+29
mnztr
Mir
Gomig-21
Eugenio Argentina
Finty
kvs
miketheterrible
BlackArrow
d_taddei2
Pierre Sprey
eridan
Mindstorm
nastle77
starman
Walther von Oldenburg
higurashihougi
nemrod
George1
mack8
Cyberspec
Werewolf
KomissarBojanchev
TR1
Viktor
Giulio
SSDD
GarryB
Hoof
nightcrawler
33 posters
History of Soviet Cold War Military Aircraft
Finty- Posts : 539
Points : 545
Join date : 2021-02-10
Location : Great Britain
Finty- Posts : 539
Points : 545
Join date : 2021-02-10
Location : Great Britain
nastle77 wrote:I was trying to find out what was the total number of Mig-23M/ML/MLD in service with VVS and PVO by mid 1980s like 1985-1987 period
please any suggestions are welcome
thank you
I might dig out World Air Power Journal volume 3 later and post here as it's got the numbers of aircraft used by the PVO/ VVS/ Navy in 1990 so I could compare to post 65. That issue is worth a buy as it's got orders of battle for the Warsaw Pact Countries in that year.
*Edit*
F*ck it, I'll do it now.
According to this, the PVO in 1990 had
MiG-21bis- 40
MiG-23mf/ML- 900
MiG-25M- 350
Su21- 475
Su27- 150
Tu-28- 15
Il76- 12
Tu-126- 3
Very impressive numbers in hindsight.
VVS had:
Su-24 450
TU95 Bear B/C 70
TU95 G 40
Tu142 50
Tu160 12
Tu22 120
Tu16 220
Tu26 175
MiG21PFMA/SMB/bis- 200
MiG 23MF/ML- 875
MiG29- 450
Su-27- 135
MiG21PFMA/SMB/bis (ground attack)- 130
MiG 25- 45
MiG 27- 855
Su 7- 50
Su 17- 700
Su24 (ground attack)- 300
SU25- 225
mya 4- 40
Tu16- 20
Il78- 40
MiG 21R= 60
MiG 25- 130
Su 17- 150
Su 24- 100
Yak 28- 160
I'll add the rest later.
Eugenio Argentina- Posts : 4562
Points : 4566
Join date : 2018-02-25
- Post n°78
"The Birth of Carrier-Based Aviation": How Vertical Take-off and Landing Aircraft Developed
"The Birth of Carrier-Based Aviation": How Vertical Take-off and Landing Aircraft Developed
https://tass.ru/opinions/12487617?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=smm_social_share
https://tass.ru/opinions/12487617?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=smm_social_share
Gomig-21 likes this post
GarryB- Posts : 40430
Points : 40930
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
I was around in the 1980s and I remember the hype around VSTOL fighters like the Harrier and also the caustic negative crap directed at the Yak-38... like suggesting it could not perform a rolling takeoff severely limiting its payload potential.
The fact of the matter is that all VSTOL fighters of the time were terrible, the Sea Harrier had an excellent radar and in the falklands campaign got the best model Sidewinders from HATO stocks, but if Argentina had anything better than a MiG-21 they would have been in serious trouble.
A MiG-23 would have made the invasion impossible... they could operate from rough airstrips on the island and no Vulcan attack would have succeeded in the face of MiG-23s operating as air defence.
Against Harriers I would say the best weapon the MiG could have used would have been the R-23T IR guided missiles which were all aspect and would have been even more effective against the Harrier because of its fuselage side mounted engine nozzles that increased their IR signature from all angles except dead in front.
The MiG-23 is fast enough to leave combat when it wants to against a Harrier and it has excellent flight range.
In comparison the Yak-38 lacks a radar and agility and speed and is a rather ordinary fighter.
The Su-25 is not a great dog fighter either but it is a strike aircraft so that is not such a problem, it is more optimised for speed than it appears.
The Swing wing was complex but was also a good solution to the problem... it added weight to the design, but it was useful weight because it allowed customising life and drag in the entire flight envelope, whereas lift jets are dead weight except landing and taking off, but it is much more than that.
VSTOL aircraft like the harrier had swivelling engine nozzles but they were not 3D nozzles like we see on the MiG-29OVT... they were fixed... so there was high pressure piping of gas from the hot parts of the engine to the wing tips and the nose and the tail for puffer thrusters to help balance the aircraft in the hover and very very low flight speed mode where the airflow over the wings and tails was not sufficient to allow the control surfaces to have any effect.
