

3. MiG-17PM, radar unreliable and often defect

4. MiG-3, underpowered, undergunned, useless in fight

5. MiG-2, medium catastrophe

6. Tu-104, to loud for passengers, terrible fuel economy

7. IL-62, real dangerous plane

[MigBuster 2,865]

The LAAF also crucified the MiG-23MS in most aspects and even on paper it looks poor........but they seemed to like the ML a lot better.

[jeanba 1,918]

The Mig-23 MS was a little like a F14 with the avionic of a F8

The early Mig-23 had their share of teething problems but starting with the ML serie (which indeed was a major overhaul), the Mig-23 started to be very good.

Except that at this time, people were talking F16, F18, Mirage 2000 or Mig29 ...

Edited May 27, 2016 by jeanba

[Toryu 156]

 

7. IL-62, real dangerous plane

It had a cargo-fire issue that in itself was solvable, yet "superior soviet design" couldn't be held accountable, despite the little brother's hint at the design-defect.

The other problem (engine-bearings) was actually engine-related, so not the aircraft's fault.

Other than that, it was a reliable aircraft.

 

The IL-62 was kind of the soviet DC-10 in this regard.

 

 

Your words are basing on the statements of american pilots who flew the former egypt MiG-23MS during Red Flag exercises.

And for this version the statement is correct. It is also correct for the MiG-23BN. Both planes had the same autopilot and the MiG-23 pilot needed the support of autopilot.

Without the autopilot support the plane was a beast.

The autopilot of the MiG-23MS and BN were slow and sluggish. They killed some good pilots.

From MiG-23M it became better and the ML had a very good autopilot system.

The MiG-23ML was a good fighter and when the USAF got 12 former LSK MiG-23ML for Red Flag all complains about bad plane behaviour ended. The MLD was even a step better.

It's not really an autopilot, but a stability-augmentation system. The difference is rather vague, but stability-augmentation is kind of like an ESP for your aircraft and it's crucial for a jet with a very large operational speed-envelope.

 

It wasn't just the flight-controls that american pilots criticised. The largest problem was the single pilot, operating a very complicated (and later on, pretty capable) radar. Not much an issue in the Flogger's design-mission, but from a western air-power projection standpoint, it was unacceptable.

[Nicholas Bell 117]

I had an opportunity to inspect a MiG 23 while stationed with the US Army in Germany in 1985.  I don't know the exact model, but it was in original Soviet camouflage and markings (and badly weathered, so it was not a US repaint).  I had a top secret clearance but was not allowed know how it was obtained.  What I really remember is the crude construction.  Like most Soviet weapon it was built with the expectation of a short life on the battlefield.  The panel/skin seams and riveting were really bad, and I can only image the amount of drag they produced.  The cockpit was vintage WW2.  The fuel tanks were not "internal" but formed the outer surface of the aircraft and when I tapped on them they definitely rang hollow - that is there was no internal self-sealing membrane which would have deadened the sound.  Now that makes me think of what happened to the Concord.

 

I've still think it is a really mean looking aircraft.

[+Trotski 833]

yeah when the Late Marks came out, they were a far far better aircraft, but it was too little too late, and the Glorious Mig 29's were starting to appear too, so the poor old Flogger was a bit of a white Elephant, still a potent aircraft in third world countries though where opposing airforces would have similar equipment levels..........Nick, I am wondering if the 23 you looked at was one meant for the LSK ? but not repainted.......I am rather surprised the build quality was as bad as you say, wouldnt expect that from Migoyan !! if you look at 15's and 17's the build quality was actually rather good, maybe it was just an old hangar queen , shame you dont know what mark it was, you lucky bloke , getting an up close and personal !! the Floggers do look the business though, the have a purposeful sort of look to them. 

