ArthurYeah, it was the Soviet F-5F clone, which the Russians copied after they illegally purchased a number from Umpalumpaland. These copies where then leased out to Jerry Bruckheimer, so he could use them as MiG-28s in a totally obscure cult-horror-movie called “Top Gun.” Apart from the MiG-28s this film dealt mainly with bunny rabbits giggling at brightly coloured balloons, and animated pastel-coloured bears that cared and could make rainbows.
I need a drink!
Anyway, seriously:
Until 1989, designators like MiG-25 or Su-15 were issued by the VVS to aircraft which had already entered service. When still under development, aircraft were names which were given by the design bureau which could either be quite similar to the later operational name. For example, the design name of the Tu-95 was Izdeliye 95, the design name of the MiG-25 was Ye-155, the design name of the Su-25 was T-8…
When, thanks to all the perestroyka and glasnost and Soviet collapse going on, Sukhoi and MiG were allowed to market their gear, they were basically given a free hand in giving names to the aircraft they were going to market. Sukhoi went on a totally illogical re-numbering spree in which at some point each new sub-variant of an already existing (and known by it’s service designation) was given a new numerical Su-XX designation, like we all know.
While there have been a lot of suggestions that MiG did the same with some of it’s MiG-29 variants/proposals (as mentioned in this thread), i honestly don’t know of any reference from ‘inside’ MiG which ever did so. Of course, new MiG-29 variants are still presented as such: MiG-29OVT, MiG-29M2, etcetera. If anyone here does have an inside-MiG reference (Piotr, Paul, Alexander?), that would be a first for me.
ArthurHis right eye isn’t boresighted exactly either…
ArthurYeah, i thought i should live up to my location every now and then.
A nice week to you – and you can add those few hours left of Sunday with it as well 🙂
ArthurHey Dis, good to have you back at this cesspool of Eurolibs 🙂 I’m sure you feel a warm welcome here after all that bravery and freedom.
A400M can’t do no good in my eyes, said that before. Too heavy for a tactical transporter, too light and too shortleged for a strategic transporter. And A400M must always be seen in conjunction with the German Puma APC. They are twins. And Puma itself is a very questionable concept, with all that bolt-on armor and that 30mm babygun it is a peace-keeping APC for military police, not for a fighting force destined to take enemy fire.
Today, equipment that is not airliftable is basically worthless. But at the same time there is still no way a ground force can do w/o heavy armored units = MBTs. So you have to be able to lift about 70 metric tons over a couple thousand kilometers to project any meaningfull fighting capability. And A400M is simply not able to do that. What it can do is lift an APC across the Med, but not further (not into central Africa, not into Southwest Asia, etc). A400M wouldn’t even fulfill todays Afghanistan mission, that would still need An-124s. A400M can lift about 10 metric tons more than a C-130J, but at the same time costs more than a C-17. NATO-Europe would be very well adviced to drop that A400M and buy/licence build C-17(E) instead. A400M is a dead man stumbling before even the first metal is cut.
I disagree with you, but then i also disagree with the notion that the A400 is a strategical airlifter. The size and payload is IMO just right for a modern-day tactical airlifter. For some reason it is still commonly accepted that a 1950s design for a paratrooper-assault airplane is big and heavy enough for a tactical transport in the post-1989 (and post-2001) world, and whatever Lockheed wants us to believe: that is plain and simple BS. The Herk (or Jerk in it’s latest incarnation) is simply no longer suitable as an airlifter for modern-day armies. Just look at the awfully clumsy way the USArmy keeps on trying to have their Stryker fit the C-130, and how it somehow just never works. Jeep-sized vehicles have been replaced by Humvees (you won’t be able to fit a Humvee in a Caribou), logistical trains have increased, yet it’s all still supposed to fit inside a Hercules? Yeah, right. At least the German Puma isn’t supposed to fit in the woefully inadequate (for transporting armour at least) Herk, it’s only ment to fit in the somewhat less inadequate Airbus.
The Russians had realised this some time ago, and already replaced most of the An-12s in their tactical transport units with Il-76es, and were initially planning on replacing the remainder with An-70s. Far bigger aircraft, but still tasked with the same role: tactical transport.
I also think that the requirement for airlifting tanks is far exaggurated. Not only that Europe’s international political ambitions aren’t really likely to demand a quick deployment of heavy armour. But still, even if one aircraft brings in your 70 tons MBT, that doesn’t mean you already have brought an operational combat machine to the frontline. You’re still looking at an enormous amount of logistical support to keep that tank rolling, and it is that logistics train which easily exceeds your airlift capability. Especially if you are looking at prolonged operations with that armour, it becomes obvious that airlift is NOT the way to keep those panzer rolling in any significant numbers.
For the heavy tactical transport mission (the light job being for fixed-wing Chinooks like the G2222222222, CN235/295 and, yes, the C-130) i think the A-400 is going to fill in a niche in the market which has so far not been covered by any Western aircraft, and in the East is filled by the Il-76 and possibly the An-70. Indeed, the A-400 won’t be enough to do the heavy strategical airlift, and why should you if there is such a wonderful plane like the An-124 which you can rent for the same price as an inflight check of a C-5A.
