I have not tried anything. Simply I gave the official numbers for the Soviet MiG-23M fleet in 1978. Public from 2003…

And a fat lot of good they tell us about MiG-23 serviceability in the Soviet AF. let’s use more verifiable and clearer statistics, shall we?

And ? I quoted Soviet data for the MiG-23M…
HuAF: 16x MiG-23MF,UB. Lost 5(3x MF and 2x UB):
2x UB pilot error, 1x MF lightning, 1x MF pilot error, 1x MF tech. failure. Typical? Yes. No. You can say: does not matter, HuAF had a too small export fleet. But technically the safest fighter in HuAF ever, lost only one by malfunction.

5 losses out of 16 original aircraft, 31% loss rate – a disasterous record. Most aircraft losses are caused by the pilot anyway. Why did Hungarian pilots crash 20% of their Mig-23 in a space of 15 years?

By the way Czechoslovakia:

Czechoslovakian AF records for the MiG-23, I’ve posted these web pages on this site once or twice already – maybe because it’s a rare example of actually finding the accumulated airframe flights hours for a particular type in a WP air force:

http://www.valka.cz/clanek_10869.html
http://www.valka.cz/clanek_10870.html

Another bad record – perhaps 1 aircraft loss per every 7,000 hours? I think the Indian AF had a similar loss rate.

AFAIK I am the only one here, who published some real data, the facts from a WP pilots logbook, the flights and flight hours from the late ’70s. 3 years in a row.

The logbook of only 1 pilot – it’s not enough to make any conclusions.

You do not need to respect me for that…

I do respect you for it – it’s nice to see some primary source documents, rather than listening to hearsay…

But at least I would like to see similar pages from NATO pilots logbooks from the same period. Thanks in advance!

How many NATO logbooks would you be happy with?

compare with F-4F, early F-15A etc.?

Well, Luftwaffe F-4F was only retired earlier this year after 40 years service, while 1970s built F-15 are still flying with USAF and IDF. This must certainly say something about the technical reliability and durability of both types, don’t you think?

Don’t bother… he is on an obvious path to prove the ex-Warpac countries that they were wrong to dump the 23 and that they flew more than anybody else on the world 🙂

In which case he has a completely different opinion to the the actual air forces which operated – and then stopped operating – the MiG-23. I always believed that most Warsaw Pact air force combat pilots flew around 100 – 120 hours per year.

I don’t think the Iraqi AF main problem is the choice of weapon hanging from their newest aircraft, they have to develop the necessary training and support expertise first. If the Iraqis are going to find the F-16 a handful, they would certainly have an interesting time learning to operate the Su-30.

I’m not saying Warsaw pact did any better, i’m saying only test pilots can be considered professionals,
and perhaps Israeli pilots, i recon they have considerably more training than norm.
Imperial Japanese pilots also sent professionals into war at start

Well, testpilots only got to be testpilots after 10 years or so of flying 180-240 flight hours a year – that’s probably how they got to be ‘professional’?

200 hours per year is still amateur levels

No it isn’t. 200 hours annually is about the normal flying time for most NATO air arms. I think 180 hours is the prescribed minimum.

I had hoped to avoid this topic in a time of mourning, but I believe that seahawk was referring to the widespread narrative amongst the Indian media and public that, whenever there is a crash or accident involving a Russian-made aircraft, is quick to cast aspersions on the safety of Russian aircraft by referring to “MiG coffins” and so forth. Given this context, it is certainly legitimate to point out that this latest accident involves a modern western aircraft and to implicitly suggest, therefore, that this prevailing narrative might need some revision.

But the MiG-21 is a ‘flying coffin’.

It all depends on the conditions that the aircraft are flown in – if the IAF Hercules are been used in very low level flying (nap-of-the-earth), accidents can be expected. One Soviet/Russian aircraft in IAF service with a good safety record is the Il-76 – I don’t think any of them have been lost after 30 years service, if it’s true?

A round from an AK would certainly ruin my day. No F-16 has ever been shot down by an AK, or any other type of infantry firearm – light machinegun, rifle, etc – as far as I know.