Panama finds MiG fighter jets on North Korean arms ship
Source: Reuters
Panamanian investigators unloading the cargo of a seized North Korean ship that carried arms from Cuba have found the two MiG-21 fighter jets the Cuban government had said were on board, the government said on Sunday.
Alongside the two supersonic planes, originally produced by the Soviet Union in the late 1950s, officials found two missile radar systems on board the Chong Chon Gang, President Ricardo Martinelli told reporters in the Atlantic port of Colon.
The discovery, which included cables and electrical equipment, was made inside containers on the ship Panama had feared might contain explosive material. None was found.
After stopping the vessel bound for North Korea last week, Panama revealed it had found weapons in the cargo hold late on Monday. In response, Cuba said the shipment contained a range of "obsolete" arms being sent to North Korea for repair.
Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/panama-finds-mig-fighter-jets-north-korean-arms-235241780.html
GP6971
(31,163 posts)go to
www.gcaptain.com
DissidentVoice
(813 posts)The MiG-21 is 1950s technology, though some former Soviet client states have had them substantially updated (Romania).
The ones found, though, are ancient crap.
They would be, at best, target practice for an F-16.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)those planes have the same relationship to modern fighter jets as the Wright Brothers' plane has to a 747.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)populistdriven
(5,644 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)they trust 60 yr old technology. Selling old obsolete Russian gas masks for $20 (how do I know. world net daily had an advertiser and dad bought some . yep halloween masks (do'h) worthless gas masks
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)And gives a S.W.A.T. sniper a chuckle.
ctsnowman
(1,903 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Col. Robin Olds led a raid into North Vietnam that destroyed half the functional fleet of Mig-21s in a single day without a single loss of any F-4s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bolo
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The Mig-21 was an excellent fighter, but just as in Korea these were uses as interceptors of BOMBERS not Fighters. Thus the orders were to attack the F-105s NOT the F-4s. This was the same orders Mig-15 Pilots had been given in Korea, to attack the B-29 bombers being used to bomb North Korea and ignore the fighters.
In both situations this lead to higher losses of the Interceptors (Mig-15s in Korea, Mig-19s and Mig 21 in Vietnam) to fighter escorts (F-86 Sabres in Korea, F-4 Phantoms in Vietnam).
The big difference between Korea and Vietnam was that the Vietnamese Pilots had been fully trained on their equipment unlike the Koreans and Chinese in Korea. When a MIG-15 was flown by a Chinese Pilot to an American Airbase, the US evaluated it. The F-86 was capable of supersonic flight, which the MIG-15 was NOT capable of. The F-86 had powered assisted controls, which the MIG-15 did not (This permitted faster transitions in combat maneuvers), but the MIG-15 was more maneuverable, could fly higher and was faster except in a dive. A huge difference was the weapons, the MIG-15's 23mm guns were much harder to aim then the F-86 .50 caliber machine guns, but once a 23 mm round hit something, they knew it.
The general rule was the MIG-15 was better, but not so much better that the US should replace the F-86. A good pilot who understood both planes would more then compensate for any differences between the two planes. Thus the 15-1 ratio achieved in Korea was more a product of bad pilots then bad planes. The 2-1 ratio in Vietnam was more the result of the US superior technology then the US have better planes (Technology not only in terms of missiles, but support in that US could detect interceptors while before any interception took place, even if over North Vietnamese Territory).
How good the Vietnamese were with what was late 1950 technology shocked the US Air Force, for they expected a repeat of Korea given the huge technological changes in the 1960s. Thus the Air Force went back to increase training of Pilots AND decided its next fighter was going to be a true fighter not a bomber with fighter capability. Thus the F-15 replaced the F-4 in US Air Force Service.
In fact at least one US Air Force General Advocated the US buying Russia Su-29s to replace the F-15s (The F-15s, are old and near the end of their service life, you can only rebuild them so often). The Su-35s is the closest thing in production today to the F-15 and thus a good replacement from a pure fighter point of view. The F-15s huge advantages over the SU-35s is in electronics, and that General said all we have to do is install US electronics in SU35s airframes and you have a plane as good as today's F-15 and would be more cost effective then the F-22 Raptor, given that it is expected within 20 year that man aircraft will be obsolete.
Just pointing out that the US Fighters have NOT always been the best fighter in the Air, but the fighters with the best support behind them AND used in missions the planes were designed for. Soviet planes were as good from a flying point of view, but electronics have lagged behind the west, but not as much as some people claim. Often the mission of the planes were different, interceptors vs fighter escorts as the case in Korea and Vietnam. Often the US overwhelmed the opposition, as it did in 1972 by using all it had against Vietnam. While effective temporary, the US had achieved Air Superiority over North Vietnam, the subsequent fall of Vietnam can be contributed to that attack. The 1972 attacks drew down US reserves, so the reserves had to be rebuilt, then the Yom Kipper War occurred which lead to even further drawn down on those reserves. The Yom Kipper was also showed how important the Persian Gulf was not only to the US, but NATO, and thus the US had to build up it defenses in the Persian Gulf. Thus by the time of the Vietnamese 1975 offensive the US had a choice, continue to support Israel AND build up US defenses for the oil supplies from the Persian Gulf OR support South Vietnam. The US decided Israel and the Oil from the Persian Gulf was more important and South Vietnam was left to fall).