This makes the VSTOL aircraft heavier and also very vulnerable to damage and with two engine nozzles down each side of the Harrier, or two rear side mounted main engine nozzles and two lift jets in the front the Yak-38 would be easy targets for MANPADS.... even the crappy oldest ones like the SA-7 Grail and the US equivalent Redeye... which normally needed to be fired at the engine end of a target in full AB to get a hit.
A key soluton for VSTOL would be engines with TVC nozzles so they don't need an internal piping system for puffer jets to control the aircraft at low speed, but also engines that balance the thrust front and back but can also be used in forward flight so they are not dead weight.
The problem is that any future VSTOL design will be handicapped with the demand to be supersonic and also 5th generation which is all going to add up to make it rather too difficult to be affordable.
Perhaps with new technology electric jet engines that engines on the wing tips that can rotate... with forward swept wings to move the wingtip engines ahead of the centre of gravity and have the main engines in the conventional place moved a bit forward closer to the centre of gravity too so they balance might create an opportunity to get something that works.
Another fundamental problem with aircraft like the Yak-38 and Yak-141 was that the lift jet engines just behind the cockpit blew hot air with much of the oxygen already burned up and in the form of CO (carbon monoxide) so if that hot air went in the front mounted engine intake for the main engine it would choke because there would not be enough oxygen to burn its fuel to generate heat and thrust and it would suddenly lose power which is the last thing you want when the lift engines are running because you are likely in a hover either landing or taking off so your main engine is keeping you airborne.
Engines way out on your wing tips that are electric so they exhaust is oxygen rich and presumably cold air should not effect the intakes for the main engines... more importantly the wing tip engines can be angled to say 95 or 100 degrees (ie 5-10 degrees forward) in the hover so the rear engine nozzles can be angled 85 to 80 degrees backwards so the hot oxygen depleted air being sucked through those engines will go backwards and away from the belly of your aircraft so you can have belly mounted weapon bays and centreline fuel tanks if you want.
Even more radical.... how about five engines... two side by side at the rear like the MiG-35, but with a serious forward swept wing with electric engines... due to the forward sweep of the wing they could be level with the cockpit, so two engines on the wing tips that can be rotated down or horizontally for forward flight, plus a dorsal fifth engine that does not vector... four engines for takeoff and landing and the fifth pointing forward... perhaps a simple ramjet to boost acceleration speeds....
The fact of the matter is that all VSTOL fighters of the time were terrible, the Sea Harrier had an excellent radar and in the falklands campaign got the best model Sidewinders from HATO stocks, but if Argentina had anything better than a MiG-21 they would have been in serious trouble.
A MiG-23 would have made the invasion impossible... they could operate from rough airstrips on the island and no Vulcan attack would have succeeded in the face of MiG-23s operating as air defence.
Against Harriers I would say the best weapon the MiG could have used would have been the R-23T IR guided missiles which were all aspect and would have been even more effective against the Harrier because of its fuselage side mounted engine nozzles that increased their IR signature from all angles except dead in front.
The MiG-23 is fast enough to leave combat when it wants to against a Harrier and it has excellent flight range.
In comparison the Yak-38 lacks a radar and agility and speed and is a rather ordinary fighter.
The Su-25 is not a great dog fighter either but it is a strike aircraft so that is not such a problem, it is more optimised for speed than it appears.
The Swing wing was complex but was also a good solution to the problem... it added weight to the design, but it was useful weight because it allowed customising life and drag in the entire flight envelope, whereas lift jets are dead weight except landing and taking off, but it is much more than that.
VSTOL aircraft like the harrier had swivelling engine nozzles but they were not 3D nozzles like we see on the MiG-29OVT... they were fixed... so there was high pressure piping of gas from the hot parts of the engine to the wing tips and the nose and the tail for puffer thrusters to help balance the aircraft in the hover and very very low flight speed mode where the airflow over the wings and tails was not sufficient to allow the control surfaces to have any effect.
This makes the VSTOL aircraft heavier and also very vulnerable to damage and with two engine nozzles down each side of the Harrier, or two rear side mounted main engine nozzles and two lift jets in the front the Yak-38 would be easy targets for MANPADS.... even the crappy oldest ones like the SA-7 Grail and the US equivalent Redeye... which normally needed to be fired at the engine end of a target in full AB to get a hit.
