MiG News

nevidimka

New Member
SMT is just an upgrade, I'm sure its much cheaper compared to the M2 which is a new airframe with new systems. I belive the Algerians 1st wanted to just upgrade at lower cost, instead of buying a new plane which is basically the same type of airframe. But once they got thier planes... they had a change of heart n looking at the SU 30 purchase by new cliets over the world made them want a bigger fish, n used claims like poor quality to justify their decision making mistake.

So far theres no Mig 29M custormers, hence why IMO there arent any Mig29M/M2 in production.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
The lack of customers is again an interesting phenomena. Morever does anyone know what standard the Indian MiG-29's are being upgraded to? Were they initially MiG-29S? Or something more advanced?

Chrom if they wanted cheaper aircraft they chose correctly. However after turning down the deal they requested more Su-30MKA instead, which is a heavy multi-role fighter. So they obviously wanted the extra capability and liked the aircraft despite the price. Negotiations are going on right now, with Russia trying to offer the M2 and Mig-35 to them.
 

nevidimka

New Member
The lack of customers is again an interesting phenomena. Morever does anyone know what standard the Indian MiG-29's are being upgraded to? Were they initially MiG-29S? Or something more advanced?

Chrom if they wanted cheaper aircraft they chose correctly. However after turning down the deal they requested more Su-30MKA instead, which is a heavy multi-role fighter. So they obviously wanted the extra capability and liked the aircraft despite the price. Negotiations are going on right now, with Russia trying to offer the M2 and Mig-35 to them.
Which is why Like I said.. they had a change of heart, and they took the easy way out by accusing Mig of poor workmanship. Mig's construction quality has grown leaps n bounds from thier soviet era. Just look at old Mig29 pics n compare them to the latest models.. u could hardly see the bolts? jutting out. And i'm sure they did a good job with the SMT, but Algeria wanted to reduce thier losses if they had to pay for the SMt and then order more Su30 for thier fleet.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Well how large of an airforce does Algeria want to fly? 28 MKA's and 36 MiG's is hardly enough to cover their needs. They need more airframes either way.

EDIT: Again it seems like they were genuinely disappointed with the performance of the SMT. Hence why they 1) Insisted on returning the jets 2) None the less asked for a different Russian jet instead of running to foreign sources.
 

ROCK45

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #25
Lack of production

nevidimka
Whats the point of producing the aircraft when there is no orders
I was re-reading the thread and saw this and wanted to mention that this is a little backwards. Its a Russian thing not to produce a finished aircraft before entering production. The French didn't wait until they had an order before finishing at least a few Mirage 2000's? The US didn't get other countries to invest in the F-16 without actually finishing a F-16 and showing they could make it, right? Customers have input and can request certain equipment/systems installed or not installed but they still have to see a full finished aircraft. MIG still isn't capable of producing a Mig-29M or Mig-35 and there's a big difference between painting Mig-35 on the side of one of six or seven prototypes and then actually making one.

Until MIG gets its act together India would do wise and not going with them for the 126 aircraft purchase. Out of all the selections the Mig-29 has the least future unless India gets to build everything from A to Z on it, other wise look western you get what you pay for.

Like I mentioned earlier what a market share might have been lost between 2001 to 2007. MIG leadership is only surpassed by Rafale sales personnel in the world of aviation. Even if in 2004/2005 if they got the Mig-29M produced with say only F-16 Block-30 tech built into it they would have had sales.

I was never able to read or find any info on Yemen's SMT Fulcrums on whether there really capable of using smart weapons or if the radar and engines have really improved. In a way improving on a Mig-29A/SE wouldn't be to difficult right 1989 was a long time ago. Can I really assume a SMT Fulcrum is so much more capable then a A/SE type Fulcrum? Flying a air show produced aircraft around and saying "I can make this please buy me? isn't working out for MIG very well and hasn't in almost ten years.
 

Salty Dog

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
It's probably worth taking a closer look at the Mig-29K/KUB which should be the most recent Mig-29s in production.
 