The Soviet Planes, while inferior in terms of electronics were good enough in the 1970s to force the US to choose between South Vietnam and the Persian Gulf. That remains true to this day, even the MIG-21, while clearly inferior to F-22s, F-15s and F-16 are good enough to force the US to fighting an air war, something the US had NOT have to do since Vietnam (The Two wars with Iraq involved little air to air combat, there is evidence that Saddam had opt for foreign trained pilots. French and Soviet Pilots, during his war with Iran. These pilots all left when he moved into Kuwait and thus Saddam had no real air force of his own to fight the US during Desert Storm. Saddam had no ability to even build up an Air Force after Desert Storm so when the US invaded, again the US did not have to worry about air to air combat.
In the War with Serbia, the Serbs decided to keep most of their planes on the ground to be used during any actual ground offensive, thus the US had complete air superiority without much fighting over Serbia. The same can be said of Libya, little air to air fighting due to overwhelming air power of NATO aimed at the Libya Air Force. Israel has seen some air to air combat with its F-15s, but most times the fighting is limited and Syria (the main opposition to the F-15s) has generally backed down when faced with Israeli F-15s. These victories were more the result of overwhelming odds not superior air planes thus how much better is today's western air craft better then the Russian or Chinese air planes is anyone's guess. i suspect it remains one of technology in air craft not the air craft itself and if that is the case, the Mig-21 can still be effective if the electronic advantage can be minimized. That seems to have been the plan of the Serbs during the War with Serbia and became the plan of Libya during NATO's bombing of Libya. In the later case events on the ground lead to the Air Force never being used, in Serbia the Air Force was still a force to be dealt with if and whenever the US invaded (and was one of the reason the US negotiated a deal to end that war, Serbia was ready to fight a war it thought it could win and a thought shared by some American Generals).
Side note: The F-4 had been designed as a missile launching platform for the US Navy. The F-4 was to have a huge Radar and intercept with missiles not guns. Furthermore it was not to be a dog fighter, but a pure missile launching platform. In fact the F-4 was to be a stop gap plane till the Navy was able to get the plane it wanted, a straight wing sub sonic only missile launcher (During development the Department of Defense decided to merge this program with the US Air Force F-111 program, the resulting Navy Plane was unusable and was cancelled, the F-14 came later).
DissidentVoice
(813 posts)A couple of other things, though.
In Korea, at least in the first year or so, the MiG-15's were largely flown by Soviet and Chinese "advisors," some of whom were veteran WWII pilots, like Ivan Kozhedub. There were also a handful of Eastern Europeans (Czechs, Bulgarians).
The F-86 was a very good airplane but the reason for the large kill ratio was that the U.S. (and one squadron of South African) pilots flying them were much better trained. Canadair built the Sabre for the RCAF/NATO with a better engine and Commonwealth Aircraft in Australia built the Sabre for the RAAF with better engine AND armament...both of which were a vast improvement on the original U.S. design.
There were some Soviet "advisors" flying MiG-21's in Vietnam, too, but not nearly as many. As you stated, the NVA pilots had been well-trained. However, the biggest thorn in the side of USAF/USN/USMC fighter jocks was the even older MiG-17, which had guns-only armament, and wasn't even supersonic...but was a smaller bird that could fly circles around F-4's, which didn't even have guns until the F-4E (earlier AF versions started carrying centreline gun pods, but they were not very effective, and Navy/Marine birds never got gun armament).
In the India/Pakistan conflict, the Indian Air Force flew licence-built MiG-21's and were damn good at it, basically hacking the Pakistani Air Force and its hot-rod F-104 Starfighters out of the sky.
The F-15 was designed initially for one purpose: to shoot down the (overestimated) MiG-25. The F-16 was supposed to be 50/50 air/mud, to take out what the F-15's didn't get.
The F-22 of today is an overengineered, overcomplex airplane overdesigned to do its job. The F-35 is a money pit that is starting to irritate hell out of some overseas customers who are getting tired of waiting. The Royal Australian Air Force has bought F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, and the Royal Canadian Air Force is considering the British/Spanish/Italian/German Eurofighter Typhoon. The Swedes are kicking hell out of the export market with their much cheaper but still firecracker SAAB Gripen.
The USAF could easily re-equip with the advanced F-16's and F-15's (Strike Eagle derivative) that they're building for the export market... but the four-star brass at the Pentagon would consider that too much of a "loss of prestige."