 

the Early mark Fitters were a nightmare, like a lot of Soviet stuff very short range , Mig 21 a good example of that, and abysmal weapons load, considering comparable US and European aircraft were pretty much armed to the gunnels !! untill the Flankers and Fulcrums arrived on the scene, the Russians did seem to lag behind on the combat aircraft score, but, they had numbers, and had it all kicked off in Europe, they would have been pretty effective and devastating ( especially to us poor grunts in a Foxhole, facing the Soviet 3rd shock army !! ) 

[RUSTYMORLEY 162]

Ahhh Rusty, the Floggers were a bloody nightmare to fly apparently, surprising they kept going so long, they do look cool as  though........Thing is with Russky kit, it is functional and soldier proof by in large, and for some reason, WarPac/Soviet kit, always looks more warlike than Western stuff, the Flanker for example, compared to the F15, the Flanker just looks brutal, the F-15 looks.....well.....supermodelish and as for the Hind.....ugly, brutal, but sexy as hell, and scary as hell too.

 

 

 

 

 

Like most aircraft series the first models are a bit ropey but as time goes by certain faults are corrected and improvements are made to the aircraft's capabilities, handling, flight characteristics, avionics and weapon systems etc. The MIG-23 probably was a bit of a handful especially the low-spec types which were sold to the Arabs. But having said that you get what you pay for.

 

 

And you are right about Soviet aircraft, looking more brutal and warlike than western counterparts. But you have to give the Soviet arms industry some credit for making such rugged and long-lasting aircraft which sometimes created quite a problem for western opponents. Case in point - the introduction of the Russian built MIG-15 during the early stages of the Korean War led the Americans to realize just how far the Soviets had jumped forward in jet fighter technology. Never under-estimate the Ruskie's.

[jeanba 1,918]

In SF2, I love the Mig-23 MS and in Il2 BoS, I love the Lagg-3 (but I use it for ground attack)

Edited May 27, 2016 by jeanba

[+Gepard 10,525]

The quality of the soviet airplanes depended heavily from factory who built it. For the MiG-15, MiG-17 series it was said, that the planes made by factories in the european part of the USSR had a much better quality than the ones who were made in eastern part of the union.

The same is with MiG-21 and MiG-23. One factory worked for the soviet forces, the other for export. Export planes were downgraded and from worse quality.

I know that technicians of the LSK (east german air force) were astonished how good the quality of planes was, which were delivered from a factory, which originally built planes only for the soviets themself.

[Nicholas Bell 117]

Yeah, I know Soviet export versions were always several notches down on features and quality.   All I can say is the livery was Soviet, European camo, and the cockpit was in Russian.  Not sure if they provided instrumentation in anything other than Russian on export versions.  I've been a student of military history and was a wargamer long before I entered the Army when I was 21, so was aware that in WW2 the Soviets didn't waste effort producing finely finished weapons which had a short battlefield lifespan.  My impression of the MiG-23 was that they continued that philosophy into the 1980's.  

 

(the reason I was specifically not given the origin of the aircraft was because I asked if was obtained by a defector.  I didn't ask if it had come through a third world country like Iraq because of the camo and markings.  One also has to think about the fact I was on a US military base in West Germany looking at a MiG...  If I was at Nellis AFB (where I participated in Red Flag exercises) I might have asked a different question about how we got it.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Nicholas Bell

[jeanba 1,918]

A nice artcile about Mig-23 MS in actionThe depctedsyrian intercet in 1974s very much  what we saw in North VietNam few years ago, except the NVN had Mig-21 typically, ie similar avionics :

http://www.acig.info/CMS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=183&Itemid=47

Edited May 28, 2016 by jeanba

[MigBuster 2,865]

There is a lot more in this more recent book:

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Libyan-Air-Wars-1973-1985-Pt-Africa/dp/1909982393

 

 

 

Interesting that the Egyptians modified their Su-7s after 1967 (via Helwan) and added more pylons. 

[+Gepard 10,525]

  All I can say is the livery was Soviet, European camo, and the cockpit was in Russian. 

 

The cockpit was always in russian language, even the export models had russian descriptions and names. Without a minimum of knowledge of russian language you was lost in such a cockpit.

[X8X8X 0]

I love Russian aircrafts for their philosophy: A MiG-21 somehow reminds me of a Mach 2 agricultural equipment...

Great read - thanks!

 

Best regards,

X8X8X

[Snailman 517]

A red star is not necessarily a soviet insignia, if it is heavily weathered, worn, etc  it could be also romanian, hungarian or bulgarian as well. They used national color circles inside the red stars.  As they are overpaints, they could wear off more easily

Edited May 30, 2016 by Snailman