TJ: Do you maintain that 50 combat-capable aircraft were destroyed? Because if you think that then you need to do a lot more research. Out of the Mig-29’s alone, only 9 out of 16 were flyable. The case with the older aircraft was even worse.
The definition combat-capable is a term laid out and agreed by all signatories in both the Vienna Document and Dayton Accord. In the case of Yugoslavia of course the embargo affected the inventory and its combat effectiveness. Regardless of the terms used the aircraft were combat declared and in their inventory as such.. An official lifting of the embargo/sanctions would have allowed those unservicable aircraft to regain their combat effectiveness. The last exchange of information was in January 1999 with the Yugoslavs declaring 152 combat-capable When they rejoined post conflict the declaration was 102 combat declared aircraft. So, regardless of your definitions all signatories, including the Yugoslavs, recognised that those aircraft not fully serviceable could be returned to flying status. That is the defintion of ‘combat-capable’. Thus the Yugoslavs lost 50 officially combat-capable aircraft out of their declared combat capable inventory.
Those individuals who gave interviews regarding losses also new the score when it came to ‘combat-capable’ aircraft in the inventory:
In interviews during 2001 Yugoslav air force Col. Radovan Rakovic stated:
“All our airports on the ground suffered great damage,” Rakovic said. The Yugoslav air force, he said, lost about 30 percent of its combat equipment and 40 percent of its combat systems.”
In regards to Yugoslav Air Force losses Gen Pavkovic revealed:
“Pavkovic believes the Yugoslav military was successful overall because it suffered relatively few casualties and managed to hold on to many of its weapons systems. The lone exception, he said, was the Yugoslav air force, which “suffered considerable losses.”
TJ
in world of aviation designation and naming.
Sign In
