Soviet era aircrafts used in some countries:

The withdrawal of the last Mig-25s?
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/21d12739b5db

David Axe is a horrible journalist btw.

TR1 wrote:David Axe is a horrible journalist btw.

Horrible is to mild for some of his nonsense articles.

And congratz to your Level Up.   

Ty ty.

OT, but thinking about the forum- we should have a top banner competition. THe current one, while decent, looks a bit funky in certain places.

de militarise them and sell them to enthusiasts. setup a service and maintenance company in the US to offer after market service and rent-by-hour service

hi all does anyone know if this david axe report is true or not, i havent read anything of his but it seems people on here dont like him very much? is he anti russian?

I would like to think that Russia still uses them, seems pretty crazy to get rid of them when u dont have a replacement

I would like to think that Russia still uses them, seems pretty crazy to get rid of them when u dont have a replacement

Who said they don't have a replacement?

Doesn't Russia have any secret programs anymore?

the idea that they would withdraw the Mig-25 from service because maintaining its runway was too expensive... now at a time when it is upgrading everything... when Putin himself has said a Russian priority was the Russian North... sounds to me a bit fishy...

TR1 wrote:Ty ty.

OT, but thinking about the forum- we should have a top banner competition. THe current one, while decent, looks a bit funky in certain places.

I agree. I proposed something long ago before I went on a childish rant to Vlad (sorry Vlad) and left. Now that I am a bit older, calmer (works when you are a father) and a bit wiser, I would like to try this again. Although, my photoshop skills are nowhere what they were like before.

GarryB wrote:

I would like to think that Russia still uses them, seems pretty crazy to get rid of them when u dont have a replacement

Who said they don't have a replacement?

Doesn't Russia have any secret programs anymore?

the idea that they would withdraw the Mig-25 from service because maintaining its runway was too expensive... now at a time when it is upgrading everything... when Putin himself has said a Russian priority was the Russian North... sounds to me a bit fishy...

yeah thats what i thought seems strange to get rid of something when you dont have a replacement, especially with the upgrading programmes going on.

I know UCAV using some of the SKAT designs. but this wont be nowhere near the kind of speed the MIG 25 has.

Would be good to some new aircraft but this is probably unlikely.

shame as i like the MIG 25 and the legacy it has.

d_taddei2 wrote:
But how does the the MIG 25 compare to a modern interceptor role??? can it still be usefull in this role???

A comptetent pilot, inside an upgraded Mig-25, or Mig-23 could be redoutable. It seems to me a fair choice. After all, do not forget, that France has still 136 Mirage 2000, 19 Mirage F1, vs 87 Rafale. UK air force still has 112 Tornado vs 115 Typhoons. The only country in the world that could afford to get 4++ aircraft is US because of their economy. I said could afford, now, with the budget cuts, in the near future, the US air force, as the Navy must be downgrade.
During the fight in Lebanon's Bekaa 1982-83, if we switch of the israeli propaganda -that claimed more than 80 syrian aircrafts vs 0 for Israel, it was a simple hoax, as Israel is an experts in this area-, as Vladimir Illyin, the behaviour of the Mig 23 seems to be excellent. I mean the Mig 23 ML of course.

d_taddei2 wrote:
I think as far as drones go, they have there uses, but i think the MIG-25 has more advantages than the normal drones out there, faster speed being one. But are drones cheaper to operate/maintain and of course u still have to buy them.

I think the drone promess was an illusion. The drone could be an excellent complement of the satelite, gathering observations, informations, and sometimes why not, attacking target against poor defended and low skills insurgents. The drone could be an excellent help for Ground infantery.
However the RQ 170 Sentinell incident -when it was captured by the iranians in december 2001- set a definitive end of the drone' false dream. It prove that the human factor is still vital, and it could not be replaced by any robotics nowadays. If US sent an SR71 instead of the RQ 170, it would be a more success than this humiliation.
Back to our subject a Mig-23, or Mig 25 could be more effective in order to do strategic reconnaissance, than any drones.

Nemrod, the Mig-25 has nothing in common with the planes you mentioned (Mirage, etc ...).
The Mig-25 is a stratospheric interceptor that flies normally at altitudes unreachable for the other aircrafts except only SR-71 and U-2. This requires a totally different design.

I don't know how practical it would have been, but it sounds like an awesome way to travel. https://medium.com/war-is-boring/26ad41ba71

hostile take-over?

