Posted on 07/15/2010 5:28:14 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
That's more than 20 per year...holy smokes!
Point one when using Strategypage for statistics-it’s the last place you should look at. The figure 250 refers to the totla number of IAF crashes, not the Mig-21 type, which would have literally killed off the fleet. But then the folks at Strategypage don’t really need much of accuracy.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/sep/11newssp.htm
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircraft/Current/602-MiG-Suresh.html
Umm, there’s no real Indian ‘metallurgy’ involved here since the Mig-21/27s were all built under license using Soviet equipment. These aircraft have had poor safety records the world over including the USSR-which got poorer once the USSR bit the dust.
India has also license built the Anglo-French Jaguar and newer Russian Su-30s-which have far better safety records than the early Migs.
Thank you for clearing this up.
:)
>>> “since 1963, and has put about 800 into service. But 42 percent were subsequently lost due to accidents.”
Holy Cr8p! I would rather go up with a handful of balloons! ;-)
Percentage-wise that’s a little worse then the Luftwaffe’s experience with the Lockheed F-104 Lawn Dart, but not by much.
The Luftwaffe lost 30 percent of its planes and Canada lost 50 percent of its planes.
I might have mentioned this before, but there was an article sometime back about the Constant Peg program which had USAF pilots flying “acquired” Soviet fighter craft in test missions. Few liked the MiG-21. Nobody, NOBODY liked flying the MiG-23/27.
from http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2007/April%202007/0407peg.aspx
“The MiG-23 did not have that problem [acceleration], as it was designed for speed—but it was unstable and difficult to fly. Constant Peg pilots would typically fly MiG-23s only after they had acquired extensive experience on the other Soviet models. “The guys really didn’t like flying the 23,” said Manclark. “They were scared of them.””
Makes me wonder if the Indians teach their pilots how to land their planes once they take off. lol
“Wow, widowmaker.”
You’re telling me brother. That’s 1.7 planes per month.
17 of India’s 30 Harriers have crashed. 56%
Geez, why bother buying anything. They are worse on these planes than their enemies would be. lol
It’s easy to loose 50% when you only have two.
The accident rater for the F-104 was about 27 per 100,000 hours, about a tenth of the Indian rate for the Mig 21.
The Harrier/Sea Harrier has a less than flattering safety record in almost all militaries its served with-
http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Aircraft_by_Type/SeaHarrier.htm
http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Aircraft_by_Type/HARRIER/Sea_Harrier_Spain.htm
http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Aircraft_by_Type/INDIA/SEa-Harrier.htm
http://www.stripes.com/news/pilots-defend-harrier-jet-1.1161/comments-7.1323
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.