ROCK45

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #27
The K model

From the specs the K model looks interesting and shows promise if the engines and radar perform etc. I always felt even with 16/19 frames that this is basically a custom order and not a full fledge production lines for like a large fighter run? I assume India will base a lot off of the K before committing to any Mig-29M or Mig-35, which makes sense. I would also like to see Russia releasing more info on the K's AG capabilities. For India I would like to see the K/M Fulcrum wins to be used like a F-16 in both attack & fighter. It's a little off topic for here but you never hear much about Su-30s types in AG role either.

For a short to mid range attacker I would like to see the K be able to carry (2) 500lbs LGB, mark targets for themselves-some sort of pod, carry 4 air to air missiles - to defend itself to and from the target area, plus 2 drop tanks. Sound possible?
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
The MiG-29K/KUB has started serial production this year. It is not a custom order, it was originally created for the Soviet Naval Carrier Aviation, but the Su-33 was chosen over the MiG-29K. As for SMT vs S MiG's, the SMT has new cockpit displays, more fuel capacity, Zhuk-ME radar vs. the older Phazotrom N-019M, interestingly enough apparently both can fire the R-77, and the SMT has an increase in hardpoints under the wing. Though my information might not be 100% accurate, as I only did a quick search for the info.

EDIT: A question, globalsecurity.org claims a large numbers of VVS Fulcrums were upgraded to the SMT standard. Is this true? The literal quote is:

In 1998 a decision was made by the Defense Ministry to launch a quantity-modernization program of the MiG-29 fighters. A total of 150 to 180 modernized MiG-29SMTs will be introduced in service with the Russian Air Force. Extensive modernization is planned only of the aircraft produced through the previous decade. This will provide a dramatic increase in combat capabilities of the Russian Air Force. The modernization program started in September 1998 by the Kubinka military aircraft-repair plant and the MAPO MIG. The first batch of 10 to 15 MiG-29SMTs was delivered before the end of the year. In 1999, a total of 20 to 30 MiG-29 fighters were modernized into the MiG-29SMT version, approaching fifth-generation fighters in terms of characteristics. Starting from the year 2000, the program's annual modernization rate was expected to reach 40 MiG-29SMTs. The overall plan provides for modernization of 150 recently manufactured MiG-29s, with the remainder of the older aircraft being withdrawn from service (presently there are 330 MiG-29 aircraft in Russian combat units and 130 in training units).
The entry is obviously dated, but it states that a total of 30-45 SMT's were actually delivered at the time of the entry with prospects for more.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mig-29smt.htm

EDIT2: aviaport.ru seems to at least confirm the delivery of 20 aircraft in '99.

В 1998 году ВВС заказали три самолета МиГ-29СМТ (первый модернизированный самолет передан Липецкому центру боевого применения и переучивания летного состава ВВС в январе 1999 г.). Заказ на 1999 год составил 20 самолетов. Всего планируется доработать в вариант "9-17" 180-200 истребителей МиГ-29 "9-13".
http://www.aviaport.ru/directory/aviation/469.html
 
Last edited:

nevidimka

New Member
I was re-reading the thread and saw this and wanted to mention that this is a little backwards. Its a Russian thing not to produce a finished aircraft before entering production. The French didn't wait until they had an order before finishing at least a few Mirage 2000's? The US didn't get other countries to invest in the F-16 without actually finishing a F-16 and showing they could make it, right? Customers have input and can request certain equipment/systems installed or not installed but they still have to see a full finished aircraft. MIG still isn't capable of producing a Mig-29M or Mig-35 and there's a big difference between painting Mig-35 on the side of one of six or seven prototypes and then actually making one.

Until MIG gets its act together India would do wise and not going with them for the 126 aircraft purchase. Out of all the selections the Mig-29 has the least future unless India gets to build everything from A to Z on it, other wise look western you get what you pay for.

Like I mentioned earlier what a market share might have been lost between 2001 to 2007. MIG leadership is only surpassed by Rafale sales personnel in the world of aviation. Even if in 2004/2005 if they got the Mig-29M produced with say only F-16 Block-30 tech built into it they would have had sales.

I was never able to read or find any info on Yemen's SMT Fulcrums on whether there really capable of using smart weapons or if the radar and engines have really improved. In a way improving on a Mig-29A/SE wouldn't be to difficult right 1989 was a long time ago. Can I really assume a SMT Fulcrum is so much more capable then a A/SE type Fulcrum? Flying a air show produced aircraft around and saying "I can make this please buy me? isn't working out for MIG very well and hasn't in almost ten years.
Pls realise your doubting Mikoyan, a big Aviation company.

