German Airforce sold Mig29




 
--
 
June 27th, 2005  
Macoy
 

Topic: German Airforce sold Mig29


In 1989, when both Germanies unite, the west german army inherited the whole east german army and also some Mig 29.

Some years ago they sold all Mig's for the symbolic price of 1 Euro (!!!) to poland. The former Mig29 squadrons (at least they where 10 yrs. in service) where then equipped with F-4 or Tornado Aircrafts.

For me this is a great stupidity, because the F-4 is not really up to date and the Tornado is not designed for the role as air superiority fighter.

What is your opinion ?
June 27th, 2005  
PershingOfLSU
 
Maintaining a small fleet of foreign air craft with seperate needs for replacement parts is a logistical burden. Not to mention that you need to have a core of maintenance personel for a small number of air craft. For years not the Mig-29's have been costing the German air force more money then they're worth and there sale has been expected.

Frankly it's a smart move to save money in the long term that could be spent in other areas far more efficiently.
June 27th, 2005  
Jäger
 
 
Really 1 Euro? That was new to me. I would have payed 2 or maybe 10 for one. Why didn't the sell it to me?

I think it's a pitty, that they sold te Mig 29. I liked the Mig 29, it's a real good fighter. What was the reason for selling them? I think they said the servicing was to expencive and there were problems with getting spare parts, but I don't really know if thats the reason.
--
June 27th, 2005  
Macoy
 
Quote:
Maintaining a small fleet of foreign air craft with seperate needs for replacement parts is a logistical burden. Not to mention that you need to have a core of maintenance personel for a small number of air craft. For years not the Mig-29's have been costing the German air force more money then they're worth and there sale has been expected.
On the other hand the Mig 29 is in service many years. It saw "the fire" many times. They have expirienced pilots, ground crew's and so on.

Now they introduce the Eurofighter - a completely new aircraft. This new aircraft was never used in real combat and it took years and billions of euro to build it.

I want to say: Why should we develop a new aircraft from scratch, when we can buy existing design's.

Example:
Today China's airforce is one of the most powerful airforces in the global theatre. They dont develop new designs, they just buy the latest designs from the russian federation (and they would also buy western aircrafts, if there wasnt be the weapons embargo).
June 28th, 2005  
vargsriket
 
You need progress. If you dont develop new technology, other militaries will, and then you're in a world of hurt in case a war breaks out. Russia has the technology to be up to, or even above the US, they just dont have the money to field it/research it properly. And China is buying aircraft designed 25 years ago, while yes, they're excellent fighters, but new technology and doctrine is changing with the times, and in an engagement newer technology is able to defeat the older types.
It's akin to the discussion in another thread, the M14 vs XM-8 and M16. I forgot who, but he was is arguing that the US should never have replaced the M14, it's a fine rifle, etc etc. One word, progress. If world armies did not progress, we'd still be fighting with sticks and arrows. Eurofighter, Su-47, F-22, etc are all new generation fighters all able to destroy their older counterparts, such as F-15/16, MiG-29, Mirage2000, etc.
June 28th, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
It was I who argued that the replacement of the M-14 was pork-barrel politics and not military necessity. I fail to see how that was a matter of improvement when you look at the performance characteristics of the weapons that were to be "improvements" but lets leave that in the other thread. What I think is germaine to this argument is the human factor. Give me a sniper and equip him with a musket and then take some kid off the street give him three weeks training with his XM-8 and I know who I am betting on. Same with the case of fighter jets, you are totally discounting the input a fighter-PILOT has in combat. The plane doesn't fly itself. See Sherman's post about the outdated fighter taking out the "improved" fighter will sitting in an "outdated" one. My argument is that the improvements and all the money poured into R&D of the new and improved killing machine be it the (insert any new weapon here) or the (insert any other new weapon here) is primarily to feed the military-industrial complex and at the cost of helping to truly improve the society at large of (insert any country here). It is justified through the rhetoric of "saving troop lives" and the fear mongering of "if we don't our enemies will" though neither argument ever holds water when looked at 20 years later but no one notices because we have already moved on are distracted by the hype of the (insert new weapon name here) and how it will save us from our enemies (insert any name here).
Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.
June 28th, 2005  
vargsriket
 
No, I don't discount the fact that pilot training, you musunderstood me, or rather, I did not mention it. I believe it is in fact, the most important factor. But if the best pilot in the world is sitting in a Mark V "Spitfire" going against a MiG-29 manned by a mediocre pilot, I'm sorry, it's a no contest. I realize that technology does not replace man, it should merely help him. But well trained soldier with high tech equipment is superior to a well trained soldier with inferior equipment. I understand the rifle only shoots as straight as the person who's shooting it, but you cannot rely on 50 years old technology when fighting modern wars. Take for example all those Iraqi T-55 and T-72s absolutely DEMOLISHED by the modern M1A2. I read an article about this incident in the first Desert Storm, an Abrams was ambushed by THREE T-72s. They all scored direct hits, with one hitting the threads, thus disabling the mobility of the Abrams. Then "parked" M1A2 then calmly and cooly took out every T72 one by one. Just an example. T72 is a fine tank. But it does not stand a chance against an M1A2, not 1 in a 100. I'm sorry for digressing and talking about tanks when the conversation is about figher planes, it's just to prove my point. You need new technology to achieve victory in modern day conflicts.
June 28th, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
Good example.
July 23rd, 2005  
LeEnfield
 
 
The problem with a lot of these Russian Fighters is spare parts, now if Russia cuts up nasty what happens to your supply of spare parts. Then there is cost of storing all these parts and running different types of aircraft. Also you have train another group of mechanics to run the MIGs, it far easier to keep the numbers of aircraft you have to a minimum and these multi role aircraft are just the thing for that.
July 23rd, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
1 Euro, yeah, I guess they didn't have ebay back then did they?