"Novi avion" vs NATO

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by NIK PARMEN, Oct 14, 2009.

  1. NIK PARMEN Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Location:
    Athens,Greece
    "Novi avion" was a former Yugoslavia's project for a 4th generation airocraft fighter . First test flight was scheduled for 1992 and entering service was planned for 1996. Because the break-up of Yugoslavia this project was cancelled.Yugoslavia expected to build approximately 150 of these planes to replace its MiG-21s and J-21 Jastrebs, and a sale of several hundred Novi Avions on the world market was also anticipated. The term Novi Avion, which was used to describe the project, means "new aircraft" in Serbo-Croatian. I am wondering thinking if during 1999 Kosovo war against NATO Serbia had at least 30 - 40 of these planes if it would be made any difference?

    LINKS
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novi_Avion

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1QjOxEFqOA

    Novi_Avion_by_Nindza.jpg
     
  2. HJ Tulp Vice Admiral, Eutopian Navy

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Location:
    Amsterdam, the Netherlands
    Depends. Will the Yugosavs go for a different strategy to fight the Allies? The Yugo Air Force might take to the sky. In that case there will be a couple of aces more in the Allied Airforces and the airoffensive might be more effective. If not then it won't make a difference.
     
  3. MacCaulay Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Location:
    Iowa
    It looks like the LCA that the Indian Air Force uses. That's not surprising, the Indians and Yugoslavs worked together on engineering stuff in the past. I know that the Kaveri engine in the LCA was designed with some Yugoslav help.

    I'm going to go out on a limb and say the Yugoslav Air Force couldn't have pulled off a win, but perhaps they still could've made things harrier for the NATO air forces.

    As HJ said, more air-to-air kills for the Allies, and a situation more akin to the environment in the skies over Iraq in Desert Storm. Also, production would require extensive logistical facilities which would also bring in an extended air-to-ground target list.

    The Serbs also might be able to get away with more of their "shoot-and-scoot" raids across the border into Rrpblska Serbska (I think that's what the Serb enclave in Bosnia was called), since these things are obviously a bit faster than the J-22 or even the Super Orao.

    EDIT:
    Also...I'm assuming that since the French were working on this that the weapons suite was going to be French missiles on it? Or were the Yugoslavs going with Soviet ones? The French radar tells me that they'd just go with French missiles, but that's just an educated guess.
     
  4. NIK PARMEN Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Location:
    Athens,Greece
    I don't about any Indian involment but I know for certain that the French, Russians and Swedish were involved in this project. I also know that according to simulations that made by the French, Novi Avion could easily beat the F -16.
     
  5. CalBear Your Ursus arctos californicus Moderator Moderator Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2005
    The slobbering sound you are hearing in the background is all the NATO fighter jocks waiting to blow 30-40 Serbian fighters out of the sky.

    Let's be real here. Tale of the tape time

    Satellite intel (Real time) showing when the opponent is launching and from where:
    NATO - Yes
    Serbia - No

    AWACS airborne fighter direction (all combat veterans):
    NATO - Yes
    Serbia - No

    Air bases subject to long range strike and/or harrassing raids
    NATO - No
    Serbia - Yes

    Dedicated AEW platforms (combat proven):
    NATO - Yes
    Serbia - No

    Combat Veteran pilots:
    NATO - Yes
    Serbia - No

    200+ aircraft surge capacity:
    NATO - Yes
    Serbia - No

    Combat PROVEN (in several wars) fighter aircraft platoforms, AAM, fighter tactics, combat communications:
    NATO - Yes
    Serbia - No

    Serbia had some very good people, some very clever deployments. NATO hasd a force designed to engage and defeat the USSR (or more recently Iraq's large air force). Just AWACS support would mean the Serbs are doomed, you can't come up and fight in airspace if the other side owns all the information. Throw in all the rest and we are talking Bekka Valley here.

    All forty 4th Generation Serbian fighter would have cost NATO was some Red Paint and star stencils (along with some DFC, and maybe a Navy Cross or two)
     
  6. NothingNow Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Location:
    Greater Ybor City, FL
    Honestly, the Novi Avions might be an issue for NATO. Thanks to the reduced RCS and the Novi's (assumed) good maneuverability, It'd be hell for the Italians possibly Britain and France too, if the Yugoslav pilots are good enough. They might not stop the bombings, but they'd be a nuisance.