A key soluton for VSTOL would be engines with TVC nozzles so they don't need an internal piping system for puffer jets to control the aircraft at low speed, but also engines that balance the thrust front and back but can also be used in forward flight so they are not dead weight.
The problem is that any future VSTOL design will be handicapped with the demand to be supersonic and also 5th generation which is all going to add up to make it rather too difficult to be affordable.
Perhaps with new technology electric jet engines that engines on the wing tips that can rotate... with forward swept wings to move the wingtip engines ahead of the centre of gravity and have the main engines in the conventional place moved a bit forward closer to the centre of gravity too so they balance might create an opportunity to get something that works.
Another fundamental problem with aircraft like the Yak-38 and Yak-141 was that the lift jet engines just behind the cockpit blew hot air with much of the oxygen already burned up and in the form of CO (carbon monoxide) so if that hot air went in the front mounted engine intake for the main engine it would choke because there would not be enough oxygen to burn its fuel to generate heat and thrust and it would suddenly lose power which is the last thing you want when the lift engines are running because you are likely in a hover either landing or taking off so your main engine is keeping you airborne.
Engines way out on your wing tips that are electric so they exhaust is oxygen rich and presumably cold air should not effect the intakes for the main engines... more importantly the wing tip engines can be angled to say 95 or 100 degrees (ie 5-10 degrees forward) in the hover so the rear engine nozzles can be angled 85 to 80 degrees backwards so the hot oxygen depleted air being sucked through those engines will go backwards and away from the belly of your aircraft so you can have belly mounted weapon bays and centreline fuel tanks if you want.
Even more radical.... how about five engines... two side by side at the rear like the MiG-35, but with a serious forward swept wing with electric engines... due to the forward sweep of the wing they could be level with the cockpit, so two engines on the wing tips that can be rotated down or horizontally for forward flight, plus a dorsal fifth engine that does not vector... four engines for takeoff and landing and the fifth pointing forward... perhaps a simple ramjet to boost acceleration speeds....
Gomig-21- Posts : 746
Points : 748
Join date : 2016-07-17
- Post n°80
Anyone ever hear of this story?
Anyone ever hear of this story?
In 1964, the MiG-21 Scored Its First Kill — Against an American Oil Company
https://warisboring.com/in-1964-the-mig-21-scored-its-first-kill-against-an-american-oil-company/
In 1964, the MiG-21 Scored Its First Kill — Against an American Oil Company
https://warisboring.com/in-1964-the-mig-21-scored-its-first-kill-against-an-american-oil-company/
Finty likes this post
Mir- Posts : 3761
Points : 3759
Join date : 2021-06-10
Fresh news for me
Gomig-21 likes this post
Gomig-21- Posts : 746
Points : 748
Join date : 2016-07-17
Mir wrote:Fresh news for me
I like this part:
At 10:17, multiple cannon rounds ripped apart one of the C-82’s engines and the wing.
That must've felt like target practice lmao.
The American pilot and Swedish pilot effed up big time, they should've landed in Cairo when they were intercepted the first time and fixed the bleeping radio and submitted a flight plan. They thought they were dealing with some rag tag and undisciplined air force or something like that because they broke a lot of standard, required protocols and thought they could just get away with flying through Egypt's airspace without any consequences. They paid the ultimate price for their lack of respect for a sovereign country's airspace, giving the EAF the first MiG-21 kill!
GarryB and Eugenio Argentina like this post
Gomig-21- Posts : 746
Points : 748
Join date : 2016-07-17
Here's a great oldie.
GarryB, flamming_python, zepia, Eugenio Argentina, TMA1, 11E, Finty and Mir like this post
GarryB- Posts : 40430
Points : 40930
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
GarryB wrote:https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8jdt-bCf8JpiEMS57ILEjnG-IpW8fhJ6
This is the wings of Russia play list... they are not in order... there are 18 programmes...
BTW I should add that I use Mozila Firefox as my web browser and I have the "Easy Youtube Video Downloader Express", which is free and adds a download button to Youtube pages where you can click on it and choose to download the video.
Means I can download the Wings of Russia videos and watch them any time I like.
I can also download music videos and other videos of interest.
Occasionally Youtube will update their system and it will stop working but the guy who runs the addon usually gets it working again within a few days.
I use the free version but there is a paid version too...
Note: MiG-31 post moved to MiG-31 thread... https://www.russiadefence.net/t1812p875-mig-31bm-interceptor-attack-aircraft-news
mnztr- Posts : 2888
Points : 2926
Join date : 2018-01-21
Really great story told by an english speaking Russian with all that wonderful Russian sarcasm. When Russia decided to put a BFG on a small ground attack jet.
