By: MadRat
- 17th May 2014 at 11:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Radars of that era in the Soviet Union tended to be crude and myopic. It wouldn't have been anything better than a range finder for the ground attack role.
By: Yama
- 17th May 2014 at 11:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why would the radar scope be deliberately disabled? Even if I am in a bomber, I'd still like to know what's around me.
Radars require quite a bit maintenance (especially old 60/70s technology radars), if it is not essential for the role, might just as well get rid of the radar entirely and lighten the plane. Also, for radar to be any good (especially radar of that era) pilot has to continuously operate it, and it gets difficult if you are already tasked for ground attack.
By: Levsha
- 17th May 2014 at 16:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have not tried anything. Simply I gave the official numbers for the Soviet MiG-23M fleet in 1978. Public from 2003...
And a fat lot of good they tell us about MiG-23 serviceability in the Soviet AF. let's use more verifiable and clearer statistics, shall we?
And ? I quoted Soviet data for the MiG-23M...
HuAF: 16x MiG-23MF,UB. Lost 5(3x MF and 2x UB):
2x UB pilot error, 1x MF lightning, 1x MF pilot error, 1x MF tech. failure. Typical? Yes. No. You can say: does not matter, HuAF had a too small export fleet. But technically the safest fighter in HuAF ever, lost only one by malfunction.
5 losses out of 16 original aircraft, 31% loss rate - a disasterous record. Most aircraft losses are caused by the pilot anyway. Why did Hungarian pilots crash 20% of their Mig-23 in a space of 15 years?
By the way Czechoslovakia:
Czechoslovakian AF records for the MiG-23, I've posted these web pages on this site once or twice already - maybe because it's a rare example of actually finding the accumulated airframe flights hours for a particular type in a WP air force:
Another bad record - perhaps 1 aircraft loss per every 7,000 hours? I think the Indian AF had a similar loss rate.
AFAIK I am the only one here, who published some real data, the facts from a WP pilots logbook, the flights and flight hours from the late '70s. 3 years in a row.
The logbook of only 1 pilot - it's not enough to make any conclusions.
You do not need to respect me for that...
I do respect you for it - it's nice to see some primary source documents, rather than listening to hearsay...
But at least I would like to see similar pages from NATO pilots logbooks from the same period. Thanks in advance!
How many NATO logbooks would you be happy with?
compare with F-4F, early F-15A etc.?
Well, Luftwaffe F-4F was only retired earlier this year after 40 years service, while 1970s built F-15 are still flying with USAF and IDF. This must certainly say something about the technical reliability and durability of both types, don't you think?
By: sainz
- 17th May 2014 at 17:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, Luftwaffe F-4F was only retired earlier this year after 40 years service, while 1970s built F-15 are still flying with USAF and IDF. This must certainly say something about the technical reliability and durability of both types, don't you think?
Pffffffff........that stats. for the MiG-23M is from 1978. The type was relatively new then.
The F-4F was an older design, but newly produced, delivered in the same period. The F-15A was brand new then. Their stats vs the -23M!s at least say something.
5 losses out of 16 original aircraft, 31% loss rate - a disasterous record. Most aircraft losses are caused by the pilot anyway. Why did Hungarian pilots crash 20% of their Mig-23 in a space of 15 years??
11 years with only one loss(tech malfunction). All the others happened after the end of the Cold-War. For example -23UB mid-air collision with Su-22 1995 etc
How many NATO logbooks would you be happy with?
>
The logbook of only 1 pilot - it's not enough to make any conclusions.
:cool:
Still I am waiting for at least one from the late '70s, ETO fighter, the yearly data from three consecutive years is fair.
By: maurobaggio
- 19th May 2014 at 01:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, Luftwaffe F-4F was only retired earlier this year after 40 years service, while 1970s built F-15 are still flying with USAF and IDF. This must certainly say something about the technical reliability and durability of both types, don't you think?
In this case we could assume that F 111E/F from USAF and F 14A/B/C/D from US Navy were all withdrawn from service also because those aircraft's had lacked reliability, while the F 111C from Australia remained in service until 2010 and the F 14A from Iran still are active because these were more reliable than others from USAF and US Navy ?
In my country there is a saying: where there is smoke always there is fire.
