WorldWar2.ro Forum [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

WorldWar2.ro Forum > The post-WW2 and recent military > What was best Mig fighter used by the Romania?

Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu September 22, 2009 07:13 pm

What was best model Mig used by the Romanian Air Force and why? I voted for Mig-21M/MF Fishbed because of its service length, ability to be upgraded, low maintenance costs, and dogfighting ability!

Posted by: Hadrian September 22, 2009 07:18 pm

I voted for the Mig-29, the only one that could stand as equal (almost) against any other fighters, because of the maneuvrability and BVR weapons.
I was anyway very inclined to vote the 21, because of the service lenght, significance in numbers, also capability after the LanceR upgrade.

Posted by: dead-cat September 22, 2009 07:24 pm

actually the MiG-29A quite sucks at BVR.
your probably meant WVR where, during the 90ies the MiG29 with Archer was the best aircraft for that scenario, until newer designs came along.

Posted by: Hadrian September 22, 2009 07:52 pm

R-27 Alamo isn`t the best BVR missile indeed, indeed. But it was the only one we had up to the moment. Even the LanceR carries only MAGIC-2`s and Phyton-3`s...

Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu September 22, 2009 09:09 pm

QUOTE (Hadrian @ September 22, 2009 07:18 pm)

The Mig-29 is great choice, it would be my second pick! However the fact that the Mig-21M/MF out lasted it, in my mind puts it a head!

All of the Migs models in this poll were equal to any fighter in their day? from the Mig-15 to the Mig-29 Fulcrum!

Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu September 22, 2009 09:16 pm

QUOTE (dead-cat @ September 22, 2009 07:24 pm)

actually the MiG-29A quite sucks at BVR.
your probably meant WVR where, during the 90ies the MiG29 with Archer was the best aircraft for that scenario, until newer designs came along.

Who says the Mig-29 sucks at BVR combat? The Mig-29A 9-12 was designed to out-fight the F-16A/B and F/A-18A/B, which it could! The early F-16A's had no bvr ability, and F/A-18A was out-ranged the Fulcrum. Both in terms of radar and aam's.

Posted by: dead-cat September 22, 2009 09:35 pm

QUOTE

Who says the Mig-29 sucks at BVR combat?

"Jane's MIG-29: At the Controls" by Jon Lake

Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu September 22, 2009 09:48 pm

QUOTE (dead-cat @ September 22, 2009 09:35 pm)

QUOTE

Who says the Mig-29 sucks at BVR combat?

"Jane's MIG-29: At the Controls" by Jon Lake

Based on what? show me the paragraph!

Anyway BVR has always been mostly theory, not reality!

Posted by: dead-cat September 22, 2009 09:53 pm

based on pilot experiences who flew both aircraft and common exercises with the MiG-29 squadrons of the luftwaffe.
you might want to look up the pages about sensors.
can't show you online, as i have the book printed.

the radar of the MiG-29B (which is the one we got) is rather rudimentary compared to the western equivalents. that is coupled with a rather average R-27 missile, which, because of radar limitations couldn't be used at max. range.

Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu September 22, 2009 10:13 pm

QUOTE (dead-cat @ September 22, 2009 09:53 pm)

As I said its nothing more then theory! And this not the latest model Mig-29 flying against newer upgraded NATO fighters! As I already said the Mig-29A 9-12 was designed to out-fight the F-16A and F/A-18A hornet. The Isreali's admit that even the Mig-23MF was superior to the origanal F-16A BVR combat, because the First F-16's had no BVR capability! And in BVR combat between the F/A-18 armed with AIM-7F sparrows and the Mig-29 Fulcrum armed with AA-10 alomo's, the Mig-29A is superior!

Thank you

Posted by: dead-cat September 23, 2009 07:58 am

QUOTE

As I said its nothing more then theory! And this not the latest model Mig-29 flying against newer upgraded NATO fighters!

certainly it is not the latest. but if you look at the topic of the thread you created, it was about the best MiG used by Romania. Which would be the MiG-29B i was talking about.
nowadays the "west" would bring modernized versions too.