GarryB likes this post
mack8- Posts : 1039
Points : 1093
Join date : 2013-08-02
Hope this in the right place, i've found some initial info on this subject which interests me greatly but wonder if anyone knows more.
Basically after the break-up of USSR and emergence of modern Russia, aircraft deliveries plummeted to practically nothing by the second half of the 1990s.
According to one source the deliveries were 77 aircraft (not clear if just jets or including helicopters too, another source with slightly different figures seems to show helicopters included) in 1992, 66 planes in 1993, 29 in 1994, 31 in 1995, 19 in 1996, 6 in 1997 and then none (but see below).
From the incomplete info i gathered, in this timeframe there were delivered (not including various prototypes which presumably remained OKB property) the 24 Su-33, 16 MiG-29S (deliveries stopped after 1992), 5 Su-30, then at least 8 Su-25T/TM and at least 3 Su-35 (Su-27M)? Then there should have been the last of the MiG-31B (deliveries stopped 1994), and some standard Su-27S/P (not clear when deliveries stopped, perhaps 1992-1993, but another article says 8 Su-27s were delivered in 1998 as the last of the standard type). There should have been also a few Tu-160s, possibly even a few Tu-22M3 (production stopped 1993), and then also some transport planes?
If anyone can help with more info than what i have above would be much appreciated. And indeed if there info from 1991 and earlier, that would be great too! I have read that in the 1980s there were as much as 450 planes delivered a year.
Basically after the break-up of USSR and emergence of modern Russia, aircraft deliveries plummeted to practically nothing by the second half of the 1990s.
According to one source the deliveries were 77 aircraft (not clear if just jets or including helicopters too, another source with slightly different figures seems to show helicopters included) in 1992, 66 planes in 1993, 29 in 1994, 31 in 1995, 19 in 1996, 6 in 1997 and then none (but see below).
From the incomplete info i gathered, in this timeframe there were delivered (not including various prototypes which presumably remained OKB property) the 24 Su-33, 16 MiG-29S (deliveries stopped after 1992), 5 Su-30, then at least 8 Su-25T/TM and at least 3 Su-35 (Su-27M)? Then there should have been the last of the MiG-31B (deliveries stopped 1994), and some standard Su-27S/P (not clear when deliveries stopped, perhaps 1992-1993, but another article says 8 Su-27s were delivered in 1998 as the last of the standard type). There should have been also a few Tu-160s, possibly even a few Tu-22M3 (production stopped 1993), and then also some transport planes?
If anyone can help with more info than what i have above would be much appreciated. And indeed if there info from 1991 and earlier, that would be great too! I have read that in the 1980s there were as much as 450 planes delivered a year.
GarryB likes this post
George1- Posts : 18494
Points : 18997
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
mack8 wrote: Hope this in the right place, i've found some initial info on this subject which interests me greatly but wonder if anyone knows more.
Basically after the break-up of USSR and emergence of modern Russia, aircraft deliveries plummeted to practically nothing by the second half of the 1990s.
According to one source the deliveries were 77 aircraft (not clear if just jets or including helicopters too, another source with slightly different figures seems to show helicopters included) in 1992, 66 planes in 1993, 29 in 1994, 31 in 1995, 19 in 1996, 6 in 1997 and then none (but see below).
From the incomplete info i gathered, in this timeframe there were delivered (not including various prototypes which presumably remained OKB property) the 24 Su-33, 16 MiG-29S (deliveries stopped after 1992), 5 Su-30, then at least 8 Su-25T/TM and at least 3 Su-35 (Su-27M)? Then there should have been the last of the MiG-31B (deliveries stopped 1994), and some standard Su-27S/P (not clear when deliveries stopped, perhaps 1992-1993, but another article says 8 Su-27s were delivered in 1998 as the last of the standard type). There should have been also a few Tu-160s, possibly even a few Tu-22M3 (production stopped 1993), and then also some transport planes?
If anyone can help with more info than what i have above would be much appreciated. And indeed if there info from 1991 and earlier, that would be great too! I have read that in the 1980s there were as much as 450 planes delivered a year.
see at post No65 of this topic. It might clear some points
mack8 likes this post
GarryB- Posts : 40430
Points : 40930
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
They paid the ultimate price for their lack of respect for a sovereign country's airspace, giving the EAF the first MiG-21 kill!
