PS: i only got drunk with one of Petlyakov’s grandsons once, for they were mostly security personell. But in an unrelated event, i drank beer from a mug (a huge China one with a lid) with which Boris Yeltsin had toasted with Vaclav Havel 😉

Adrian and Phantom, you are vastly overestimating the number of BVR shooters in the German theatre.

Four squadrons of F-15s in Germany was all US-operated air defense in Europe at that time (three at Bitburg and one at Soesterberg), and by 1986 there only were F-16s in Europe at Hahn (3 squadrons, attack only, transitioning from A/B to C/D) and Torrejon (3 squadrons, A/B, attack only). Apart from that, there were of course USAFE Phantoms, F-111s and A-10s none of which were tasked with air-to-air.

Apart from the four F-15 squadrons, there were two BVR capable squadrons each in Germany at both the RAF (Phantom FGR2, Wildenrath) and CF (CF-188, Söllingen) – in total, those would have added up to about 180 operational aircraft. Around 1986, there were over 300 MiG-23M/MF/ML/MLDs in East Germany alone. While a MiG-23MLD/R-24 combo is definately no F-15/AIM-7M combo, the East definately had a whole lot more BVR fighters than the West. Italian F-104Ses would have definately been occupied in the Med, and there is no way they would have seen action over Germany.

Apart from those, there was NO BVR capability in the German theatre. Besides, all other squadrons in the whole area of operations had a dual task (as did the Canadians) meaning that they’d be used for ground support more than anything else. NATO focused much more on disabling WarPac airbases than on actually fighting the aircraft. One can argue about the French jumping in, but definately not in the Northern part of Germany.

More bickering from me, Phantom again:

NATO had quite a large array of lethal BVR shooters (remember the Skfylash and AIM-7F/M were much more dangerous than earlier AIM-7E models as well as the R-23/24 on the MiG-23), including Tornado ADV’s (Skyflash), F-15, F-14, F/A-18, F-4 (RAF, USAF, Greece, and Turkey), F-104’s (Italy), Viggens (Skyflash), Mirage F-1’s, and Mirage 2000’s (both Super 530).

There were no Tornado ADV’s operational by 1986. Only the concrete-carrying F2’s were flying around in squadron markings, but they were far from operational. So you’re talking Phantoms and Lightnings here, not Tornadoes.
As said above, since the early 1980s the only USAF Phantoms left in Germany were attack aircraft only, and would certainly not have flown any air defense missions. Likewise, Turkish or Greek Phantoms would have done interesting work in the Eastern Med and Black Sea, but would have had no role over Germany whatsoever. Neither would you have seen Swedish Viggens there – possibly they would give some cover to Denmark and Norway, but that’s it.

Then there were your dogfighters such as the F-16, which would have annhilated any MiG-21 or MiG-23 that dared get close enough.

Behind the SAM-belt, yes. The few dedicated WVR shooter-units were to act as point-defense aircraft, but IMHO would very quickly be retasked for attack missions. Those WVR missions would have been impossible anyway: one dogfighter against five to ten attackers with SAMs and AA-guns blazing right below them? They would really have been butchered.

The AEW&C capabilities of NATO can’t be overlooked either with the E-2, E-3, and the Royal Navy’s Sea Kings (okay, very limited, but still there).

The E-2s and Sea Kings would have been protecting boats, far away from countering threefold 1000-plane strike packages over Germany alone. With some 500 more Western aircraft airborne at the same time, how much use do you think an AWACs would have been, knowing they could only track 200 aircraft at a time? Besides, you can be sure that the first thing to have happened when hostilities broke out, would have been smouldering 707s-with-mushrooms at Geilenkirchen an Orland…

NATO’s SEAD/EW capabilities were also incredibly good including the EA-6, EF-111, F-4G, and others….

Others???? Western SEAD was nothing when compared to the other side. How does one dedicated SEAD squadron per regiment sound to you?

The F-117 entering into the equation is also a huge plus for NATO.

True. Just hope it would have performed better than it did over Panama in 1989.

Then there are your strikers, such as the Harrier, AV-8, A-10, Jaguar, Tornado, F-111, Viggen, F-4, A-7, A-6, and A-4.

