MiG-19: I never went anywhere. Let's continue...

43 900 72
MiG-19: I never went anywhere. Let's continue...


В stories aviation There are planes... and then there are planes. Who remembers the Su-11 and Yak-25 today? The F-9 and F-94? Only historians. And then there are planes whose names are etched into the sky.



70 years ago, in September 1955, the supersonic MiG-19 fighter entered service with the Soviet Air Force. It was the first Soviet production supersonic fighter, and the first in the world, capable of achieving supersonic speeds in level flight.


Overall, the MiG-19 wasn't all that different from its predecessors, the MiG-15 and MiG-17, but this aircraft marked a turning point between different eras of global aviation. It was the first aircraft of the second generation of jet aircraft in our Air Force.

It is worth noting that the MiG-19 was only one year behind its main competitor, the North American F-100 Super Sabre, which entered service in 1954.


Surprisingly, the MiG-19 was in no way inferior to the American aircraft (something the US hadn't expected), and in some ways even superior. For example, the F-100 was twice as heavy, giving the MiG-19 the freedom of maneuver that it utilized in many air battles. And the three 23mm NR-23 cannons were proven and reliable. weapons. In addition, already with the MiG-19PM modification, the aircraft was equipped with guided missiles missiles "air-to-air".


Almost from the moment it appeared in the Soviet Air Force, the MiG-19 found itself in various combat situations. However, its first victories and losses only began in 1960. And, unfortunately, the first loss was to friendly forces.

On May 1, 1960, an American U-2 reconnaissance aircraft piloted by Captain Powers violated Soviet airspace. The brazen American flew from the Soviet-Afghan border to Sverdlovsk, where he was subdued by S-75 antiaircraft gunners. But, tragically, two MiG-19s scrambled to intercept him were also caught in the same salvo. Captain Ayvazyan managed to evade the attack, but his wingman, Lieutenant Safronov, was unfortunately shot down and killed.

Exactly two months later, on July 1, 1960, the MiG-19 scored its first victory. Captain Vasily Polyakov shot down an RB-47H Stratojet reconnaissance aircraft.


A lot was made of this incident, saying that the American started shooting back at our plane, which is why everything happened that way, but in reality, everything was much more prosaic and in accordance with the regulations.

Here's what retired Colonel Vasily Polyakov told a Komsomolskaya Pravda correspondent:
"On July 1, 1960, I was on combat duty at 2nd readiness at an airfield near Murmansk... I was scrambled to locate an intruder... I reported: 'I see the target. What should I do?' The response was: 'Approach and identify it.' I complied, approached the reconnaissance aircraft from the starboard wing to a range of approximately 30 meters, and, in accordance with international regulations, signaled: 'Attention! Follow me.' But the RB-47, instead of obeying the command, attempted to break away from me... After obvious disobedience, seeing that the spy was attempting to leave our airspace, I requested the command post: 'The target is escaping. What should I do?' After a long pause, the command followed: 'Destroy!' I fired two salvos, and the RB-47 burst into flames."

The only thing that is unclear here is whether Captain Polyakov fired two salvos of cannons or missiles, but the fact is: such a huge thing as the RB-47H Stratojet (90 tons at takeoff in the reconnaissance version) was more than enough.

This was the first, but far from the last, incident involving the MiG-19 during the Cold War. In fact, there were more than a few such incidents. Many retired US Air Force officials testified in their memoirs that the MiG-19 greatly complicated the lives of their reconnaissance aircraft.

Overall, during the MiG-19's service with the Soviet Air Force, two aircraft (American) and seven reconnaissance balloons (the number could well be higher) were shot down, not counting those forced to land. Of these, one aircraft was lost to friendly fire from the ground.


A pretty good result, but the MiG-19 had War with a capital W ahead of it.

In general, many experts compare the MiG-19 with the F-100 Super Sabre, and this is fair, but the MiG-19's main rival in the air battles of the Vietnam War was the much more advanced McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II.


This isn't often talked about because the fighters in Vietnam were called J-6s, but it's worth dotting the i's.

In 1956, the Soviet Union transferred the MiG-19 production documentation to China, formalized licensing agreements, and transferred the tooling. The following year, the first MiG-19P, assembled in China, took to the skies.