The problem of course is that this was in the middle of the cold war and the CIA and US intelligence and western intelligence in general would use businessmen all the time for their nafarious purposes...
The fact that it briefly turned towards a high security area suggests something...
Of course during the cold war there was the official story that it was an error or it was not a spy plane at all... it was a weather balloon... but the number of western aircraft shot down over the soviet union just after WWII and before they got decent anti aircraft systems working is surprising... many of which flew to support nazi opposition to the commies in the Ukraine... the west will help the devil himself if it suits them...
Gomig-21 and Eugenio Argentina like this post
mack8- Posts : 1039
Points : 1093
Join date : 2013-08-02
Thanks George1, very interesting tables no doubt, will come in handy. Although what i'm looking for is post-1990 deliveries, so hopefully someone has more info.
I do have what must be quite accurate numbers for VVS/PVO/DA total aircraft holdings, including units, for i believe the year 1993 in a Naval Institute book on world air forces.
I do have what must be quite accurate numbers for VVS/PVO/DA total aircraft holdings, including units, for i believe the year 1993 in a Naval Institute book on world air forces.
GarryB- Posts : 40430
Points : 40930
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°90
The MiG-15 Falcon
MiG-15.
A reasonable western video on the aircraft.
A reasonable western video on the aircraft.
Gomig-21 likes this post
GarryB- Posts : 40430
Points : 40930
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Yak-28
Gomig-21- Posts : 746
Points : 748
Join date : 2016-07-17
Here's an interesting old soviet warbird. Remember we weren't so sure about the F-4 Phantom and Mirage IIIC under their covers with the whole debate about the MiG-23's air intakes. Well this there is no doubt about it that the North Vietnamese captured a South Vietnamese airbase and much to their surprise was a mint Northrop F-5 that was later donated to the Soviets who gave the western world a little taste of their own medicine, by putting the old familiar red star insignia on the tail and wings and flying the bad boy around showing it off. This was in 1975. Not sure what use this gave the Soviets at the time, but I'm sure it was worth dissecting the systems and seeing how the Americans hooked things up in their aircraft.
How do countries get their hands on enemies’ weaponry and use it back home?
During the Vietnam War, the Soviet government managed to obtain an American F-5 fighter jet.
It was primarily captured in 1975 by the North Vietnamese forces from the Bien Hoa military base, home of the air force’s 522nd Fighter Squadron. One of the most notorious fighter jets of the time was then transferred to the Soviet Union, alongside other military vehicles, as a part of military cooperation for so-called “evaluation”.
What did the Soviets do with it?
The rest of the article here.
How do countries get their hands on enemies’ weaponry and use it back home?
During the Vietnam War, the Soviet government managed to obtain an American F-5 fighter jet.
It was primarily captured in 1975 by the North Vietnamese forces from the Bien Hoa military base, home of the air force’s 522nd Fighter Squadron. One of the most notorious fighter jets of the time was then transferred to the Soviet Union, alongside other military vehicles, as a part of military cooperation for so-called “evaluation”.
What did the Soviets do with it?
The rest of the article here.
GarryB- Posts : 40430
Points : 40930
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The F-5 was a low cost fighter based on the T-38 jet fighter training aircraft... not sure what was notorious about it.
It was the plane the US sold you to keep you quiet about not getting F-16s or something like an F-4.
It was the plane they sold if they didn't trust you or they didn't think you needed anything better or in the case of Taiwan, they wanted to arm you but didn't want to antagonise your enemy whom they were also trying to be friendly with to turn them into their bitch against the Soviet Union.
It was a cheap and simple fighter... The F-5 and the A-4 were their cheap simple fighters for poor or weak countries or countries that didn't need anything better.
It was the plane the US sold you to keep you quiet about not getting F-16s or something like an F-4.
It was the plane they sold if they didn't trust you or they didn't think you needed anything better or in the case of Taiwan, they wanted to arm you but didn't want to antagonise your enemy whom they were also trying to be friendly with to turn them into their bitch against the Soviet Union.
It was a cheap and simple fighter... The F-5 and the A-4 were their cheap simple fighters for poor or weak countries or countries that didn't need anything better.
Gomig-21- Posts : 746
Points : 748
Join date : 2016-07-17
GarryB wrote:The F-5 was a low cost fighter based on the T-38 jet fighter training aircraft... not sure what was notorious about it.
It was the plane the US sold you to keep you quiet about not getting F-16s or something like an F-4.