You really have no clue what was stationed where, or what bases certain units/aircraft were to deploy to, do you? I can start mentioning a few at-random WarPac types too, big deal.

And you can’t forget the F-5’s that multiple nations had at the time and that would go a long way to helping counter the hordes of MiG-21’s.

Apart from the Greeks, they wouldn’t. Dutch, Norwegian and Spanish F-5s were attack-only.

The Su-27, MiG-29, and MiG-31 were great technological leaps for the Soviets, but there just couldn’t have been sufficient numbers of them to handle all NATO aircraft (that would include surviving BVR shots from F-15’s, F-4’s, and the others I listed above, then getting to the strike aircraft which of course are the primary targets of any defending fighter).

No MiG-29s or Su-27s by 1986, but some 200 MiG-31s would have been available then, but these would be used defensively – scoring hits against B-52s and cruise missiles amongst others. You’re forgetting some 750 MiG-25s, around 800 Su-15s, 200 Tu-128s and a few other BVR interceptors…

The bomber equation is interesting as well with the USAF putting up the B-52, the RAF the Vulcan, the French the Mirage IV and the Russians having the Tu-16, Tu-95, and Tu-22M.

No RAF Vulcans in 1986 (well, they had one flyable and one almost…), and the Mirage IV was one-way nuclear-only. The only bomber capable of conventional bombing missions in the West was the B-52, some 250 still being in service by 1986 (B-52G and B-52H). Opposed to, oh, let’s say some 800 Tu-16s, around 70 Tu-95 bombers and around 250 Tu-22Ms?

There is some really, really, really smart engineering on the C-2 which has cost a few lives so far. Do you see that door on the fuselage? It’s right in front of the prop. It’s where the crew gets out, so after step out you better walk to the right.
Now the E-2, which is indeed a somewhat similar airplane, also has a door where the crew gets out. This door, however, is just BEHIND the prop. So after you get out, you better walk to the left.

Yes, you’ve guessed it right. Sometimes people were so used to the E/C-2 that they forgot they were aboard a C/E-2, and only found out after getting out…

Yeah… spooks! Here’s a Canadian one.

Come and think of it – where have all the zaps gone? Is it me, or have groundcrews become pussies nowadays and are they too chicken to take a bucket of paint, and have a go at a visiting aircraft?

Germany never really used them. There were a few test machines flying in military colours, but these were never operational. The Lufthansa operated a handful for initial and instructor pilot training, but these were retired after only a short time. I think the Lufthansa machines had Wankel rotary engines, which probably explains their short careers.

Thailand has also replaced them, mostly with their L 39s. One of the benefits of the Albatross is that the latter can be armed, while the Fantrainer can not. It’s a far too light aircraft to carry anything meaningful anyway, although there are provisions for droptanks under the wings. I’m not too up to date anymore on Rhein Flugzeugbau (the builders of the Fantrainer, did also some nice Ekranoplan-work with Dr. Lippisch and they were the maintenance company for the German OV-10s, the latter being a reason i dropped by every now and then back in the old days) but i wouldn’t be surprised if they were out of business now, unfortunately. Lovely little company which wasn’t too afraid of trying something new, although both it’s Fantrainer and Ekranoplan were definately failures.

The pics show the prototype Fantrainer, and RFBs other great fun plaything, the X-114 Ekranoplan. The latter was designed by Lippisch of Luft46 fame – he was the designer of the delta fighter with a coal-powered ramjet. Great!

That original 8000-hours lifetime for the F-16 was pretty exaggurated. The basic airframe indeed was rated to cope with so many flight hours – as long as there weren’t any external stores carried. Equally, the number of cycles the landing gear was rated for was far less than those 8000 hours would imply. So it’s a nice figure, but pretty farcical.

Besides, why need an 8000 or even 12000-hour jet, if the MTBW/O (Mean Time Between Write Offs) doesn’t even reach 3000 hours 🙂

Soon to be added to the Never Ending Reruns Channel, right between the final episode of M*A*S*H and The Avengers…

In what ways is the F-15C better looking than the F-15A? Just curious.