So, what kind of aircraft is this Shenyang J-6? It's a MiG-19P/MiG-19PM, officially license-assembled in China and differing from the MiG-19 only in the hieroglyphs on the instrument panel and elsewhere. So, those who claim that MiG-19s fought against Phantoms in the skies over Vietnam are not mistaken by a millimeter.

Of course, technologically, China was very much inferior to its northern neighbor and, at that time, its “big brother,” so the WP-6 engine was inferior to the original RD-9B, primarily in terms of reliability.

But overall, the MiG-19's performance over Vietnam must be considered quite successful. Chinese fighters shot down 19 American aircraft, seven of which were Phantoms. Considering their own losses of five aircraft, this is a more than respectable performance.


The Chinese version of the MiG-19 is generally considered a very successful aircraft and has had a significant impact on the subsequent development of Chinese combat aviation. It was thanks to the MiG-19 that China entered the military aviation market, first selling the aircraft regionally and then selling it widely, as the Chinese were able to independently develop a trainer aircraft based on the MiG-19, the so-called "dual trainer." The USSR had no such aircraft, and pilots were trained on the MiG-15UTI.

Having solved the training issue, the Chinese burst into the market and began offering an aircraft that had received favorable reviews following the Vietnam War.

The first customer was Pakistan, which received a total of over 185 aircraft. The following were:
- Bangladesh – 40 aircraft;
- Vietnam – 40 aircraft;
- DPRK – more than 100 aircraft;
- Kampuchea – 16 aircraft;
- Iraq – 40 aircraft;
- Iran - 24 aircraft;
- Tanzania – 12 aircraft;
- Zambia – 12 aircraft;
- Sudan – 9 aircraft;
- Albania – 70 aircraft;
- Egypt – 100 aircraft;
- Somalia – 50 aircraft.

Yes, virtually all the countries on this list have already retired the MiG-19, but the Bangladesh Air Force still operates about 30 Nanchang Q-5s, a ground-attack version of the J-6. The Somali Air Force has about 30 aircraft, Sudan still has eight aircraft after receiving 14 more in 1981, and Zambia still has six. However, the primary operator today is the North Korean Air Force, which maintains about 100 operational aircraft.

That is, in fact, the MiG-19 has truly crossed the 70-year mark.


During the entire period of communist hard work, Chinese factories produced over three thousand J-6 aircraft of all modifications. Sold, decommissioned, lost in combat, the thrifty Chinese have amassed around a thousand J-6s at their sites in eastern mainland China, in the areas of Shenyang, Beijing, Jinan, Nanjing, and Guangzhou (it should be noted that some of these sites are inland, built in the mountains during the Cold War). And, as those familiar with the matter note, the vast majority of these aircraft are operational.

A fair question might arise: why does China need so many old aircraft?



Probably the best answer would be, "Just in case." Hundreds of them were stored in our woods under the open sky, exposed to the seven winds and rain and snow. tanks And infantry fighting vehicles near the glorious city of Omsk? They were stored. T-54s, T-55s, T-62s, BMP-1s, and BTR-60PBs—there were a lot of them there. And what's left? A few odds and ends that the zealous scrap metal collectors haven't yet hauled away, and nothing more. Apparently, that very "just in case" finally happened.

And first of all, as you remember, in 2021 there was information that Chinese engineers were working on studying the possibility of converting old jet aircraft into DronesAfter the study, it was time for redesign. The result was the J-6W heavy UAV, which entered serial production at one of the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation (SAC) aerospace concern's facilities.

Today it became known what changes the MiG-19 has undergone:
- the pilot's seat and life support system were removed;
- the guns were dismantled;
- completely removed all radio equipment except for the radar;
- the external fuel tanks were also dismantled.

Instead, the J-6W was equipped with a terrain-following navigation system and a full-fledged autopilot, plus a set of cameras for transmitting optical data. Naturally, powered by China's Beidou satellite system.

What happened in the end?


A truly heavy (7,500 kg takeoff weight) drone, capable, according to American experts, of solving a rather diverse set of tasks:
- a disposable strike platform with a 500 kg warhead;
- a reusable strike platform capable of carrying up to 4 bombs or missiles on a suspension;
- false target (doubtful);
- scout.