It was the plane they sold if they didn't trust you or they didn't think you needed anything better or in the case of Taiwan, they wanted to arm you but didn't want to antagonise your enemy whom they were also trying to be friendly with to turn them into their bitch against the Soviet Union.
That's exactly what they did to Egypt once the shift from the Soviet block to the US took place. Originally Sadat liked the aircraft and wanted it in large numbers that Saudi Arabia was going to finance, but the US was dragging its feet and was more concerned with transferring the Shah of Iran's 200 F-16s to Israel. Once that was completed and Sadat made his peace offering to the zionist, Saudi Arabia got all pissed off and cancelled the financing. Sadat then insisted on Egypt getting F-16s also and that's when the US really started pushing the F-5 and even the F-20 Tigershark. Sadat stuck to his guns until he had no choice and was forced to look to France. That's how Egypt became the first foreign operator of the Mirage 2000.
But the US really kept pushing the F-5 on the EAF, conducting several flight displays over Cairo including painting the birds in several paint schemes with EAF insignia to entice the sale. It didn't work and after the first 20 Mirage 2Ks showed up, the US capitulated to the F-16s but made sure they were inferior to the zionist ones. The usual story.
Last edited by Gomig-21 on Sat Mar 23, 2024 5:09 pm; edited 1 time in total
Mir- Posts : 3761
Points : 3759
Join date : 2021-06-10
@Gomit21
Allthough not initially, the F-5 Freedom Fighter was eventually aimed at the export market. It was a pretty good lightweight fighter design. In the US it was mainly used in "aggressor" squadrons and initially caused a lot of red faces against F-15 and F-14 pilots until they changed the rules of engagement to favour BVR combat.
Both the F-5 and the T-38 Talon stems from the same program in the US. The program was known as the N-156 with a fighter (N-156F) and a trainer (N-156T) version.
The North Vietnamese captured nearly 900 combat aircraft and helicopters from the defeated South - including 114 F-5's. About 40 of those served in the VPAF for many years. Several samples found their way to the Soviet Union, Poland and the then Czechoslovakia.
The US and it's allies lost over 12 000 combat aircraft during the Vietnam War. The F-4 Phantom (all variants) suffered the most losses of any other type of aircraft during the war with well over 600 combat losses. Soviet military specialists had direct access to many downed aircraft and most certainly looked in minute detail at wrecked samples of the then state of the art Phantom.
The French on the other hand had fairly good relations with the Soviets and the made several exchange visits where various military hardware was on 'open" display during the good old days.
Here is a Mirage IIIC touching down at Zukhovsky near Moscow.
Here is a T72 Ural on display for a French military delegation.
Allthough not initially, the F-5 Freedom Fighter was eventually aimed at the export market. It was a pretty good lightweight fighter design. In the US it was mainly used in "aggressor" squadrons and initially caused a lot of red faces against F-15 and F-14 pilots until they changed the rules of engagement to favour BVR combat.
Both the F-5 and the T-38 Talon stems from the same program in the US. The program was known as the N-156 with a fighter (N-156F) and a trainer (N-156T) version.
The North Vietnamese captured nearly 900 combat aircraft and helicopters from the defeated South - including 114 F-5's. About 40 of those served in the VPAF for many years. Several samples found their way to the Soviet Union, Poland and the then Czechoslovakia.
The US and it's allies lost over 12 000 combat aircraft during the Vietnam War. The F-4 Phantom (all variants) suffered the most losses of any other type of aircraft during the war with well over 600 combat losses. Soviet military specialists had direct access to many downed aircraft and most certainly looked in minute detail at wrecked samples of the then state of the art Phantom.
The French on the other hand had fairly good relations with the Soviets and the made several exchange visits where various military hardware was on 'open" display during the good old days.
Here is a Mirage IIIC touching down at Zukhovsky near Moscow.
Here is a T72 Ural on display for a French military delegation.
Gomig-21 likes this post
ALAMO- Posts : 7439
Points : 7529
Join date : 2014-11-25
Mir wrote:
The French on the other hand had fairly good relations with the Soviets and the made several exchange visits where various military hardware was on 'open" display during the good old days.
The interesting part is that the SU had long-lasting and rather neutral relations with a lot of NATO/west countries back then.
Denying that is a part of antiSU/Russia propaganda spin.
Those thongs are constructed to hit&spoil weaker minds, knowing those are - unfortunately - the majority.