QUOTE

As I already said the Mig-29A 9-12 was designed to out-fight the F-16A and F/A-18A hornet.

in a BVR engagement NATO pilots rated the MiG-29/AA-10 "a sparrow level of threat". AMRAAM became available in the early 90ies, from then it's game over. therefore, if you rate the Alamo better than the Sparrow (i have no idea if the F-16 and the F-18 could carry the Phoenix), then the MiG-29 enjoyed a window of advantage of around 5 years.

Posted by: Vici September 23, 2009 09:18 am

QUOTE (Hadrian @ September 22, 2009 07:52 pm)

R-27 Alamo isn`t the best BVR missile indeed, indeed. But it was the only one we had up to the moment. Even the LanceR carries only MAGIC-2`s and Phyton-3`s...

Not sure what you mean by "up to the moment", but MiG-23 MF was also BVR capable, with R-23R and R-23T.

Regarding the types in the poll, we never had any MiG-17A, just F and PF (12 each); and no MiG-19S, just P and PM. And by the way, the correct spelling of the type is MiG (Mikoyan i Gurievich), not Mig.

Comparing fighters from diferent generations is just plain useless

At the time of introduction into service with RoAF, each type brought some capability which was not available before, but that does not mean it was better than the previos models in all aspects.

Posted by: PanzerKing September 23, 2009 05:27 pm

Speaking of the MiG-29, did Romanian ever sell hers to anyone or are they still in storage?

If it is of any interest, I know that Navy F-14 pilots treated the MiG-29 with great respect. They considered it equal and only the pilot's ability made the difference in a fight. They trained with former East German MiG-29 pilots in mock combat, as practice in case they came in contact with Serbian MiG-29s, and they frequently lost. I read this in "Black Aces High" by Robert Wilcox. It is about the combat over former Yugoslavia in 1999.

Posted by: Vici September 24, 2009 06:49 am

17 Fulcrums are for sale (3 UB, 1 C and 14 A), while the Sniper upgrade prototype is at the Aviation Museum. There was some rumor a few years back about India being interested in a couple of UBs, but nothing came out of it.

dead-cat, you mentioned we got MiG-29B. Let's clear things up a bit.
the MiG-29 Fulcrum A had three sub-variants:
izdeliye (product):
9-12 for USSR use only
9-12A for Warsaw Pact and close allies (Cuba, North Korea)
9-12B for everybody else (Arabs)

The MiG-29 A we got in the first batch (12 A and 4 UB) delivered in 1989-1990 were 9-12A version. The other 4 we received in 1992 and 94 (IIRC) as attrition replacements (serials 33,38 and 35,54) were 9-12B, because MiG-29 was no longer in production and they had a lot of 9-12B built for Iraq and not delivered due to the Gulf War.

Posted by: dead-cat September 24, 2009 07:49 am

according to what i read, they said the B-12 was for the "allies", the version the GDR supposedly also got, with less capable avionics.
but i stand corrected.

Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu September 24, 2009 04:15 pm

QUOTE (dead-cat @ September 23, 2009 07:58 am)

QUOTE

As I said its nothing more then theory! And this not the latest model Mig-29 flying against newer upgraded NATO fighters!

QUOTE

As I already said the Mig-29A 9-12 was designed to out-fight the F-16A and F/A-18A hornet.

Once again when the Mig-29 was designed the best BVR AAM that NATO had was the sparrow family, the AA-10 was at least as good! The ARAAM did enter service until the early 90's at which point the Russians had AA-12, is equal or better then the ARAAM! So Mig-29 had advantage of more them a decade, and as I stated was superior when it was designed! And by the Mig-29 could have and should upgraded to fire either AA-12's or ARAAM's! and the RADAR could have also been updated/improved! Finally from the dawn of air to air until the current the vast majority of air to air combats have been close range! So BVR combats is mostly theorical!

Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu September 24, 2009 04:18 pm

QUOTE (Vici @ September 23, 2009 09:18 am)

QUOTE (Hadrian @ September 22, 2009 07:52 pm)

R-27 Alamo isn`t the best BVR missile indeed, indeed. But it was the only one we had up to the moment. Even the LanceR carries only MAGIC-2`s and Phyton-3`s...