    I don't see the Novi really selling all that well overseas unless it's NATO compatible and cheap. Just look at how well the SAAB JAS-39C/D (NATO-friendly Variants) is selling. The Gripen only sold / leased 56 airframes overseas. It's cheaper than the F-16 and much more capable than the Novi with a lower risk of Foreign Object Damage (Chin intake = Series of horrible wrench related accidents).
     
  7. NIK PARMEN Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Location:
    Athens,Greece
    Firstly am not fun of Milosevic, secondly apart from the 14 MIG-29 (which had electronicts of 70's era) the rest serbian fleet were made by outdated planes (MIG-21, MIG-23, G-4, J-22).With the Novi Avion modern electronics it would be like Gripen or Rafale. About US air supermancy see this video

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrYNiPPNFtk
     
  8. HJ Tulp Vice Admiral, Eutopian Navy

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Location:
    Amsterdam, the Netherlands

    That F117 made regulary flights over the area at the exact same time with the exact same flightpath. Kudos to the Yugoslavs for bagging it but it doesn't prove anything.

    If you ask me, the Yugoslavs did the best with what they had. They didn't do much and thus created a airfleet-in-being which did more harm to NATO then it would have if they went out to engage NATO.
     
  9. NIK PARMEN Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Location:
    Athens,Greece
    this is a map showing the real NATO loses during Kosovo war. The Serbian Comander who shoot down the F-117 said: we are watching that plane on the radar from the first second until we hit it no doubt about it

    serbia.jpg
     
  10. CalBear Your Ursus arctos californicus Moderator Moderator Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2005
    While I will undoubtedly regret this...

    What AIRCRAFT do all those "x" represent? Or are they UAV (aka: throw aways)?
     
  11. NIK PARMEN Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Location:
    Athens,Greece
    95% of these X were made by serbian anti-aircraft missales. If Novi Avion was in service the loses it would be much higher
     
  12. Nietzsche Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2008
    He's asking what the aircraft that were shot down were. Are they Unmanned Ariel(Useless) or are they actual manned, fighter-aircraft?
     
  13. Atreus Deceased

    Wiki says that the weapons would have been French, or developed with French assistance.

    I would very much like to see the source for this.

    One question that should probably be raised is whether the Novi Avion can actually perform up to specifications. The number of much vaunted aircraft which turn out to have major issues once they see combat is really to long to begin to list. How is the novi avion going to fly once it gets off the drawing boards and into service? Any ideas?
     
  14. NIK PARMEN Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Location:
    Athens,Greece
    Not only UAV but also F-117, F-16, F-18, Tornado, Harrier and other types not only US but also European
     
  15. CalBear Your Ursus arctos californicus Moderator Moderator Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2005

    Okay.

    Reality check time # 2

    NATO losses:

    1 AH-64 (Training accident in ALBANIA)
    1 F-117 (SAM)
    1 F-16 (1994 SAM)
    1 F-16 (1999 SAM)
    1 F-16 (Engine Failure)
    1 Mirage 2000 (1995 MANPAD)
    1 Sea Harrier (SAM)
    30 or so UAV

    That is SIX manned losses in 140,000 combat sorties flown over three different periods totally more than 1,000 days.

    The USAF lost 5 F-16 Falcons in TRAINING accidents in FY 2007 inside the Continental U.S. (in FY 2000, it was NINE)

    That's right boys & girls, it was statistically more likely that the U.S. would lose a a Falcon over the UNITED STATES between 10/1/2006 and 9/30/07 (365 days) and in over 1,000 days of combat over Kosovo and Serbia (or THREE times more likely in FY 2000 than in roughly four YEARS of combat operations over the former Yugoslavia).

    http://usaf.aib.law.af.mil/



    The wild claims by the Serbian military are just that, Wild Claims. I won't bother to list the number of Serbian J-21, J-22 & MiG-29 that ate NATO AAM, since it was to be expected that anyone crazy brave enough to take off and challenge NATO was going to get his ass shot off.

    Is there ANYONE who actually believes that the U.S. could hide the losses of more than 30 NATO manned aircraft over Kosovo and Serbia for 10-15 YEARS?
     
  16. PhilKearny Free Bill Cameron! Free TFSmith121, too!

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Location:
    Evilvania
    The Novi Avion sounds like vapor ware. Capabilities are easy to claim but harder to deliver.
     