By your same argument it can be taken that the Mig 29K are not built and cant be delivered on schedule to India, n yet that is not the case. The Mig 29K that won the Indian order must be substancially more modern compared to the 1 that competed for Soviet Navy Aviation with the Su 33 in the 80's, and its already in production.

Btw, I believe the Mig 29 M's and Mig 35 that are being displayed in airshow are good examples already for demosntration to a client. Its probably Mikoyan's thingking that they do not want to waste money building production planes when an order hasnt been made or that the prototype used for display is good enough to display to potential customers that they can build it.
 

ROCK45

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #30
Mig-29

nevidimka
By your same argument it can be taken that the Mig 29K are not built and cant be delivered on schedule to India, n yet that is not the case.
How many K model Fulcrums are in India right now? Lets see if the rest can be delivered by 2009 on a four year order for 16 aircraft? Lets first see if India is satisfied with them the proof will be in the package.

The Mig 29K that won the Indian order must be substancially more modern compared to the 1 that competed for Soviet Navy Aviation with the Su 33 in the 80's, and its already in production.
This isn't really saying much the Fulcrum was well behind the times in the 80s

Btw, I believe the Mig 29 M's and Mig 35 that are being displayed in airshow are good examples already for demosntration to a client.
I disagree with you it doesn't mean anything, flying around a demonstration aircraft doesn't mean you can produce every nut and bolt in a functional aircraft, not by a long shot. If it takes four years to make 16/19 Fulcrums for a small Indian Navy order what makes you think they have production lines capable of really making a sixty/eighty aircraft run if an order came in? The cool little devices and other goodies that MIG say can go into a Mig-29M or a Mig-35 Fulcrum are not made. There not laying around a MIG production line waiting to pop into a fighter. For example a MIG employee can't just reach into a parts bin and pull out a ASEA radar or the Italian radar warning device and install it because it's not there. The difference from a air show prototype to a real production aircraft is like night and day.

Pls realise your doubting Mikoyan, a big Aviation company.
I don't get what your saying really there not big or small just miss managed. If they were a western style aircraft company and not just from the United States the upper management would have been replace a long time ago.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
I disagree with you it doesn't mean anything, flying around a demonstration aircraft doesn't mean you can produce every nut and bolt in a functional aircraft, not by a long shot. If it takes four years to make 16/19 Fulcrums for a small Indian Navy order what makes you think they have production lines capable of really making a sixty/eighty aircraft run if an order came in? The cool little devices and other goodies that MIG say can go into a Mig-29M or a Mig-35 Fulcrum are not made. There not laying around a MIG production line waiting to pop into a fighter. For example a MIG employee can't just reach into a parts bin and pull out a ASEA radar or the Italian radar warning device and install it because it's not there. The difference from a air show prototype to a real production aircraft is like night and day.
First off the MRCA iirc only 18 aircraft are to be delivered completed. The rest are to be assembled in India under license from kits provided. Second off MiG did manage to produce the Algerian SMT's on time despite the poor production capabilities.

I don't get what your saying really there not big or small just miss managed. If they were a western style aircraft company and not just from the United States the upper management would have been replace a long time ago.
And finally the director of MiG has been replaced following the Algerian deal. MiG is now iirc set to merge with OAK.

Here's an interesting interview with him.

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2008/05/migs-new-general-director-answers-india.html
 

ROCK45

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #32
Mig-29

Hello Feanor thank you for your input but please look at the first post the one I used to start the thread. You'll see the same man is the focus in both articles but that's alright maybe he can get MIG going in the right direction. (smile face)

Finishing the Algeria order on time was a good thing for MIG. I never felt there was anything wrong with the Fulcrums that was politics and natural gas issues mixed together.

irst off the MRCA iirc only 18 aircraft are to be delivered completed.
That might be a difficult feat to pull off just by itself and yet to be proven but we can hopeful.