At the time of introduction into service with RoAF, each type brought some capability which was not available before, but that does not mean it was better than the previos models in all aspects.

No I disagree, for example late model Mig-21's have often out lived their intended replacements the Mig-23 and Mig-29!

Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu September 24, 2009 04:21 pm

QUOTE (PanzerKing @ September 23, 2009 05:27 pm)

They are all in open storage at constanta! What a waste of Romania's only 4th generation fighters!

They should have been upgraded!

Posted by: dead-cat September 24, 2009 04:58 pm

on thing is "desgined for" another thing is what came out. the Alamo (as the Sparrow) needed radar guidance from the aircraft that launched the missile.
with the radar present in the early MiG-29 versions, the range advantage over the Sparrow was all but gone.
that and the bigger tracking range for the AN/APG-66 in the early F-16s didn't make the MiG-29/Alamo package in BVR look all that impressing to the western pilots, where the comment "Sparrow level of threat" stems from.

i am not commenting on the seeker or the ECM resistence, as i know no relevant technical details (given that they're military secrets)

QUOTE

Finally from the dawn of air to air until the current the vast majority of air to air combats have been close range!

since when do BVR capable missiles exist? late 50ies?
given the massive number of aircraft involved in ww2, obviously that is where the most A-A engagements took place. and since the main weapon was the MG and the cannon, the engagements were obviously "close range".

with evolving technology, the BVR missiles however started to become usable.
the so far only MiG-29 kill by a (dutch) F-16 was by a BVR missile (AMRAAM)
for example, the USAF F-15s have so far, 8 Sidewinder kills, 25 Sparrow and 4 AMRAAM kills.

Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu September 24, 2009 06:48 pm

QUOTE (dead-cat @ September 24, 2009 04:58 pm)

QUOTE

Finally from the dawn of air to air until the current the vast majority of air to air combats have been close range!

F-16's use APG-65 radar, the APG-66 is down rated version for BAE Hawk Mk.200, and Argentina's updated A-4's. The F-16 does not have a longer range RADAR then the Mig-29 or Mig-23MF/ML, this according to the Isreali Air Force who tested captured Migs against their F-16's. The opinion of NATO pilots is just an opinion and one that is perhaps tainted, why don't you ask Russian pilots how they feel?

It true that kills have been made ARAAMs and sparrows, as well other bvr aams such as AA-10, AA-23 tec...
however few of those kills have been from BVR! AS for F-15 in operation desert storm accoding to the Iraqi Air Forces records, kill claims are greatly overclaimed!

by least 50%

Posted by: dead-cat September 24, 2009 07:35 pm

from what i read, the APG-65 is mounted by the F/A-18
here they say the early F-16 had the APG-66
http://www.avitop.com/interact/radar.htm
whose range is up to 150km.
the early MiG-29 mounted the RLPK-29 with a range up to about 140km.
late upgrades incereased the respective ranges of course.

QUOTE

The opinion of NATO pilots is just an opinion and one that is perhaps tainted, why don't you ask Russian pilots how they feel?

i didn't ask NATO pilots either. i read some books where people, who flew both aircraft (and some dedicated east german pilots who flew MiG-29s) in test scenarios were quoted.
i have no books where russian pilots who flew both aircraft would be quoted.
having not flown any of the above aircrafts in "real life" and i suppose F4AF doesn't count, i can only offer 3rd party opinions. just like most of us.

Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu September 24, 2009 08:43 pm

QUOTE (dead-cat @ September 24, 2009 07:35 pm)

QUOTE

The opinion of NATO pilots is just an opinion and one that is perhaps tainted, why don't you ask Russian pilots how they feel?

Your right the the f-16 does use the APG-66, however 150 km is not the range of the early versions, as you point out the Russian updates have greater ranges so the advantage is always mig-29. Even todays 150km is not against fighters its more like 70-80km; The 150km range is only under optimal conditions and against something huge like a boeing 747! Also the Mig-29 has the a Infer-Red Search and Track system, which the F-16 does not! Advantage the Mig-29 does not need radar to engage in air to air combat and the IRST can't be jammed! However if the F-16's radar is turned off or jammed it is blind!