Mig-27 and Su-17 in the export market



End of the cold war a lot of surplus su-17/mig-27 were available with relatively new airframes esp since the VVS used su-24/25 as standard equipment
Would they have been good in the export market ? esp to nations already familiar with using soviet equipment or those embargoed by the US/NATO
they were cheap, plenty of spares, relatively hi tech and probably a lot of ex-WP mercenaries ready to fly and maintain them

nastle77 wrote:Mig-27 and Su-17 in the export market



End of the cold war a lot of surplus su-17/mig-27 were available with relatively new airframes esp since the VVS used su-24/25 as standard equipment
Would they have been good in the export market ? esp to nations already familiar with using soviet equipment or those embargoed by the US/NATO
they were cheap, plenty of spares, relatively hi tech and probably a lot of ex-WP mercenaries ready to fly and maintain them

MiG-27 even in USSR era were supplied only to India. Su-17 i dont think that even african countries would use it today.

George1 wrote:

nastle77 wrote:Mig-27 and Su-17 in the export market



End of the cold war a lot of surplus su-17/mig-27 were available with relatively new airframes esp since the VVS used su-24/25 as standard equipment
Would they have been good in the export market ? esp to nations already familiar with using soviet equipment or those embargoed by the US/NATO
they were cheap, plenty of spares, relatively hi tech and probably a lot of ex-WP mercenaries ready to fly and maintain them

MiG-27 even in USSR era were supplied only to India. Su-17 i dont think that even african countries would use it today.

i think if there were cheap enough and had some minor upgrades, then they are still useful and would be ideal for the threats faced by african countries it could also be used for COIN duties, but the frames would have to be decent, and like i said they would have to be cheap enough.

when i was in the forces, an infantryman would welcome any air support, even though requests are made for air support by infantry on the ground they don't always get it, so even getting a Mig 15, 17, 19 or even a L-39 for support would be welcome, all of these aircraft although old and most retired still could be used for COIN or ground attack. But of course thats providing they dont need a lot of money spent on them, so a lot of the older aircraft is only worth using if you already have it rather purchasing the aircraft. There is of course cheaper aircraft to be bought which are good aircraft such as SU-24M2 which Russia would be looking to off load some and you also have Mig 29M2/SMT which are cheap and in my personal opinion are great aircraft for the money.

The Syrian Air force (rumoured) recently received over hauled Su-22 from Iran, and i can guarantee you that the Syrian air force are very grateful for this. When your facing what the Syrian armed forces are facing any aircraft or support however high or low tech it is would be welcomed with open arms.

mack8 wrote:Romanian ones were prematurely retired in 2003 and left to rot (literally) due imo to political reasons, an enormous waste of resources. Each only had a few hundred hours on the clock, with just a moderate amount of investment they could have operated them well into the 2020s, certainly much cheaper than this whole rip-off deal for a dozen F-16s, OLDER than those MiGs, for 700 million! Less than a third of that money could have upgraded the existing ones to Lancer-like levels and arm them with things like Derby, but also they could have bought another squadron from say Hungary for a modicum price when they retired theirs and upgraded to replace the last Lancers, just like Poland still operates their MiG-29 despite also having brand new F-16, so Romania could have not worried much about new fighters until the  2020s, but the traitorous politicians were only thinking to serve their US masters...(they always wanted F-16 to please the US, no other more suitable aircraft like Gripen and no offsets were even considered).

couldnt have put it better myself, Mig 21 in upgraded form are capable aircraft and especially if you at Romania's threat in this area. Most upgraded Mig-21 are still reasonable aircraft and like you said would haven't been needed to be replaced in 2020, Romania would have then got its moneys worth.

Mig 29's are decent aircraft and why on earth Romania decided to scrap them is beyond me. The maintenance cost for the F-16 i'd imagine are most expensive than Mig 29's and they would get shafted by USA for costs. A lot of these countries who have decided to go down the route of buying USA stuff to please them will get a big shock in years to come when the only option for them is buy the horrendously expensive F-35 lets see these countries afford to run them, i wouldnt be surprised they end up returning to Russia for fighter aircraft or maybe even China.

Need help again.

I am looking for info on what is the newest Russian modernization of MiG-21s and what their performance is. Since a lot of countries still have them, then maybe modernizing them and using in ground attack role is still feasible?

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:Need help again.

I am looking for info on what is the newest Russian modernization of MiG-21s and what their performance is. Since a lot of countries still have them, then maybe modernizing them and using in ground attack role is still feasible?

The only modernization ever performed by the Russians to the MiG-21 was the Bison for the Indian air force. It receives a new HUD, MFDs, PESA radar (Kopyo) and RWR/EW systems. It can launch BVR missiles (R-77), so it seems to be a quite capable and decent light fighter. The only other modernized version that entered service is the Romanian Lancer, but this was done by Israel.

the MiG-21 was always a small relatively cheap mach 2 interceptor.

There are lot of ways of improving this or that performance, but at the end of the day if you want a ground attack aircraft go for the Su-25... it is much better suited to the role and with a few modifications can perform other roles too.