  17. MacCaulay Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Location:
    Iowa
    Hasn't this argument already been done do death in the late 90s? I remember it fondly (or not so fondly) from the pages of Air Forces Monthly. The Serb Government would put some astounding claim day after day about NATO aircraft shot down, where if you added it up would mean that Italy, France, and Britain wouldn't have any aircraft left, then NATO would release it's tallies and point out that if was going to cover up a shoot down it would most likely be the F-117 Stealth, then to prove their point like it meant something, the Serbs would show pictures of SA-8s with aircraft kill marks on the side, as if the only way to stencil an aircraft silhouette on a vehicle is by gaining the lifeblood of it's dead pilot or something.


    The big thing I was kind of weary of was the production numbers. SOKO was a reliable company for aircraft design (the Orao and Galeb were good aircraft for what they did), but 120 planes? Even if everything went smoothly on the development end, I'd give them 30 planes by 1999. And that's if NATO doesn't bomb the SOKO factory during the Bosnian campaign.
     
  18. NIK PARMEN Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Location:
    Athens,Greece
    Why do the Serbs Not Show More Photos of NATO Losses?

    The answer from:

    http://www.truthinmedia.org/Kosovo/War/day29up1.html

    (1) First, demand from your congressmen and senators that our Commander-in-Chief, the Pentagon and NATO the "proof" that the F-117 was the only NATO loss. Demand that they provide a full and immediate accounting of all losses to-date. After all, it is our money and lives with which they are playing. And we have the right to know. You would think... Clinton, on the other hand, should be well aware of how badly NATO's face has been bloodied by Yugoslav AAA defenses. And that's even without using as yet to their most sophisticated air defense systems. As a high-level Yugoslav source told us this weekend in Belgrade, "we're saving those for the end."
    (2) Every once in a while, however, some "proof" emerges, usually sourced to the media. When we come across those, we share it with TiM readers (search our past TiM Bulletins using appropriate keywords).
    For example, TiM readers should tell their congressmen and senators to listen to a recording which we've just received from a Belgrade Web site - Beonet.yu. It is a tape of what appears to be an authentic conversation between NATO pilots and the AWACS controllers, which confirms the loss of at least one American aircraft on Sunday (an F-16, according to Yugoslav sources). You can listen to the clip at http://www.beonet.yu/awacs.ram . But we have to warn you, Beonet's audio line capacity is low, and demand high. So be patient...
    Meanwhile, here are some snippets of the conversations which we caught when we listened to a 6 minutes and 48 seconds-long recording
    ---
    Right at the start of the clip, one could hear an AWACS controller saying that they had lost contact with "Fortune 5."
    At about 125 minutes of the clip, one can hear a dramatic, panic-stricken voice (of another pilot?) shouting, "Mayday, mayday, mayday... [unintelligible] is hit, and is ejecting."
    At around 300 minutes of the clip, an AWACS controller says "Bug out now... all aircraft have been instructed to evacuate the area."
    At about 420 minutes of the clip, an AWACS controller says "They've got a good shoot.. Now they've got everybody folding out of the target areas... the guy has not come up on the radio yet.... He was making multiple passes underneath the weather."
    At about 540 minutes of the clip, an AWACS controller says "I cannot confirm it at this time... Our last contact was when he ejected."
    ---
    In addition, there are some other source on the Web which are offering the "proof" for which some TiM readers have asked. One of them is http://members.xoom.com/ggromozeka/aviation/, operated by Venik, an aviation buff and expert. This site even offers a map which shows locations of specific shoot-downs of NATO planes (see below). Here is an excerpt from an explanation which this expert offers as to why there is a dearth of physical evidence:
    "Many people e-mail me asking why wouldn't Yugoslav TV show pictures of more downed NATO aircraft, as it showed images of the shot down American F-117. There are at least a couple of good reasons for that