Well in1994 an Israeli instructor (who couldn't be named) with exp. in both types-
Had this to say" The Mig-29 is the most dangrous adversary that the IAF faces today! Compared to the F-16A it is has better acceleration, is superior in both the veritical and horizontal planes, has an IRST and an excellent array of AAM's AA-8, AA-11, AA-10. Our only advantages are in ECM, AWACS and Elint support,
and most importantly pilot training."

Posted by: Vici September 25, 2009 06:53 am

QUOTE ("dead-cat")

the so far only MiG-29 kill by a (dutch) F-16 was by a BVR missile (AMRAAM)

Another MiG-29 was shot down by a USAF F-16 during Allied Force

Stephen, what about correcting the types in the poll? That would surely be more productive than the endless F-16 vs. MiG-29 debate...

Posted by: dead-cat September 25, 2009 01:29 pm

QUOTE (Vici @ September 25, 2009 07:53 am)

Another MiG-29 was shot down by a USAF F-16 during Allied Force

that kill is disputed. serbs say it was friendly fire.

Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu September 29, 2009 10:24 pm

QUOTE (Vici @ September 25, 2009 06:53 am)

QUOTE ("dead-cat")

the so far only MiG-29 kill by a (dutch) F-16 was by a BVR missile (AMRAAM)

Another MiG-29 was shot down by a USAF F-16 during Allied Force

Stephen, what about correcting the types in the poll? That would surely be more productive than the endless F-16 vs. MiG-29 debate...

I will decide whats most productive for me to do!

However if you can provide with sources which that some of the subtypes listed are wrong, then I will consider making corrections! fair enough?

Posted by: Vici September 30, 2009 08:40 am

As I said on the other page, we did not have MiG-17 A, but F and PF, and no MiG-19S, but P and PM.

Check the book "Aviaţia de luptă reactivă în România 1951-2001" by Paul Sandachi, Editura Regina din Arcadia 2001

or go to the Aviation Museum and see the MiG-17 PF and MiG-19 P/PM yourself. The employees there will be able to confirm that we didn't have 17A and 19S.

If you don't have the posibility to visit the museum, check the list of airframes displayed:
http://www.aviationmuseum.eu/World/Europe/Romania/Bucharest/Muzeul_Aviatiei.htm

You can also look on airliners.net, jetphotos.net and similar aviation photography sites, see what MiG-17 and 19 versions we have in the museum.

I'm curious (seriously) from where did you have the info that we got Mig-17A and 19S, I haven't seen such a mistaake anywhere, even on the most wrong internet articles about the RoAF.

Posted by: BALLY December 23, 2009 10:12 am

I think the best fighter for his time in ROAF was MiG-15. This aircraft proved his value against all his opponents during Korea conflict.

Posted by: contras December 29, 2009 07:39 pm

I think the best Mig used by Romanian Air Force is Mig-21 Lancer. Its upgrade made him compatibile with NATO air force, and, most important, its performances are regognized by NATO comand. Two exemples:
At NATO Summit in Bucarest, April 2008, Romanian Air Force protected alone Romanian Air space. Six years ago, in 2002, at NATO Summit in Prague, Checz asked for suport at NATO for air protection. Romania didn't need this.
Second, in 2008 I think, Romanian Mig's 21 Lancer were six months on duty to protect air space of Baltic States. They did their duty oK, NATO Command was satisfied.

Posted by: Imperialist December 29, 2009 10:22 pm

QUOTE (contras @ December 29, 2009 07:39 pm)

Two exemples:
At NATO Summit in Bucarest, April 2008, Romanian Air Force protected alone Romanian Air space. Six years ago, in 2002, at NATO Summit in Prague, Checz asked for suport at NATO for air protection. Romania didn't need this.

