Warbird Information Exchange

Russian aircraft, while often crudely made in comparison to western ones, were highly effective aircraft. You can't just look at the technology or manufacturing techniques involved to rate the aircraft's capabilities, or their reliability. You have to look at the training of the pilots flying the aircraft, the tactics employed, and the maintenance.

Russian aircraft were designed to work in very crude operating areas, and with only moderately skilled maintenance labor. In that area, they were extremely effective. Most western built aircraft require a great deal more TLC to keep flying.

Russian battle tactics, from what I have read about, were not particularly sophisticated. They seem to have resorted more to blunt force trauma rather than careful teamwork and organization. Their command and control systems were very primitive with respect to their western counterparts.

With regards to the Russian jet crashes seen on the internet... there were three very famous ones, which were photographed from many different angles. They are the only ones I see regularly, and may contribute to the overall impression that Russian aircraft crash more frequently than western ones. All three of these crashes were due to either mid-air collisions (Su-27's and MiG-29's at British shows) or bird ingestion (MiG-29 at Paris Air Show)... so you cannot lay the blame on the doorstep of Russian technological prowess, not for these crashes anyway.

On another note, you might remember that the German Luftwaffe lost over 300... yes, you read it right.... 300 F-104 Starfighters due to crashes. Now, was that because the aircraft was inferior, or because of improper training.... I'll let you decide. It's at least one example of a US made aircraft which had its problems, but was generally regarded as being an excellent aircraft.

Cheers,
Richard

PS. I just had a flight in an F-15E, and I have to tell you, it is one of the sweetest birds in the fleet!

Hi Tom.

Simply not so Tom, take a peek in these clip and you'll see and hear why this Mig-29 crashed.. a bird strike.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL1Fblth ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF6FK9Ao ... onse_watch


Sadly the Russian have crashed a few times at Famous Airshows, for all to see.
Hens it get a lot of undeserved comments and reputation.

Here is a nasty one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOdefN6T ... re=related

But i give you this, the Russian tends to have the most spectacular Crashes of all time


Thanks

Ah yes, I remember that one very well, as the MiG-29 nearly crashed onto my head. I took the pilot away in a car (you can see me in the video at 4:30). I would have put him in an ambulance but they all drove right past us in their rush to get to the fireball.
Somehow, no-one was killed. The worst injury I recall was a broken bone suffered by someone jumping from the top of the Belgian C-130 (which had one of its tailplanes knocked off by one of the crashing MiGs).

Andy Marden

Jesus.. That will be a memory burned into your skull i quess

Truly a miracle that no one died there..
Did those Russian pilots ever fly at Airshows again?

B.t.w. it looks like the Russian pilot trying to light a cigarette are somewhat displeased with the camera crew.. who can blame him.

The pilot doesn't look too shaken by the hole thing.
A part of the Pilot training one would think..

I'm not a smoker, but i can imagine that cigarette felt good..



Thanks

I was there that day too. I can vividly recall the instant hush at impact followed by the instant mass sound of camera motordrive's whirring into action.

I have a vague feeling that one of the pilots not only flew again but was involved in another Mig crash at a show, might be wrong on that though....

I do recall that there was a shall we say an 'altercation' between the two pilots when they first met up on the ground

Ah, I've heard the same thing
The word is that they allmost got into a fight


Blast!
I really need to get my sorry ass on more Airshows..



Thanks

Just a few thoughts on the MiG-29 thing (as well as the F-104 with the Luftwaffe)....

- A number of lost (Russian/Soviet) aircraft were directly attributable to the lack of flying hours...How about 25-30 hours per YEAR on the part of the pilots. The ones you see at airshows and public displays are generally the "best of the best", not your average MiG-29 driver. Availability of fuel in recent years has also affected flight hours.

- Sure, maintenance could've been better, but with conscript, under- and hastily-trained mechanics, what could you expect? What the "regulars", or "old-timers" had to work with was, well, like trying to knit a sweater with one hand tied behind your back.

- Soviet aircraft were, by and large, disposable assets - in a hot situation, push it off to the side, get another one, and go. It'll be fixed when and if time and parts become available. ...and they weren't always that available.

As for the comparison to the Luftwaffe's F-104G, well, methinks that's a case of apples and oranges.

- A newly re-created air force is moving to a platform that is a quantum leap, both in technology and tactics, and you're asking the pilots to immediately adapt. Like going from a Super Cub to a P-51. Anyone want to try that?

- Maintenance was not considered to be a problem.

- Gunther Rall noted the problems of integration on the F-104G (a bit dissimilar to the US versions) into Luftwaffe (and Marine) service in his book.


