Off topic safety issue (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message


Rudd -> Off topic safety issue (12/14/2013 2:14:15 PM)

Did anybody else see this? This can't be right...

quote:

India ended up operating 872 MiG-21s across various marks, and as of April last year had lost 482 aircraft and 171 pilots in accidents. When inducted just over 50 years ago, the type was the first combat aircraft of non-Western origin to fly with the Indian air force, and was also its first supersonic type.


lost 482 out of 872 to accidents[X(]

from http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pictures-india-retires-last-mig-21fl-fighters-393999/




thewood1 -> RE: Off topic safety issue (12/14/2013 2:25:16 PM)

Were any of those combat losses. Wasn't the 21 engaged in combat in 71?




mrfeizhu -> RE: Off topic safety issue (12/14/2013 3:56:35 PM)

the F-8 Crusaders had many accidents "1,261 Crusaders were built. By the time it was withdrawn from the fleet, 1,106 had been involved in mishaps." they were not as serious as with the mig 21. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_F-8_Crusader





Juramentado -> RE: Off topic safety issue (12/14/2013 4:32:57 PM)

Ask the USAF and USN pilots who flew captured Mig-21s (recently declassified Have Doughnut program) and they'll tell you they're quite dangerous. Even taking into account the tech eval teams had to scrounge and rebuilt parts as well as figure out from scratch the Pilot's Operating Manual, these were NOT easy aircraft to fly when compared to US and NATO designs. The Mig 23 was also a very dangerous aircraft, with a sensitive speed envelope that could easily kill anyone who wasn't an experienced test pilot. Suffice it to say, by the time Have Doughnut and the other peer programs were retired, any fleet/air wing pilots who made it through were quite good test pilot candidates in experience, if not in name!




Pergite! -> RE: Off topic safety issue (12/14/2013 7:44:59 PM)

I believe the Swedish airforce lost over 600 pilots and airmen during the Cold War years. Only 6 where combat related (shot down by the USSR).
For a nation being that big on safety, those are pretty harsh numbers.




DanNC -> RE: Off topic safety issue (12/14/2013 11:28:56 PM)

The StrategyPage website has carried similar reports of years.

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/20091110.aspx which talks about US military aircraft reliability. Basically, older generation aircraft have much higher accident rates while newer aircraft generations have much better rates. The MIG 21 is an older generation aircraft.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/Rumble-Over-Russian-Aircraft-Reliability-3-10-2013.asp
quote:

India has lost so many MiG-21 fighters that it is trying to retire this type of aircraft as quickly as possible. Over the last half century, India has bought 976 MiG-21s and over half are gone, mostly because of accidents. While India was something of an extreme case in this area (other users don't fly their MiG-21s as much), it's been typical of MiG aircraft.


Later,
Dan




goodwoodrw -> RE: Off topic safety issue (12/15/2013 1:09:00 AM)

F105 Starfighters hundreds of them crashed over the years, in several different airforces.




Blu3wolf -> RE: Off topic safety issue (12/15/2013 5:06:59 AM)

all of a sudden, I feel better about the RAAF's loss rate....

thanks guys!




Russian Heel -> RE: Off topic safety issue (12/15/2013 10:03:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BASB

F105 Starfighters hundreds of them crashed over the years, in several different airforces.



F-104 you mean.




Russian Heel -> RE: Off topic safety issue (12/15/2013 10:05:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Were any of those combat losses. Wasn't the 21 engaged in combat in 71?

I would assume when they say "in accidents" they mean in accidents.




Rudd -> RE: Off topic safety issue (12/15/2013 12:48:48 PM)

Thanks for the info guys, I never would've thought those kind of numbers would be acceptable, for military planners or their public(any country)

pro -21 article (nothing to see here...)
quote:

2) The loss rate of the MiG 21 is in no way worse than any similar fighter of its genre and better than most.

Applying western accident rates is also somewhat unrealistic because of significant decay in thrust and lift due to high air temperatures. A 12% decrease in lift or thrust can lead to a 100% difference between crashing or getting back safe. There being no easy mathematical co-relation.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircraft/Current/608-MiG-Prodyut.html

also if you search "Indian MiG-21 losses", a ton of articles will pop-up

Thanks again

ps Seems to me this will add some more "weight"(not that it needs it) to the Ready times and Unavailable/Maintenance loadout argument/discussion





DanNC -> RE: Off topic safety issue (12/15/2013 11:40:19 PM)

StrategyPage.com had an updated post today about Indian MIG 21s. http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20131215.aspx

quote:

Since the 1960s India bought nearly a thousand MiG combat aircraft. Nearly 90 percent (872) were MiG-21s and 55 percent (482 aircraft) of these were lost in action (mainly accidents) along with 171 pilots. The other ones, swing-wing MiG-23s were more modern but not much more reliable. While India was something of an extreme case in this area (other users don't fly their MiGs as much), it's been typical of MiG aircraft.


What is interesting is the accident rate per 100,000 hours.

quote:

But India was not the only one, besides the Russians, who had problems with Russian made warplanes. During the Cold War the U.S. had several dozen Russian aircraft they used for training their fighter pilots. Despite energetic efforts to keep these aircraft flying their accident rate was 100 per 100,000 flying hours.

That's very high by U.S. standards. The new F-22 has an accident rate of about 6 per 100,000 hours, mainly because it's new. F-15s and F-16s have an accident rate of 3-4 per 100,000 flight hours. India, using mostly Russian aircraft, has an accident rate of 6-7 per 100,000 hours flown (compared to 4-5 for all NATO air forces). The B-52 has the lowest accident rate (less than 1.5 per 100,000 flying hours) of all American heavy bombers. The B-1s rate is 3.48.


quote:

For example, in the early 1950s, the U.S. F-89 fighter had 383 accidents per 100,000 flying hours. A decade later the rate was in the 20s for a new generation of aircraft. At the time the F-4, which served into the 1990s, had a rate of under 5 per 100,000 hours.


While aircraft generation and age has an effect on accident rates, lack of pilot training seems to have been/is a problem:

quote:

Most of the pilots lost in these Indian MiG-21 accidents were new pilots, which pointed out another problem. India has long put off buying jet trainers. New pilots go straight from propeller driven trainer aircraft to high performance jets like the MiG-21. This is made worse by the fact that the MiG-21 has always been a tricky aircraft to fly. That, in addition to it being an aircraft dependent on one low quality engine, makes it more understandable why so many MiGs were lost. And a lot were lost. The recently retired MiG-21FLs were used to help pilots get used to MiG-21s before going to a MiG-21 squadron.


Later,
Dan




thewood1 -> RE: Off topic safety issue (12/16/2013 12:23:59 AM)

"lost in action (mainly accidents)" obviously not all.

That is why I asked.




mrfeizhu -> RE: Off topic safety issue (12/16/2013 2:16:05 PM)

many types of planes have accidents but we don't have to add it to the game, every 100,000 hours so many planes will crash. [sm=fighting0045.gif]




jdkbph -> RE: Off topic safety issue (12/16/2013 3:33:22 PM)

Keep in mind that "accidents" fall into 3 classes (the services I'm familiar with... others may be different, but I think the point is the same):

Class A mishaps involve loss of life and/or aircraft.

Class B mishaps involve serious injuries and/or high dollar damage.

Class C mishaps involve minor injuries and/or low dollar damage.

Are all these "accidents" being discussed Class A type? I don't know... but the numbers would paint a very different picture if they reflect all types of mishap.

JD




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2