That's not what I remember, so after a brief google search this is what I found:

http://www.mediafax.ro/externe/exclusiv-f-15-f-16-fighting-falcon-si-avioane-cisterna-kc-135e-pentru-securitatea-summitului-2492647

Posted by: contras December 29, 2009 11:07 pm

OK, we talk here about backing, not protecting. This is diferent. We can protect ourselfs, but someone must backing us. It is a major diference, Checz needed protection, we acepted backup. And what about the second part, protection of Baltic States?

Posted by: Hadrian December 30, 2009 10:45 pm

The baltic mission was a good image example for RoAF. It was also a little ironic (Migs against Russia).

On the other hand, it would be interesting to see an intercept of the Su-27 by a Lancer cell. The Sukhoy would be a little constrained by range issues to use extensively afterburner, thus bringing an amount of leveling in the game. Also it would have been a contest between Su`s maneuvrability and the DASH helmet. Also the minimal amount of flight hours russian pilots get would enable them to fully use the Su-27`s capabilities?...

Posted by: contras December 31, 2009 12:00 am

About russian pilots, in Russia-Georgia war, in august 2008, in 5 days of conflict, russians lost 4 aircrafts.

Posted by: Hadrian January 02, 2010 12:59 am

http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/2009-110-28.camOu

The tactical aviation pilots fly 20-25 hours per year.
Our Lancers still remain a credible asset in this conditions...

Posted by: Imperialist January 02, 2010 02:29 am

QUOTE (contras @ December 31, 2009 12:00 am)

About russian pilots, in Russia-Georgia war, in august 2008, in 5 days of conflict, russians lost 4 aircrafts.

Russia lost six planes in its war with Georgia last August, not four as was officially announced, and at least three were downed by "friendly fire", a Russian military journal reported.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL8262192

Posted by: udar January 02, 2010 03:47 pm

QUOTE (Hadrian @ December 30, 2009 10:45 pm)

The baltic mission was a good image example for RoAF. It was also a little ironic (Migs against Russia).

Hmm, i really hope we'll have some more modern aircrafts as soon as possible, since even Mig 21 Lancers had a very fine avionics, they are still outdated as construction

Posted by: Hadrian January 02, 2010 04:27 pm

Indeed, outdated and also tired. Airframe fatigue depends of age and flight hours, avionics can`t change this. And the Lancers soldiered for almost 40 years..
That`s why, because of numbers and service time, I consider them the most significant aircraft for our Airforce, and my vote went for them.
Unfortunatly, because of economic situation, they will still defend us at least for 2-3 another years.

Posted by: udar January 05, 2010 05:49 pm

QUOTE (Hadrian @ January 02, 2010 04:27 pm)

Yes, as service, they was the best, but as pure technical capabilities, Mig 29 was obviously better.

Posted by: contras January 05, 2010 06:49 pm

QUOTE

Yes, as service, they was the best, but as pure technical capabilities, Mig 29 was obviously better.

I don't really now how Mig-29 would looked modernized, and if it could be, but I'm sure it'a quite difference between Mig 21 and Mig-21 Lancer. Sure it's a difference between Mig 21 and Mig 29 (a plus, 29 it looks better), but on many privinces Lancer and Mig 29 are quite appropiate. I do not refer at technical performances, like range, ceiling, etc. I refer here just at standing each against other in battle. Because there are much other factors they could compensate some advantages of each or other.
An important factor is the pilot, maybe the most important factor.

Posted by: udar January 06, 2010 01:45 pm

QUOTE (contras @ January 05, 2010 06:49 pm)

QUOTE

Yes, as service, they was the best, but as pure technical capabilities, Mig 29 was obviously better.

Well, a modernisation of Mig 29 was tried, with Mig 29 Sniper prototype, but the fact that the resource of the engines and other materials was passed off, and new stuff from russians was hard to achieve, it was ged rid of them unfortunately (and premature i think), since i like very much Mig 29. Probably, in "good ol" tradition of things who happened in the interbelic period, some persons even want that to happen soon, so to buy stuff from outside, for a nice "comision" and regardless of how good or bad are the "new" (or second hand) things achieved.
But, with avionics and new equipments (as DASH helmets, new radar and new AA more maneuvrable rockets) Mig 21 Lancer can compete with other more modern jets, but as Hadrian said, they have a really outdated and tired airframe, and new planes are needed soon.

