:DCessna thank you so much for posting those wonderful pictures

Sorry Nastle, but did you say expensive Su-25:eek:

Regards
Pioneer

😮 haha you got me here !
to tell u the truth, I just hate that plane su-25 so much that I would say anything to malign it.:diablo:

and more

The Soviet Airforce combat tactics in the 80s is still based on the experiences from WW2 when it is adapted on the technology at hand. One main difference to the West is the much more limited single role of the tactical airforce units

.

i agree, even mig-29 is a single mission interceptor basically dependent on GCI.The bad publicity they get is mainly because these fighters are forced to fight in conflicts where they do not have the kind of support system they would have if they fought with warsaw pact in Europe.

In some way still the tactical airforce from WW2.
Forced by the circumstances the present Russian airforce becomes more and more Western style, when it is switching from single tasked superior numbers to smaller quality forces. By the way something possible with the technology at hand in the 80s already

That also might have also been because they russians do not face the possibility of the war of extinction in europe so much as they did in the past.
In terms of total war, the single mission planes were not such a bad idea one might argue, and bigger numbers if used properly may produce decisive.

All memebers posting here I have a question

Do you think the soviet mig-23ML , MLDs and MFs would have fared just as badly agianst NATO on the central front in the mid-80s as the syrian AF mig-23s did against israelis ? Please give reasons if possible

thanks

^ unfortunately I do not have the original source.Rather I would be very interested to find any books esp devoted to soviet air combat doctrine in the later cold war yrs.

The numbers clearly favor such a tactic since USSR had huge numbers of obsolete fighters and relatively small number of 4th generation fighters by 1988.

The PVO fighters were “manned” AAM carrier for hit and run attacks only.

This could be a problem for NATO strike packages, esp since a good number of PVO interceptors would be really hard to track down and kill ( like mig-25/31) even by 4th generation western fighters in the pre-AMRAAM era.

Thanks but i tried that , most online “sources” give a number of 160 km…big difference ! and there are no references that I could find to back that up.

The yefim gordom book on mig-25/31 unfortunately didnt have that either.

[QUOTE=CASSargodha;1310544]

DUDE! do you even know the significance of F-104 in PAF in 65 and 71 war!?
it was literally the savior of PAF!

yeah ! how many kills did they claim apart from a mystair in 65 ?
its value was largely psychological once the IAF found that its soviet mig-21pf was a better allround fighter , the f-104 suffered greatly in 71 war
your savior was the F-86 which scored kills against all indian types including the formidable mig-21

?

wat!
F-16 were acquired due to the fact that USSR was about to march across pakistan and as for defending pakistan US gave one of the biggest military defence package in pakistan’s history! even if pakistan never worked aganist USSR they still would have had hostile due to INDIA-Russia alliance.[/QUOTE

]
USSR was hostile to pak , as pak leaders since liaqat ali khan have always been in anti-russian alliances like SEATO,CENTO [even lending bases to american U-2s ], so big surprise if they helped their enemies the indians
as for marching across pakistan is concerned i dont think 40 f-16s or pak army for that matter would have been much of a problem for the soviets if they had such intentions