Keeping strategical and tactical airlift separate by using hub airbases (much like FedEx or DHL do with on their airlift networks) also means that your strategical aircraft don’t need to have their flight economics hampered by rough-field-capability and other gadgets typically for tactical operations at tactical airfields. I can only see a need for those toys if you’ve managed to alienate yourself that much from the rest of the world that you are simply denied local hub airfields. But when you’ve reached that stage, i doubt military airborne logistics are the main issue to worry about.
How’s that for a welcoming essay 😉
ArthurBIO, next time could you please resize the pics, or at least link to somewhat smaller images? Not everyone’s on broadband.
ArthurBut EADS main office is at Schiphol… so it’s Dutch 😀
ArthurAfter the experience she had with the USSR in the 50s
and 60s, I think it’ll be a mighty long time before the memory of reliance on
imports will be wiped clean from the minds of the Chinese…
Mao broke with Khrushchev, not the other way around. The Soviets withdrawing technical support to the PRC can be attributed completely to Mao’s switch to Maoism rather than Marxism-Leninism, and blatantly telling so to the Russians.
I mean why subject yourself to be scrutinized continuously
if upgrading of existing systems can and will do the job while in the same
time indiginous development can assure a continous and uninterupted
supply regardless of the affects of where politics might be???
Uninterrupted domestic supply? If there is one thing China has shown since the breakup with the USSR around 1960, is that it was NOT capable or even seemed interested in a continuous and uninterrupted supply of military goods.
Also, indigenous developments in the PRC, despite all the efforts of the last 15 to 20 years, have still failed to field any modern combat aircraft. In all honesty, but it will be at least 50 years until Mao’s breakup with the USSR will finally be made up by the PRC either looking at other suppliers of hardware (the West until 1989), and/or indigenisation.
Arthur…
This is the one that was painted in special Aussie markings at the last Avalon show, if you look in the background you can see the mock up of the Naval one, at the time the naval one was at NAS Nowra undergoing traials.
This one is a mockup too. It was one of the prototypes which has been put on a non-flying status, and is now used as a marketing toy.
Arthurover G comitted interlectual suicide on a public forum.
Didn’t realise that zombies could still commit suicide, but i guess you’re right :diablo:
ArthurOverG,
Not again. G’s pulled during a maneuver are a result of centrifugal forces when forcing an airframe to change it’s direction, and are NOT related to th speed of said airframe.
Nani,
1. Did the post-reunification Luftwaffe operate their inherited Floggers in the fighter role ? I have yet to see a single picture of Luftwaffe marked MiG-23.
Nope, a few did fly for trials with WTD61, the German test unit at Manching. The bulk of them were put directly into storage (mostly at Laage), but they all did recieve Luftwaffe markings. Serials were in the 20+xx range. Not all recieved crosses, because the Germans actually ran out of cross-decals when renumbering and remarking all the former LSK/NVA machines. You can find a pic of a former East German MiG-23UB with a ‘united’ serial at http://www.airventure.de/gatowpics/gatow11.JPG which is preserved at the Luftwaffe-museum at Berlin-Gatow after some years in storage at Laage. It’s one of the machines which didn’t get a cross in the serial.
2. I read on some web sources that Flogger-D had the GSH-23L(?) gun just like the 23BN and only later versions featured the Gatling gun(?)
The MiG-23B, MiG-23BN, MiG-24BN and MiG-23BM (meaning all flatnose-Floggers with the original MiG-23M engine installation and splitter plates) all have the GSh-23L twin-barreled 23mm cannon, just like the fighter versions.
All MiG-27s (so flatnose-Floggers with the simple intakes and short exhaust) have the GSh-6-30 six-barreled 30mm gatling gun.
3. Wouldn’t it been better for the MiG-23MF/ML/MLD to us the gatling gun instead of the twin barrel 23mm. I also *heard* it could elevate(point downwards) but i am not so sure.
The 30mm gatling is a bit overkill for simple air-to-air use, 23mm is effective enough and is a lot lighter (both the cannon itself and the shells), easier on the airframe and more aerodynamic to ‘fit’ into the design. None of the operational Soviet fighters had guns which could be aimed independently from the airframe, but there is a number of gun pods where the guns can be elevated.
ArthurSens… if you had just read Meteorit’s post at #23 of this thread…
ArthurThe US recieved MiG-23ML and MLD
But only ML’s from Germany.
ArthurNow THAT’s a sight! Demoteams rarely impress me, but this i would have loved to see.
ArthurYeah. And i heard there was a burglar living in Canterbury as well. Nuke that place too :rolleyes:
ArthurWith all respect, but there were 1200 people crammed in a gymnasium looking about the size of a basketball field, with explosives rigged everywhere. The terrorists obviously made sure that school building became a deathtrap, willing to sacrifice themselves just as easily as the hostages.
There is a lot that can be said about Russian clumsiness in hostage situations (and the aftermath of the Nord-Ost theatre crisis was absolutely terrible), but i really wonder if anyone can seriously think this situation could have been dealt with without the most sad loss of innocent lives? I would seriously doubt it in case of a planned assault/rescue attempt. In an ‘accidental’ shootout like what happened on friday, i’m afraid to say it seems more a matter of luck than anything else to me.
Having spent quite some time in small Russian towns not unlike Beslan, i have tried to think about the impact a tragedy like this will have on such a community. If i could, i would probably feel even more miserable about it than i do now. Horrible.
Sign In