Posted by: Hadrian January 06, 2010 04:41 pm

The Sniper program was similar with the Lancer, except it kept the old radar. The 29 is a more capable aircraft, with more range, maneuvrability and payload. On the other hand the 21 is easier to mantain and cheaper to fly.

The russians were very angry about it because they were not involved in modernisation (they called it "unauthorised" )

, and afraid this could lead to taking over the lucrative market from them. We couldn`t get new engines and ocould ther spares from them. On the other hand, we assimilated the capital repairs in country for the 21's since the seventies, and we could procure spares from outside and from canibalising the unmodernised aircrafts. We could modernise 110 MiG-21 or 16 MiG-29`s, so logic dictated the first solution.

Posted by: contras January 07, 2010 09:27 am

A few years ago, I read that we made an offer to modernise Croatian Migs 21. It was about one first lot of 4 Migs, who Romania will modernise with Lancer program. Do you know something else?

Posted by: Vici January 07, 2010 11:38 am

It is a common mistake that the Croatian MiGs got the Lancer upgrade. They didn't.

It was just a normal overhaul coupled with a limited upgrde to allow them to safely operate in a civilian ATC environment and participate in NATO exercises. For this purpose a few systems were replaced with the same ones used on Lancer (navigation, comms and IFF). That's it, the weapons system, radar, cockpit, RWR, etc. remained the same.

The Croats sent 4 MiG-21 UM and 8 MiG-21 bis at Aerostar in 2003, after the overhaul and limited upgrade they were redesignated UMD and bisD (D stands for upgraded in Croatian language)

I've talked with a Croatian pilot and he said they've sent their worst planes at Aerostar, not the best as it's usually done in such cases. The reason was they intended to get some sort of license from Aerostar and perform the same work in Croatia on another 20 MiGs. They didn't get the license nor funds from their Government so they got stuck with the 12 worst birds in the fleet flying and the rest grounded and used for spares. Needless to say they had (probably still have) plenty of problems with maintaining them airworthy.

Posted by: contras January 07, 2010 11:46 am

Thank you, Vici, for the answers. Those are interesting facts.
Do you know anything about the upgrade of Saudi Arabian's Puma by IAR Ghimbav and Elbit? There was an another country still interested about upgradind their Puma helicopters.

Posted by: Vici January 07, 2010 12:04 pm

The Pumas are from the United Arab Emirates. They are designated IAR-330 SM. 24 of them, upgraded with French stuff, including Makila engines (same as thoe used on Super Puma). Elbit dos not participate, it's an Israeli company. No Arab customer will accept Israeli equipment on its aircraft, especially military !!!

You'll find a lot of pictures of them the IAR Brasov site:
http://www.iar.ro/photogallery.html

Posted by: contras January 18, 2010 07:50 pm

QUOTE

Russia lost six planes in its war with Georgia last August, not four as was officially announced, and at least three were downed by "friendly fire", a Russian military journal reported.

I only know about for (3 Su-27 and one Tu-22M). Which were the other two?

Posted by: Iamandi January 19, 2010 06:09 am

QUOTE (Vici @ January 07, 2010 12:04 pm)

(Off topic)

What romanian IAR 330 variant have Makila engines?

Posted by: Vici January 19, 2010 07:24 am

None.

When the SOCAT upgrade was in its project stage, there was the intention to put Makila engines on them, but later it was dropped due to cost (among with other stuff such as air to air missiles, Kevlar and ceramics ballistic protection, etc.)

Than the IAR-330M upgrade (or Puma NATO) was rumored to have 4 of the 16 upgraded helicopters modified with Makila engines, but apparently it also never came to fruition.

Posted by: contras January 19, 2010 06:58 pm

Maybe is a little out of topic, but I'm sure you'll find interesting. About selling NATO arms to Russia.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/06/russias_new_arms_dealers?page=full