I know it’s the modern military aviation forum but are there any good pics of South Korean Mustangs on the web?

No chance of them being real. All Portugese G91s are accounted for – as a matter of fact, all ginas are. None were left behind in Angola/Mozambique/Guinea-Bissau in any sort of useable state. Probably some random archive footage, or genuine Portugese G91s in-country.

Damn, well looking back it din’t make sense they were painted in the early grey camo scheme 🙁

Great info on the Abkhazian AF, what’s the story behind a MiG-25 defecting from Armenia? Regarding the Syrian AF, yep I forgot to add those types. There are however quite good pics of a MiG-23s that defected to Israel and also some (even if very bad) pics of their Fishbeds
Hmm regarding Sandinist MiGs, there is a guy on acig who flew C-130s and he reported that a crew of a electronic reconaissance C-130 was intercepted by a MiG-21 in full Sandinista markings. There is the official version of the Sandinista AF: Mi-24s, two T-33s, Libyan SF-260s, Libyan L-39s impounded in Brazil etc. But I believe there is way more to discover. For example there are reports about a Sandinista Mustang and then there is that pic of wrecked MiG-17s in Cuba wearing exactly the same disruptive camouflage as Sandinista T-33s. The DAAFAR only started to apply their own camouflages when Floggers arrived and at that time all MiG-17s were already phased out.

Hey DamirZR, fantastic pic of the Angolan Mig 23 ML, do you have any more?
I am trying to get as many photos of Angolan Mig 23 ML as possible, most are very poor quality but any more like that one would be very welcome.

Try to get one of the most recent issues of German magazine Fliegerrevue, it has an awesome shot of an Angolan Flogger ( although an UB) after overhaul at Odessa. So far the best picture of an Angolan aircraft I have ever seen.

I really do think so. In a war, every aircraft available is a good thing to have at hand

So the Iranian MiG-17s would make sense.

In your logic, all aircraft that were ever defeated, less successful or are unable to win over USAF are meaningless… I really do think otherwise…

Your statement: used in combat without success-> consequence: aircraft is still useful
My statement: used in combat without success -> consequence: aircraft does not have to be useful
The thing you claimed to be my statement: used in combat without success -> consequence : aircraft is not useful

When you look closely you will see that there is a difference between 2 and 3

I said that simply using an aircraft in combat does not necessarily mean it was a legitimate purchase (even if it does so successfully). Using an aircraft in combat does in no way improve its price, its operating costs, capabilities and its usefulness for the particular country

or are unable to win over USAF are meaningless

loool that was a mere example. Now you try to make me look like the stereotype of an emotional, nationalist American who claims that all Air Forces except the US one are useless.

That is exactly where we disagree. ERAF Fulcrums were used in real combat defending their country, successfully or not… In my eyes, that alone renders them more useful and legitimate than 90% of other fighters on this planet who only know hangar, maintenance depot, a training flight twice a week plus few live firings on exercises..

Ok let’s take an hypothetical example to explain my disagreement with that theory. Let’s say:
Iran goes to war with the US and buys 20 Mig-17s as interceptors. Well they could use them in combat to defend their nation, even if probably only once.
Then they “were used in real combat defending their country, successfully or not” which “would render render them more useful and legitimate than 90% of other fighters on the planet”

Of course I know that MiG-17s and MiG-29s aren’t the same, which would probably be your next claim, but that doesn’t change your basic theory at all. I am NOT comparing MiG-17s with Fulcrums but only want to show that your theory isn’t valid.

That counts for all F-7s, not just Namibian ones. Count in Bangladesh, Iran, Pakistan, Myanmar etc.
BTW, using the same logic, Brazilian or Singaporean upgrade of their F-5s was equally stupid..

Nope I wouldn’t say so the F-5 is stilly a potent combat asset especially in the AG role with longer range and heavier payload, additionally there is a huge difference between an upgrade of an obsolete fighter and the purchase of an obsolete fighter. Comparing Namibia with Pakistan is a total no-go. For Pakistan it is a nice asset against hords of Indian Fishbeds while in Africa Air to Air duties are pretty irrelevant.

Just the fact that the MiGs were used in anger shortly after having been supplied proves that the purchase was legitimate..

So according to that logic every aircraft purchase makes sense as long as you use it in combat? :confused:
BTW the Eritreans could have just as well bought Su-27s from Ukraine (as they did later on)

ERAF MiG-29s? Why? The country fought for independence at that time, why would be them buying fighters considered as illogical?

Regarding Namibian F-7s. they form a backbone of Namibian AF, what’s wrong with them?

ERAF MiG-29s well they are an overkill for air to ground tasks and pretty useless in air to air role because of Ethiopian Su-27s (just remember the ERAF also bought some i.e their MiG-29s were insuffcient for that task. And Eritrea wasn’t fighting for its independence back then.
Namibian F-7s, despite all upgrades basically an obsolete aircraft with too small range and way too little payload for African needs.