The newest MiG-21 upgrade from Russia that I have any info on is the MiG-21-93 which added the Kopyo radar and upgrades to allow the carriage and use of R-77 and R-73 AAMs as well as R-27 and R-60M. It can also carry two Kh-25MP missiles or KAB-500Kr bombs or standard 100kg, 250kg and 500kg bombs.

Actually with 250kg and 500kg satellite guided bombs and R-77 and R-73 missiles you would have a potent little fighterbomber. Add a Sapsan targeting pod and it would be a cheap simple fighterbomber.

BTW off topic but, why Yakovlev don't sell its Yak-44 to India and China? They can be used on carriers whitout catapult and both of these countries need them. They will probably get carrier based Awacs one day so Yakovlev should sell them 2 or 3 for each of their carriers before someone else does. With the new technologies they could program them to work with the futur S-400 planned for China and India.

India 3 Aircraft carrier, China 3 too, Russia 1 : 6x3 +1=19 Yak 44. Could be a very big contract

I very much doubt any version of the Yak-44 could take off any type of carrier without a catapult or other serious assistance... even if it had a tilt wing design... which AFAIK it does not.

ATM the only AWACS type aircraft for Russian carriers is the Ka-31 with a very flat antenna array under its belly that can be deployed in flight for 360 degree monitoring of the airspace around the helo.

GarryB wrote:I very much doubt any version of the Yak-44 could take off any type of carrier without a catapult or other serious assistance... even if it had a tilt wing design... which AFAIK it does not.

ATM the only AWACS type aircraft for Russian carriers is the Ka-31 with a very flat antenna array under its belly that can be deployed in flight for 360 degree monitoring of the airspace around the helo.

Quick calculation for the distance vs. radar elevation.
49m radar height->25km range
71m radar height ->30km range
785m height->100km range
4908m->250km range
9618m->350km
28253m->600km

A ka-31 can cover quater of the area ,and has 2.5 hours endurance compared to the 6 hours of Hawkeye .

So, a shipborn air deffense system can protect 50km diameter area without aircraft, with a helicopter 300km diameter, with a fixrd wing aircraft 700km dimater area.


Any SAM with greater than 30km range require same airborne radar to function.

Singular_trafo wrote:

GarryB wrote:I very much doubt any version of the Yak-44 could take off any type of carrier without a catapult or other serious assistance... even if it had a tilt wing design... which AFAIK it does not.

ATM the only AWACS type aircraft for Russian carriers is the Ka-31 with a very flat antenna array under its belly that can be deployed in flight for 360 degree monitoring of the airspace around the helo.

Quick calculation for the distance vs. radar elevation.
49m radar height->25km range
71m radar height ->30km range
785m height->100km range
4908m->250km range
9618m->350km
28253m->600km

A ka-31 can cover quater of the area ,and has 2.5 hours endurance compared to the 6 hours of Hawkeye .

So, a shipborn air deffense system can protect 50km diameter area without aircraft, with a helicopter 300km diameter, with a fixrd wing aircraft 700km dimater area.


Any SAM with  greater than 30km range require same airborne radar to function.

Well it depends on the altitude of the target too.

I remember I've read that it could take off without catapult.
Soviets used some accelerator on their aircraft, i've seen a video of a mig 21 taking off like a missile with that technology. So it's not realy a problem. Pretty bad that they don't put money on the development of the Yak-44.

Isos wrote:

Singular_trafo wrote:

GarryB wrote:I very much doubt any version of the Yak-44 could take off any type of carrier without a catapult or other serious assistance... even if it had a tilt wing design... which AFAIK it does not.

ATM the only AWACS type aircraft for Russian carriers is the Ka-31 with a very flat antenna array under its belly that can be deployed in flight for 360 degree monitoring of the airspace around the helo.

Quick calculation for the distance vs. radar elevation.
49m radar height->25km range
71m radar height ->30km range
785m height->100km range
4908m->250km range
9618m->350km
28253m->600km

A ka-31 can cover quater of the area ,and has 2.5 hours endurance compared to the 6 hours of Hawkeye .

So, a shipborn air deffense system can protect 50km diameter area without aircraft, with a helicopter 300km diameter, with a fixrd wing aircraft 700km dimater area.


Any SAM with  greater than 30km range require same airborne radar to function.

Well it depends on the altitude of the target too.

I remember I've read that it could take off without catapult.
Soviets used some accelerator on their aircraft, i've seen a video of a mig 21 taking off like a missile with that technology. So it's not realy a problem. Pretty bad that they don't put money on the development of the Yak-44.

Of course yes.

These are symetrical, so a 49m elevated radar can detect an object with 49m elevation from 50km and so on.