The West first got its knickers in a twist over the MiG-29, until the ones that Germany inherited from the East German Air Force were found to be limited, point-defence interceptors. The Su-27 was (and is) rightly regarded as more of a threat.
We have really fallen behind the ball by putting so much faith in the F-22 and F-35.
My former Air National Guard unit flew gun-nose F-4E's and were the first Guard unit to get the F-16C/D. The Guard is responsible for 100% of the air defence of the CONUS, but so many of the F-15's and F-16's are wearing out that they're not up to the job...not to mention that a lot of the units that flew them have been re-roled as transport, drone or A-10 mud moving units.
George W. Bush was supposed to be such a great friend of the military, but it was under his watch that the wearout started getting really bad, but of course, replacing those airplanes wasn't important. Having "boots on the ground" for his grudge match against Saddam Hussein was.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)You're talking about the Douglas F6D Missileer, correct?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F6D_Missileer
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The F6D sounds about right. I read about the navy development, without the actual plane being names, in articles on the F-111, thus it looks like the F6D was the Concept.
JPZenger
(6,819 posts)Maybe the Most Greatest North Korean leader is starting an aircraft museum.
bluedigger
(17,086 posts)Maybe scare us with video of their awesome SAM capability.
dusty trails
(174 posts)Yeah ~~> right !
Robb
(39,665 posts)instead of importing airborne TRS-80s.
Why?
penultimate
(1,110 posts)DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Guess next time I ship I will put a sign on it "baby milk factory", that would make it safe, no one could figure that out, huh.
Lugal Zaggesi
(366 posts)that will go through Nicaragua if the Chinese government builds their big Central/South American project:
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2013/07/05/commentary/china-eyes-a-canal-project-in-americas-backyard
For Panama, whose existing canal has been the mainstay of the countrys economy for a century, the competition would be very serious. A $5 billion project to double the Panama Canals capacity by building a third chain of locks across the isthmus is nearing completion, but it will still be restricted to taking ships of 65,000 tons or less.
The rival canal in Nicaragua would be able to accommodate the new generation of ships ranging up to 250,000 tons, but there will not be enough shipping to keep both canals in business unless world trade continues to expand rapidly. In any case competition in transit rates would be fierce, and it might well come to pass that neither canal was very profitable.
I can see the Chinese putting the Panama Canal out of business.
The "Pink Tide" in South and Central America would welcome a shipping route that isn't controlled by a US-empire poodle like Panama.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Lugal Zaggesi
(366 posts)Once China controls the only working canal in Central America,
we'll find out, Parteigenosse.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)if Cuba already said they were on board?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to smuggle arms on that ship.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)So why is it newsworthy twice?
quadrature
(2,049 posts)daleo
(21,317 posts)I believe that would present about the same threat to a modern Air Force.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)which will fly across my living room.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)I admit, I don't get it. What, exactly, am I supposed to get worked up about here? Where's the beef?
Do we WANT to encourage the building of the Nicaraguan canal?
Do we Actually care about these ancient jets?
Or is this just taking a cheap shot?
Bacchus4.0
(6,837 posts)so that is a good place to start.
I would think Panama would be most concerned about he Nicaraguan canal.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)If they send it through the Panama Canal. If you think that is great, I wish you luck.
Franker65
(299 posts)This is still violating the arms embargo. More than likely, these MIG-21s will be stripped for spare parts to keep North Korea's current fleet operational. But yes, in any war, they are no match for modern fighters.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Much as we dislike them, both N. Korea and Cuba have a right to do business.
John2
(2,730 posts)bought on by the United States against Cuba and North Korea? It seems to me those two were always allies? Have they ever honored anything from the United States?
malthaussen
(17,200 posts)Wonder how much Cuba got for those dinosaurs.
-- Mal
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Its a barter agreement with the sugar being used to pay for repairs to the equipment.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)One of the most beautiful airplanes of all time.
DissidentVoice
(813 posts)I've seen some at airshows, mostly Polish-built.
Michael Dorn (Worf on Star Trek: The Next Generation) is an avid pilot. I'm not sure if he's got a MiG-15, but he does have an F-86 and a T-33.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)F-86 is really cool also.
I'm sure they are murder on gas also.
However, for pure aesthetics, I'd go with the MiG. I think it is the tail.
penultimate
(1,110 posts)Early jets like those and iconic WW2 planes. If I had lots of money and I knew how to fly, I'd love to have an old P-51... The jets seem like they'd be ridiculously expensive to operate.
Buy a few of them and put lasers on them for a game of high altitude laser tag.
Angleae
(4,484 posts)The older the plane, the more TLC it needs, not to mention getting replacement parts is a huge PITA.
PD Turk
(1,289 posts)Next time, on Antiques Roadshow, we travel to Panama City and discover some exciting Cold War relics ....
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)Good idea