When I had a discussion with my friends a while ago, the dispute was about "sending Polish goods to the SU".
None of them was aware, that this "sending goods" was a barter repayment of debts and profits.
Of the loans that SU granted to the PRoP in pure gold.
Because just after the war, this was the sole currency that was accepted by the west, to pay for reconstruction.
And yes, mutuat economic activity was being carried all those years. With the mutual benefits.
When I was asking once how a wagon of coal corresponds to a box of gold slabs - nobody understood the question.
And those are not some dumb arses, all of them have some sort of a master degree.
GarryB and lancelot like this post
Gomig-21- Posts : 746
Points : 748
Join date : 2016-07-17
Mir wrote:@Gomit21
Allthough not initially, the F-5 Freedom Fighter was eventually aimed at the export market. It was a pretty good lightweight fighter design. In the US it was mainly used in "aggressor" squadrons and initially caused a lot of red faces against F-15 and F-14 pilots until they changed the rules of engagement to favour BVR combat.
Both the F-5 and the T-38 Talon stems from the same program in the US. The program was known as the N-156 with a fighter (N-156F) and a trainer (N-156T) version.
I believe it's still used as an aggressor aircraft. It's one of those lightweight, super fast and super-maneuverable single engine aircraft, similar to the A4-Skyhawk and looks really sharp, literally (as in a knife cutting through the air) and figuratively with those thin, low-wing-placed wings. When it's clean with no pylons or even wingtip ordinance, it's at its sharpest. Similar to the F-16 and the venerable MiG-21 of course. Those two also look super sharp when in clean configuration despite being mid-winged aircraft.
We had a member on an old forum from almost 15 years ago who later became a good friend who flew for the USAF as an F-15C pilot out of Germany. Interestingly enough, their constant mission objectives were to patrol the East/West German border and be on the lookout for Soviet MiG-21s that were attempting any airspace violations.
This was during the 1980s as the USAF was attached to NATO mission commands and he served for about 5 years. Once he wrapped up that tour, he became an instructor in the T-38 Talon (in case you were wondering where I was going with this whole shpeal lool. He would always speak very highly about the ease of operating the Talon compared to the F-15C and we always got the impression that he enjoyed it even more than the latter. After his final tour, he became a fulltime pilot with American Airlines. Commercial airlines are common spots for many fighter pilots closing out their flying careers it seems. So we learned a lot of technical details about that aircraft including its history.
Mir wrote:The North Vietnamese captured nearly 900 combat aircraft and helicopters from the defeated South - including 114 F-5's. About 40 of those served in the VPAF for many years. Several samples found their way to the Soviet Union, Poland and the then Czechoslovakia.
The US and it's allies lost over 12 000 combat aircraft during the Vietnam War. The F-4 Phantom (all variants) suffered the most losses of any other type of aircraft during the war with well over 600 combat losses. Soviet military specialists had direct access to many downed aircraft and most certainly looked in minute detail at wrecked samples of the then state of the art Phantom.
I knew the US' loses were high but didn't think they were that high. Wow.
That's awesome. I had a love affair with the Mirage III & VI but was engaged to the MiG-21 at the time. Fortunately, the zionist ruined the French aircraft for me with their crimes of the 60s so I ended up marrying the MiG-21 and never looked back.
Quick fun story - I lived in Zaire in the mid-70s (during my Mirage love affair) and was at the airport with my parents waiting for our flight and looking out the window at all the airplanes and day-dreaming when to my shocked, heart's content I see a 1 of the total of 3 (I believe) Zairian, jungle-camoed Mirage 5M just slowly taxiing right in front of us between the jet airline and the boarding building we were in LOL! I started screaming to my family to look and we all watched the pilot (canopy opened) look up at us and smile while trotting by in his brand, spanking new hardly used Mirage lol. One of those things I'll never forget. Not something you see everyday an international airport.
The jungle camo paint scheme was incredible and quite fitting for that country.
Zaire Air Force Mirage 5M.
Here's that MiG-15UTI I mentioned on this topic's previous thread. On static display at a local airport in the next town over from ours in Massachusetts. Confiscated from a wealthy mafiosi or developer or someone like that who got in some legal trouble and all his assets were seized including this toy of his that he used to take friends & family out for rides. It was then donated to this local airport.
The black paint scheme is quite intimidating with the Soviet red stars adding to that intimidation factor. Knowing the great history of this aircraft and seeing it up close and personal like this in the next town over brings chills and thrills I tell ya.
