True. I heard one air-force general marveling at the Russian versions of our aircraft. He said, "They only are about 80% as deadly as ours, but what they lack in sophistication, they make up for in durability and simplicity. Our aircraft need groomed runways, theirs can take off from barely-finished roads. Our aircraft need incredible support systems, as opposed to some 17 year old Russian smacking on their aircraft with a ball-peen hammer."
I get a little tired of all the grousing about the M-16. It is a fine, accurate, and deadly weapon when properly maintained.
I will take anything made for the US Military over anything made for the Commies.
The M16 over came it teething pains and became a very good rifle.
As for the any plane the russians made, check its background to see if it has any stolen US plans in it. The Russians havent had a orignal idea since Peter the Great.
Half-right. Russian aircraft design philosophy is to build lots of aircraft, but not fly them very much. The theory is that combat aircraft will be lost in very large numbers in any modern war (certainly true). This is also why Russian combat pilots tend to have less flying time than their western counterparts.
Our aircraft might be harder to maintain -- also true. But they do fly more hours. Hence the pilot/machine combo tends to be more deadly. The thing that kept NATO planners awake nights was were they deadly enough to face 3:1 odds and win?
You would expect a Russian officer not to mention the downside of their country's aircraft design philosophies. That's a big thing that even their generals would have to live with.