WI more effective against a Mig 21?

MacCaulay

Banned
You're now drifting the topic to pilot training rather than aircraft effectiveness which is the thread title.

The Meteor was inferior but the pilot quality was simply far too extreme, you're talking about 300+ hours verus at most 30 hours of training. That's not a condition any airforce wants to count on. It doesn't make the Meteor the right fighter to go up against MiG-15s.

I know it's muddying the waters, but aircraft never engage in a bubble and you've got to remember that. The kind of countries that would have the opportunity to buy the Hunter would have better pilots training programs because that's what goes along with Western equipment.

A book that talks about Soviet aid and the tangential things that go along with it would be Phoenix over the Nile by Lon Nordeen, which focuses alot on the relationship between the Egyptian Air Force and the Soviets and how the Egyptians felt that the Soviets were hiding so much from them that they actually created an alternate flying school with the Pakistanis and other Middle Eastern countries.
 
I've often wondered if a country could fight a western style of war with Soviet equipment? Does a Mig21 need tight GCI control, or it is basically capable enough to do what the Israelis did with the Mirage III?
 

MacCaulay

Banned
I've often wondered if a country could fight a western style of war with Soviet equipment?

Well, it seems that the Indians learned how to do it on some level. Air Warfare in the Missile Age (again, by Lon Nordeen) does point out that the Indians were in an interesting position where they could buy the equipment without the accessories, as it were.

Sure, they needed to learn how to fly the MiG 21s. But as far as learning how to fight in them, they were using a doctrine that was far more rooted in Royal Air Force methods.

Does a Mig21 need tight GCI control, or it is basically capable enough to do what the Israelis did with the Mirage III?

I think it depends on which type. I know there were Indian pilots that could fly lone patrols with it, and the Egyptians had a certain type at one time which was actually rather good. But then it got replaced with one that was worse: something to do with a radar that had more range but overheated or something. I'm fuzzy on the details; I don't actually own Phoenix over the Nile, I checked it out from a library and I don't want to start citing facts from a source I don't have right with me.
 
Phoenix over the Nile, [/I]I checked it out from a library and I don't want to start citing facts from a source I don't have right with me.

The RP-21 Sapfir, Nato reporting name-Spin scan-A, was the offending radar. It was also heavy, and didn't live up to range claims.

Nowadays, you can buy -21's with glass cockpits and Phazotron Kopyo Pulse-Doppler radars.
 
The Indo-Pak war shows that 50s planes still had plenty of work to do in an environment that included supersonic fighters with missiles and even AEW.

I returned the updated Nordeen to the library today, but I have the original so I'll have another look through it.
 
Where does the Il 28 fit into this picture? The Canberra was everywhere, bombing the crap out of everything from the mid 50s until well into the 70s. But it's Soviet counterpart, of which 6000 were built, doesn't seem to have done similar deeds. If the Canberra can survive and thrive why not the Il 28?
 
I know it's muddying the waters, but aircraft never engage in a bubble and you've got to remember that. The kind of countries that would have the opportunity to buy the Hunter would have better pilots training programs because that's what goes along with Western equipment.

A book that talks about Soviet aid and the tangential things that go along with it would be Phoenix over the Nile by Lon Nordeen, which focuses alot on the relationship between the Egyptian Air Force and the Soviets and how the Egyptians felt that the Soviets were hiding so much from them that they actually created an alternate flying school with the Pakistanis and other Middle Eastern countries.

What we can conclude is Soviet training + Arab air force = bad performance. It does not follow that the Soviets using their own equipment could not best a Western air force flying outdated aircraft.

Furthermore as you've noted in your anecdote, the Pakistani pilots are well respected but they also operate Soviet designed equipment. It cannot be assumed that just because the opposition is flying Soviet aircraft that the pilot must be ill trained, have no access to Western training, or have not developed independent air doctrine.
 
Pakistan, probably a Sabre Mk6 against an Indian Mig 21FL?

This sort of thing happens all the time, an Air America UH 1 helicopter shot down an An 2 cargo biplane in Vietnam.
 
It's a little off-topic, but I saw an AN2 fly 500 feet over my head a week ago. Small world. It was flying very slow; the engine was barely ticking over.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
The Indo-Pak war shows that 50s planes still had plenty of work to do in an environment that included supersonic fighters with missiles and even AEW.


Especially with the fact that at least a dozen of the Pakistani Sabres could carry Sidewinders.

What we can conclude is Soviet training + Arab air force = bad performance. It does not follow that the Soviets using their own equipment could not best a Western air force flying outdated aircraft.

Furthermore as you've noted in your anecdote, the Pakistani pilots are well respected but they also operate Soviet designed equipment. It cannot be assumed that just because the opposition is flying Soviet aircraft that the pilot must be ill trained, have no access to Western training, or have not developed independent air doctrine.

To cite Air Warfare in the Missile Age by Nordeen again, I can say that in my informed opinion that's not true.

Beginning in the late-60s and on through up to 1972 (what they call the War of Attrition), the Soviets manned Egyptian air defenses at various levels and in various positions. SAM operators, radars, and at the height of their involvement during the War of Attrition, the Soviets even flew CAPs in Egyptian-painted MiGs.

They decided that they'd send fresh planes to Egypt to replace combat losses there, manned by the pilots that would fly the CAP. As the Soviet planes (in Egyptian markings) neared the coast in international airspace they received a call over open radio channels: "Welcome to the fight." (I shit you not.)
It was at that point that the Soviets were jumped by Israeli Mirages and cut up. Over a dozen MiG 21s were inbound to an airfield outside Alexandria, but only two made it with no Israeli losses.

The Soviets were caught in a position where they had less than optimal fuel and so could not maneuver as agressively as some USAF folks thought they might have but subsequent fights showed that it probably wouldn't have made a difference: the MiG 21 isn't a dogfighter, it's an interceptor. And when the Ha'avir has an area staked out like they obviously must have, the Soviets just couldn't compete.
 
Top