    "Many people e-mail me asking why wouldn't Yugoslav TV show pictures of more downed NATO aircraft, as it showed images of the shot down American F-117. There are at least a couple of good reasons for that
    The main problem is that NATO aircraft operate at high altitudes to avoid Yugoslavia's numerous AAAs and man-portable SAMs. When an aircraft is hit by a large SAM missile (like SA-2, SA-3, or SA-6), what falls to the ground are very small pieces of the aircraft - hundreds or even thousands of them, possibly covering an area of several square kilometers. There simply would be nothing to photograph. This was often the case when high-flying Soviet aircraft were shot down over Afghanistan. I have seen numerous photos of Soviet planes crashed in Afghanistan - such images would be interesting only for aviation experts but completely useless in terms of propaganda what remained from crashed planes could hardly be recognized as an aircraft by a non-professional. NATO claimed to have shot down many Yugoslav aircraft (according to NATO, they destroyed 50% of Yugoslavia's MiGs, which would amount to at least 35 aircraft), however, they also failed to provide any proof (except for the one or two MiG-29s of questionable origin shot down over Bosnia, at least one of which looks suspiciously more like an American F-15, and video images taken by an aircraft's targeting camera of, presumably, a Yugoslav Mi-8 helicopter - that's it). And NATO has very capable photo and video reconnaissance aircraft, including the U-2 and a number of highly advanced UAVs, such as Predator and Hunter, not to mention that all NATO aircraft are equipped with video recording devices.
    Yugoslav media was lucky to photograph the remains of the downed F-117. This was because the aircraft's pilot was probably trying to crash-land his aircraft or to eject at low altitude (which he did, since he landed only two miles from the crash site). There was a clearly visible landing gear of the F-117 in the video footage shown on Yugoslav TV this is a good indication that the gear was lowered, perhaps as an attempt to crash-land. The pilot wanted to keep the aircraft in one piece, presumably so that it could be destroyed by a cruise missile or a laser bomb before Serb troops got their hands on the remains. Or, perhaps, the pilot was simply forced into low-level flight by the circumstances of his encounter with Yugoslav air defenses.
    There were reports in Russian military publications back from the Persian Gulf War again Iraq Iraq claimed to have shot down a US F-117, but failed to present any proof because the aircraft's remains were hit by a laser-guided bomb before Iraqi troops found the crash site.
    Yugoslavia is not Russia, but it is a fairly large country nevertheless, with mountainous terrain and forests. If a damaged NATO aircraft crashes in hundreds of pieces (or even in one piece), finding it may be impossible, especially if the aircraft crashed some distance away from populated areas. There is little doubt that NATO pilots would try to eject over unpopulated areas in order to avoid being found by Serb troops or by civilians.
    Also, Yugoslavia does not have anything nearly as advanced as NATO reconnaissance aircraft, and searching for aircraft remains on foot or on vehicles is a lengthy and dangerous process, considering that NATO rescue forces have a much better chance of finding ejected pilots, crash sites as well as of directing other NATO aircraft to erase any evidence of crashed aircraft with precision weapons."
     
  19. MacCaulay Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Location:
    Iowa
    I've seen that picture. The Fulcrum has been flattened like a pancake because of how hard it landed. If someone can't tell the difference between an F-15 and a MiG-29, then there's no way they're going to be convinced by any sort of facts or logical points I can make.

    As for that whole "landing gear" thing, the article supposes that a landing gear would take less damage and therefore be more intact if it was lowered on a crash landing instead of kept up inside the fuselage of an aircraft. I honestly don't agree with that.



    As for that radio transcript, I'm less than enthused. I've heard a lot of radio tape from a guy in England that managed to get a fair bit. Had you said something like "The Serbs were lighting up more jets with their radars in the air than NATO wanted to let on," I would've totally agreed with you. But they weren't connecting with missiles for the most part. Had they really taken those amounts of shots, then the Serb regime would've been out of SAMs to shoot within a couple of weeks.
     
  20. daniel_g Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    The Yugoslav SAMs were of high enough quality to pose a significant threat to NATO forces. The NATO air assets in the theatre were predominantly close air support as there was no air to air threat. If the Novi Avion existed, I suspect NATO would have added several US F-15s or Italian Tornado ADVs to the theatre (Whilst the maneuverability of the Tornado is questionable, the quality of its air intercept missiles are not). The combination of F-15s and AWACS would ensure that all Novi Avions that took off would be destroyed by beyond visual range weapons before their weapons could engage. That's if they and their runways were not destroyed on the ground.

    I'm all for nations developing their own indigenous defensive capabilities as it keeps the US on their toes. However, any thinking that there is a nation in the world that could do anything but capitulate to the USA in symmetrical warfare is wishful thinking!!

    p.s. the F-117 is 1960s/1970s technology deigned to be a 'low observable' not invisible aircraft. The USAF flies it's (slow and unmaneuverable) low observable aircraft in very specific mission profiles to avoid detection or engagement. Shooting down an F-117 does not suddenly mean you have a technological or military advantage over the USA!!!
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2009