Regarding the MiG 23 there were many reports about difficulties in flying those fighters once these should be most unstable than the legacy MiG 21 . Also the MiG 23 in all its variants were much more expensive to operate and maintain than the legacy MiG 21 .
Due to the end of the Cold War all countries formerly belonging to the former Warsaw Pact had made major cuts in defense budgets , and because of this there was a reduction in the number of training hours as well as reduction of number of the aircraft's due to budget cuts .
Thus these nations that had decommissioned the MiG 23 and continued to operate the MiG 21 took a logical decision that were to concentrate the available budgetary resources in MiG 21 with which it could keep although this were less advanced than the MiG 23.
This logic has a recent important precedent when the U.S. had been stopped the production of F/A 22 Raptor in 2008 to concentrate all budget resources on the F 35 Lightning II despite that F 35 were less advanced than the F/A 22.
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 17th May 2014 at 11:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Radars of that era in the Soviet Union tended to be crude and myopic. It wouldn't have been anything better than a range finder for the ground attack role.
Posts: 621
By: Yama - 17th May 2014 at 11:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Radars require quite a bit maintenance (especially old 60/70s technology radars), if it is not essential for the role, might just as well get rid of the radar entirely and lighten the plane. Also, for radar to be any good (especially radar of that era) pilot has to continuously operate it, and it gets difficult if you are already tasked for ground attack.
Posts: 2,814
By: Levsha - 17th May 2014 at 16:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And a fat lot of good they tell us about MiG-23 serviceability in the Soviet AF. let's use more verifiable and clearer statistics, shall we?
5 losses out of 16 original aircraft, 31% loss rate - a disasterous record. Most aircraft losses are caused by the pilot anyway. Why did Hungarian pilots crash 20% of their Mig-23 in a space of 15 years?
Czechoslovakian AF records for the MiG-23, I've posted these web pages on this site once or twice already - maybe because it's a rare example of actually finding the accumulated airframe flights hours for a particular type in a WP air force:
http://www.valka.cz/clanek_10869.html
http://www.valka.cz/clanek_10870.html
Another bad record - perhaps 1 aircraft loss per every 7,000 hours? I think the Indian AF had a similar loss rate.
The logbook of only 1 pilot - it's not enough to make any conclusions.
I do respect you for it - it's nice to see some primary source documents, rather than listening to hearsay...
How many NATO logbooks would you be happy with?
Well, Luftwaffe F-4F was only retired earlier this year after 40 years service, while 1970s built F-15 are still flying with USAF and IDF. This must certainly say something about the technical reliability and durability of both types, don't you think?
Posts: 432
By: sainz - 17th May 2014 at 17:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Pffffffff........that stats. for the MiG-23M is from 1978. The type was relatively new then.
The F-4F was an older design, but newly produced, delivered in the same period. The F-15A was brand new then. Their stats vs the -23M!s at least say something. 11 years with only one loss(tech malfunction). All the others happened after the end of the Cold-War. For example -23UB mid-air collision with Su-22 1995 etc >
:cool:
Still I am waiting for at least one from the late '70s, ETO fighter, the yearly data from three consecutive years is fair.
Posts: 516
By: maurobaggio - 19th May 2014 at 01:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In this case we could assume that F 111E/F from USAF and F 14A/B/C/D from US Navy were all withdrawn from service also because those aircraft's had lacked reliability, while the F 111C from Australia remained in service until 2010 and the F 14A from Iran still are active because these were more reliable than others from USAF and US Navy ?
In my country there is a saying: where there is smoke always there is fire.
Regarding the MiG 23 there were many reports about difficulties in flying those fighters once these should be most unstable than the legacy MiG 21 . Also the MiG 23 in all its variants were much more expensive to operate and maintain than the legacy MiG 21 .
Due to the end of the Cold War all countries formerly belonging to the former Warsaw Pact had made major cuts in defense budgets , and because of this there was a reduction in the number of training hours as well as reduction of number of the aircraft's due to budget cuts .
Thus these nations that had decommissioned the MiG 23 and continued to operate the MiG 21 took a logical decision that were to concentrate the available budgetary resources in MiG 21 with which it could keep although this were less advanced than the MiG 23.
This logic has a recent important precedent when the U.S. had been stopped the production of F/A 22 Raptor in 2008 to concentrate all budget resources on the F 35 Lightning II despite that F 35 were less advanced than the F/A 22.