The management change is late in coming but better late then never. (smile face)

Feanor- Let me ask you since Russia isn't war currently and doesn't plan to anytime soon right would cut operational cost to run a few more Fulcrums squadron then the Su-27 squadrons? In Russia is there any operational cost comparison pitting the Fulcrum against a Flanker? What I'm say like for every hour a Flanker flight it take like six hours of maintenance? I'm looking for maintenance stats like that. I assume there both close since they both have twin engines but after that I know little of inners of Russian built aircraft. Maybe you might be able to shed some light on this which is the better or lower maintenance aircraft? Thanks
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Hello Feanor thank you for your input but please look at the first post the one I used to start the thread. You'll see the same man is the focus in both articles but that's alright maybe he can get MIG going in the right direction. (smile face)

Finishing the Algeria order on time was a good thing for MIG. I never felt there was anything wrong with the Fulcrums that was politics and natural gas issues mixed together.
Again, given that they're asking for Super Flankers to replace them, it doesn't seem to be a politics thing. It seems to be a genuine disappointment with the SMT variant.

That might be a difficult feat to pull off just by itself and yet to be proven but we can hopeful.
That would not at all be difficult to pull of. If there was no difficulty in making the ~30-40 SMT's for Algeria, 18 MiG-35's by 2012 would not be any harder. It would take time to modify the production facilities, but I'm pretty sure as the MiG-35 is simply a development of the MiG-29M2, the Sokol factory which is starting MiG-29M2 production in 2010 should be able to do it.

Feanor- Let me ask you since Russia isn't war currently and doesn't plan to anytime soon right would cut operational cost to run a few more Fulcrums squadron then the Su-27 squadrons? In Russia is there any operational cost comparison pitting the Fulcrum against a Flanker? What I'm say like for every hour a Flanker flight it take like six hours of maintenance? I'm looking for maintenance stats like that. I assume there both close since they both have twin engines but after that I know little of inners of Russian built aircraft. Maybe you might be able to shed some light on this which is the better or lower maintenance aircraft? Thanks
I'll try to find some info, but I can't promise anything. Again I think it also depends on the variant and the availability of funding.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
...
That would not at all be difficult to pull of. If there was no difficulty in making the ~30-40 SMT's for Algeria, 18 MiG-35's by 2012 would not be any harder. ...
But surely, MiG did have difficulty in making SMTs for Algeria. I thought it was established that they pulled white tails out of storage & refurbished & upgraded them, instead of building new.

MiG has been surviving for years on upgrades & refurbishments, & selling off the aircraft stored straight off the production line when the USSR went tits-up. I suspect it can now only build new fighters at a very low rate. How many new - and I mean really new, not old but unused, fighters has MiG delivered in the last 10 years?
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
That's a good question. I don't know. By the way the SMT's were mostly new, with only some elements built in the 90's (after the collapse of the Union) and kept in storage.
 

nevidimka

New Member
I check abit on the Algerian SMT, n i found out that the there were some parts used which were old. But Russian Experts say that shouldnt be a problem because those parts were certified by Russian company or Mig.. I forgot. but its certified.

So Algerian's concern may be true, howver I think Mig can redeem themselves getting the Algerians to agree to the Mig 35.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Here's a little something on MiG-29 maintenance and reliability. Now granted the article talks about mainly the older MiG-29's.

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/MiG-29-2b.htm

EDIT: Here's a little more the MiG-29SMT variant.

[5] 9-17 MIG-29SMT / 9-51T MIG-29UBT

* The failure of the MiG-29M and MiG-29K to enter production meant lean times for the MiG OKB, whose fortunes seemed to be on a steady decline in the new Russia. Outside observers wondered of the great name of MiG might be headed for extinction, as it steadily withered during the 1990s while the Sukhoi organization was awarded new fighter contracts.

The pendulum appears to have swung back, however, and now the new "Rossiskaya Samoletostroitelnaya Korporatsiya MiG (RSK MiG)", as the revitalized organization has been refashioned under their new leader, Mikhail Korzuev, appears increasingly energetic, has been promoting a range of improved MiG-29 variants.

* While a ground-up redesign like the MiG-29M was out of the question, major improvements could be made with less drastic measures that could be implemented in either new-build aircraft or as upgrades to existing aircraft. The Russian Air Force wanted to upgrade upgrade over 400 existing MiG-29s, providing a strong incentive.