...Just my $.0135 worth (corrected for inflation).

_________________
Bob

Yeah, well most of the Mig-29 crash have both pilot error(airshows) and lately tecnical error like metal-futige/corrosion(RuAF).

Minus Anatoliy kvotchur bird-strike at Paris Air Show Le Bourget 1989..

Not many Mig-29 left operational in the RuAF.
I believe many Mig-29 units also got down-prioritized during the breakup of Soviet, hence poor maintenance.

Some of the Flanker wings and Mig-31 wings got more funding,
hense better maintenance.



Thanks

Considering it was a Vietnam era aircraft, it sure didn't see much action.

Air Forces Monthly magazine (pretty reliable source), April 2009 issue, p. 72 states 291 MiG-29SMs are still operational. Noted units (source elsewhere) are:

-783rd Training Centre, Armavir
-14th Fighter Aviation Regiment, Kursk
-28th Fighter Aviation Regiment , Andreapol
-237th Air Technology Demonstration Centre of Guards, Kubinka
-19th Fighter Aviation Regiment, Millerovo
-31st Fighter Aviation Regiment, Zernograd
-120th Guards Fighter Aviation Regiment, Domna

..As for a breakdown of types operated by the VVS (Voyenno-vozdushnye sily Rossii), go to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Ai ... t_of_Units

_________________
Bob

Maybe they need to make the Mig 29 out of rubber so they well bounce.
Most of the tactical aircraft developed in Europe, Russia and China are basically untested in real aerial combat. They had a big chance in Iraq years ago to bring their MIGs up for a confrontation but the Iraqi A.F. chose to fly most of them to Iran, of all places.
If they don't belong to the coalition (I don't like that word), I like allies better, they don't have a combat proven aircraft. Most of OUR allies fly their own aircraft or of U.S. manufacture. The French, Canadians & Brits know what their hardware can do under real stress and strain.
We, along with our allies, wear out our aircraft keeping the world free of oppression so the Russians can attend the Paris Air Show and test their
ejection seats.

If I may throw in my opinion, it seems like they really throw the aircraft through a pretty agressive air show routine. I havent seen anything like that come from a U.S. demo fighter until the Raptor a few years ago.

Combine that with a lack of "recent" flight experience and you may have a chain of events? I don't think it's fair to compare the aircraft until you can get a good look at both in the same conditions. I am assuming the US would have a tighter policy with pilots and limitations to fly the aircraft in the demo. I would also think the FAA has a tight grip on the loose ends the military leaves open to the pilots right?

Seems the videos of some of these crashes show how tight of a window the russians operate the aircraft when sh*t hits the fan there are no options available to the pilots.

Hi Old SAR pilot.
I think you are mixing some designation here.
The term SM are used on those RuAF Su-27SM upgrades!

The RuAF Mig-29 has the SMT upgrade.
And RuAF has only one Regiment of those SMTs right now(ex-Algerian i believe)..

Russia will upgrade more Mig-29 or procure new Mig-29K
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attac ... ator-1.jpg

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20090211/120095365.html

And i don't think ALL those 291 Mig-29 ARE operational at this point.
Infact they are targeted for further cutdown and re-structuring in the whole RuAF these days..

Nothing wrong with Airforces monthly.
I read it my self.


Thanks[/url]

The Mig29K was meant to operate off of a Kunetsov Carrier ( features such as folding wings and arresting gear)

The Mig29SM variant was an upgraded S model which made the Mig29 a true multirole fighter as well as allowing the Mig29 to carry the R77 (AA12 Adder or "AMRAAMSKI") ARH Missile.

The Mig29SMT are upgraded variants of the first generation Mig29s bringing in further HOTAS and other in cockpit improvements as well as increased fuel capacity and a newer engine (RD-133 thrust vectoring)

_________________
Robert "JP" Spivey

The maintenance are a key factor to any Airforce units in the world.
The Mig-29 have a somewhat muddy history to this..
Check out this site, wery innteresting read:

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/MiG-29-2b.htm

The Mig-29 are a good peice of hardware.
Strictly airframe and engine talking..

Somehow i question your Iraq Mig-29 exsample here..
It is not a fair comparison.
Awacs role etc etc.
I could go on and on but u get the picture.

It's true that Russian Mig-29 and for that matter Su-27 have very little wartime record encounters to measure from, so it is hard doing any comparising record at all..

Its not fair eighter to bring forth smaller nations Mig-29 record history.
Who know what kind of maintenance and operational funding we are talking about here..



Thanks