Mir- Posts : 3761
Points : 3759
Join date : 2021-06-10
@Gomig-21
Today only the US Navy and Marines still use the F-5N/F Tiger II's as aggressors. F-16's are now gradually taking over.
The F-20 Tigershark was a very interesting development of the F-5E. It was not far off the mark compared to the F-16 but it was a lot cheaper to operate. It had pretty good avionics and was quite a bit faster than the F-5. It also had BVR capability which the then F-16 variants hadn't. It's only drawback was it's lightweight weapons load - but as we can see today it's not really a issue. Trying to stuff a fighter to the max is actually a drawback. Despite it's limited weapon's load it could carry a wide spectrum of USAF weapons.
Reagan effectively killed the Tigershark when he cleared the F-16 for export, but some of it found it's way into designs like the Taiwanese Ching-kuo, the Chinese JF-17 and the Korean T/F-50.
The F-20 was a single engine version, whilst the F-5 was a twin engine design.
South Africa was a major Mirage operator during the Cold War era. As a youngster I was fortunate to live nearby two large airbases. The area was also a major MIC hub. My hobby was to jot down aircraft serial numbers to get an "accurate" assessment of operational aircraft as everything was shrouded in secrecy back then
Despite the conflict in Angola very little aerial combat took place - but there were a couple of losses on both sides. The Mig-23 came as a bit of a wake-up call though as it was able to easily outrun the Mirage F1.
Classic pic of a SAF Mirage IIIEZ
Rare picture of Angolan Mig-23's
Today only the US Navy and Marines still use the F-5N/F Tiger II's as aggressors. F-16's are now gradually taking over.
The F-20 Tigershark was a very interesting development of the F-5E. It was not far off the mark compared to the F-16 but it was a lot cheaper to operate. It had pretty good avionics and was quite a bit faster than the F-5. It also had BVR capability which the then F-16 variants hadn't. It's only drawback was it's lightweight weapons load - but as we can see today it's not really a issue. Trying to stuff a fighter to the max is actually a drawback. Despite it's limited weapon's load it could carry a wide spectrum of USAF weapons.
Reagan effectively killed the Tigershark when he cleared the F-16 for export, but some of it found it's way into designs like the Taiwanese Ching-kuo, the Chinese JF-17 and the Korean T/F-50.
The F-20 was a single engine version, whilst the F-5 was a twin engine design.
South Africa was a major Mirage operator during the Cold War era. As a youngster I was fortunate to live nearby two large airbases. The area was also a major MIC hub. My hobby was to jot down aircraft serial numbers to get an "accurate" assessment of operational aircraft as everything was shrouded in secrecy back then
Despite the conflict in Angola very little aerial combat took place - but there were a couple of losses on both sides. The Mig-23 came as a bit of a wake-up call though as it was able to easily outrun the Mirage F1.
Classic pic of a SAF Mirage IIIEZ
Rare picture of Angolan Mig-23's
GarryB, kvs, Gomig-21, Eugenio Argentina and lancelot like this post
The-thing-next-door- Posts : 1383
Points : 1439
Join date : 2017-09-18
Location : Uranus
Where there any redeeming qualities of Soviet fighters prior to the Mig-29 and SU-27? They seem to me to have been underarmed and somehow equipped with poor missiles despite the Soviet's significant advantage in the development of every other type of missile than air to air.
Eugenio Argentina dislikes this post
Eugenio Argentina- Posts : 4562
Points : 4566
Join date : 2018-02-25
The-thing-next-door wrote:Where there any redeeming qualities of Soviet fighters prior to the Mig-29 and SU-27? They seem to me to have been underarmed and somehow equipped with poor missiles despite the Soviet's significant advantage in the development of every other type of missile than air to air.
At this point, it seems to me to be naïve, believing those Western inventions, typical of the Cold War, but which, apparently, still have followers.
Those photos, with Western planes, loaded with tons of bombs, missiles, etc.; They were propaganda.
If you tried to actually operate, most of the time you had to do it with a couple of missiles and auxiliary fuel tanks.
In Argentina, during the Malvinas conflict we had a good example.
Our Mirage, A-4 Skyhawk and Super Etendard had to use in-flight refueling to reach the combat zone. And generally they did it with a couple of bombs or missiles.
As far as is known, the Harrier and Sea Harrier did not operate heavily armed either, even though they did so at a short distance from their aircraft carriers.
GarryB, kvs and Mir like this post