The result was the "9-17 MiG-29SMT", which can be considered a revival and extension of the various MiG-29S upgrade efforts of a few years earlier. The MiG-29SMT features a glass cockpit based on that of the MiG-29M, but with twin 15 by 20 centimeter (6 by 8 inch) full color flat panel LCDs, instead of the smaller monochrome CRTs using the MiG-29M, as well as two smaller monochrome LCDs.

Modern HOTAS controls were implemented as well, and the MiG-29SMT also features a MIL STD-1553B compatible digital databus to link the cockpit and the avionics systems. An advanced navigation system, using laser gyros and a satellite positioning system receiver, has been fitted, as well as built-in diagnostic systems to ease maintenance.

To deal with the range issue, the MiG-29SMT features a particularly swollen "hunchback" spine, and can also be fitted with a bolt-on inflight refueling probe. The spine terminates in a beavertail like that of the MiG-29M, which can accommodate one or two parachutes as required by aircraft load.

The MiG-29SMT retains the top-and-bottom airbrake scheme of the 9-12 MiG-29, though the dorsal airbrake is larger, and also retains the old scheme of chaff-flare dispenser strakes. While there are no other major modifications to the airframe, old MiG-29s upgraded to the MiG-29SMT specification would be refurbished to give them 20 years of airframe life.

Unrefueled range of the MiG-29SMT is cited as 2,200 kilometers (1,370 miles) without external tanks, almost half again as great as that of 9-12 MiG-29. Multirole capabilities are provided by an improved N-019M Slot Back radar, with greater range, wider field of view, and the ability to track ten targets at once. It appears that the MiG-29SMT can carry an external targeting pod, and can certainly carry reconnaissance pods. The MiG-29SMT can use all the advanced weapons that were qualified for the MiG-29M, with a total external stores load of 4,000 kilograms (8,800 pounds) on six stores pylons.

Although much has been loaded onto the MiG-29SMT's airframe compared to the original 9-12 MiG-29, the new variant's performance has not suffered and in fact appears to be improved, thanks to new, more powerful Klimov RD-43 engines with over 10,000 kilograms (22,000 pounds) afterburning thrust. However, it appears that most of the MiG-29SMTs built so far still have some variant of the RD-33, due to delays in engine production, but the two types of engines are mechanically compatible and engine upgrades should be straightforward.

Initial flight of the first MiG-29SMT prototype was on 29 November 1997, with Marat Alykov at the controls. This machine was a modification of a company prototype that had already been used in the MiG-29S effort, and did not include all the features expected for the "production" MiG-29SMT.

The first full-standard MiG-29SMT, also a conversion of a company demonstrator, performed its first flight on 14 July 1998, piloted by the MiG organization's new chief test pilot, Vladimir Gorbunov. This aircraft was demonstrated at the Farnborough Air Show in the UK in 1998.

* RSK MiG followed up the MiG-29SMT with a similar effort to produce a a second-generation two-seater, the "9-51T MiG-29UBT", essentially a company 9-51 MiG-29UB fitted with improvements developed for the MiG-29SMT.

The MiG-29UBT features a swollen spine to provide more fuel, with the larger dorsal airbrake and the beavertail of the MiG-29SMT, and also can be fitted with a bolt-on inflight refueling probe. The front-seater's cockpit layout is very much like that of the MiG-29SMT, but although the back-seater still has flight controls, the rear panel layout features a large CRT to display TV or infrared camera imagery provided by external pods.

While the MiG-29UBT can be used as a trainer, its focus is clearly for roles such as precision strike, with the back-seater targeting and guiding smart munitions while the pilot flies the aircraft. No radar system was fitted to the MiG-29UBT demonstrator, but RSK MiG clearly intends to fit any production aircraft with an advanced combat radar system in a modified nose.

* Russia's financial problems have made funding MiG-29 upgrades difficult. If the Russian Air Force has plans to upgrade their existing MiG-29s to the MiG-29SMT, they are now in a hazy state, and there is no evidence that the MiG-29UBT has fared any better.

RSK MiG hasn't given up, however. Russian Air Force pilots have given glowing reports on evaluations of the MiG-29SMT, and the update price is a quarter of that of a new fighter, while operating costs are less than two-thirds of a 9-12 MiG-29.

RSK MiG is promoting the MiG-29SMT as part of range of updates of increasing sophistication:

* The simplest upgrade revives the "MiG-29SD" designation, and more or less takes its cue from the MiG-29Ns sold to Malaysia, with the upgrade program providing an airframe overhaul, a bolt-on refueling probe, improved Russian radar, and Westernized avionics.

* The second-level upgrade revives the "MiG-29SM" designation. This upgrade features the fit of a console CRT and other improvements to support use of smart air-to-surface weapons.

* The "MiG-29SMT-1" is basically the current MiG-29SMT with the N-019M Slot Back radar, as well as Westernized avionics.

* The "MiG-29SMT-2" is similar, but incorporates the high-end N-010 Zhuk-M radar.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avmig29.html
 

Salty Dog

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Here's a little something on MiG-29 maintenance and reliability. Now granted the article talks about mainly the older MiG-29's.

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/MiG-29-2b.htm

EDIT: Here's a little more the MiG-29SMT variant.

http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avmig29.html
We should look at the current Russian/Mig philosophy on aircraft maintenance. I recall the hallmark of the 50's/60's generation of Russian (Soviet) fighters (mainly Mig) was their simplicity and robustness. This meant low cost and greater numbers when compared to western counterparts. Soviet aircraft maintenance (as well as customer countires) philosophy was "Fly to Failure". This especially suited customer counties which had little/poor infrastructure to support AIMD or depot level maintenance. That was back when fighters were mainly analog and easy to maintain/repair, therefore this maintenance philosopy was suitable.

Current fighters are mainly digital and require a huge proportion of maintence hours per flight hour. The newer generations are highly sophisticated systems when compared to their predecessors and their initial and life-cycle costs have skyrocketed.

IMHO the Russian philosophy of aircraft maintenance would also need to change from analog to digital. "Fly to Failure" would not be prudent and maintenance hours and costs will increase. Tie all this to the increasing sophistication of the aircraft and customer countries will need to pay more in the long haul.

Western fighters have long gone the route of periodic/scheduled maintenance in the digital world and AFAIK these are priced into their life cycles.

In the long run, it will be interesting to see how the Mig (and Sukhoi) systems will finally cost to their customer countries and what maintenance philosophies they will follow.
 

Chrom

New Member
But surely, MiG did have difficulty in making SMTs for Algeria. I thought it was established that they pulled white tails out of storage & refurbished & upgraded them, instead of building new.

?
For 100th time. Mig-29SMT are BY DEFINITION made from aircrafts "pulled white tails out of storage & refurbished & upgraded them, instead of building new". MIG-29SMT is UPGRADE variant. They cant be build new.
 

Chrom

New Member
We should look at the current Russian/Mig philosophy on aircraft maintenance. I recall the hallmark of the 50's/60's generation of Russian (Soviet) fighters (mainly Mig) was their simplicity and robustness. This meant low cost and greater numbers when compared to western counterparts. Soviet aircraft maintenance (as well as customer countires) philosophy was "Fly to Failure". .
You get it completely wrong. "Fly to failure" wasnt used in any developed country.

The real thing was different: Till the later 90x russian philosophy in aircraft industry was "use the part (or even whole engine) till guarantied life/km/etc". And then just replace it without any checking. Old parts (engines) are send back for refurbishing to big maintenance depots or manufacturer.

Contrary, western approach was "check the part, and continue its use if it is ok". If not, replace it in field condition.

Both approaches had its merit. Russian ones required much less qualified field technicians, less advanced devices and instruments - which is especially important in bad prepared airfields, forward deployment and 3rd-country users. This also allowed somewhat higher reliability.

Western approach gave much higher service life for components and reduced maintenance cost in peace time. In turn, the maintenance required much higher qualification, much more expensive & much better prepared airfields and technical instruments.

This also resulted (by all things equal) in somewhat lower reliability due to non-ideal ability of the technical staff to determine exact wear of components and still somewhat worse field instruments compared to big stationary depots .

Keeping in mind how in the last 50 years absolutely most aircrafts ended they life peacefully in scrapyards - the later approach won.
 
Last edited:
Top