Considering the MiG-19's performance, the drone is quite interesting; just look at its flight characteristics. Let's compare it to the MQ-9 Reaper, as that drone is somewhat similar to the J-6W.


The speed remains the same – 1,450 km/h. That's faster than any similar aircraft. For now, at least. The MQ-9 can reach a maximum speed of 400 km/h, and its cruising speed is generally 250 km/h, although it can cruising at this leisurely pace for almost a day.

Altitude. 15,000 meters. That's also pretty impressive. On par with the MQ-9 Reaper.

Flight range: 1,400 km. The Reaper's range is 1,900 km, but that's all at the expense of speed.

Armament. 500+ kg externally. The MQ-9 can carry more, up to 1,700 kg.

The devices are similar, but their applications are completely different. The Reaper will carry more weight and haul further, but it will take an insane amount of time. By wartime standards, the Chinese one would have been 1,000 km. Drone will fly in less than an hour, and the American will fly, depending on the strength and direction of the wind, from 4-5 hours and further.

Moreover, we shouldn't forget about the surveillance and tracking capabilities of many countries. Even the Houthis, who have developed a habit of dropping Reaper missiles with or without reason, are doing well in this regard. More developed countries, needless to say, are well-located and monitored by the Reaper missile, despite all its strengths, and even more so by its destruction.

The Chinese unmanned MiG is a bit more complex in terms of camouflage, because although its wing is smaller (9 meters versus 25 meters), the materials used are, unfortunately, from the last century. This means the MiG will be "showing up" on radar screens with all its might.

And despite all this, the J-6W, based on the MiG-19, currently has more advantages than disadvantages. And the main one is that the MiGs already exist. Building a "Reaper" requires $30 million and a year of work. The Chinese, of course, won't say how long it will take to convert a MiG-19 into a J-6W, nor how much yuan it will cost, but the fact is that they are capable of deploying an armada of UAVs with excellent performance in the coming years without a large investment.

The Americans, let's say, are concerned about this. And understandably so: on the one hand, the MiG-19 is a veteran aircraft, having served for 70 years. On the other hand, the J-6W is simply excellent as a UAV; in fact, there are practically no UAVs in the world with the same performance as the modernized MiG-19/J-6W. And China will have plenty of them.

Is 70 years a lot?



Yes, especially for aircraft. Who today remembers the Vought F-8 Crusader, the world's only production aircraft with variable-wing pitch? Or the Il-54, the bomber that was supposed to replace the Il-28 but didn't? The Tu-98? The KC-135 Stratotanker?

There were many of them, planes that took to the skies and flew into history. And then there are planes that took off and aren't going anywhere. The Tu-95, B-52, MiG-19, MiG-21, Tu-16, C-130—they're still in the sky.

The MiG-19 has a chance of a third life as a UAV (counting itself and the J-6) precisely because of its strengths: its compact size and decent performance. This means the aircraft has every chance of celebrating future milestones as a combat aircraft.

What can you do if that country knew how to build airplanes? Just use it. Which is exactly what China is doing.
72 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. The comment was deleted.
  2. +14
    22 September 2025 06: 21
    Oh, these 1060 years, I remember, I remember))) what a Roman, what a writer.
    1. +15
      22 September 2025 11: 25
      Yeah, I remember with Izyaslav Yaroslavovich, who is the prince, how we saw this thing in the air over Chernigov - we almost pissed our pants with fear. laughing laughing
      1. +3
        25 September 2025 01: 08
        Izyaslav is a good name!!! When needed, you're Izya! When needed, you're Slava!!! wassat
  3. +15
    22 September 2025 06: 25
    Yeah! What they didn't build in the USSR! People were really capable!
    1. +9
      22 September 2025 07: 45
      We wanted it! And when there's a will, there's a way.
  4. +22
    22 September 2025 06: 58
    gave the MiG-19 such freedom of maneuver that it was used in many air battles. And the three 23-mm NR-23 cannons were a proven and reliable weapon. In addition, already with the MiG-23PM modification The aircraft was equipped with air-to-air guided missiles.

    The MiG-23 was not a modification of the MiG-19. It was a fundamentally different aircraft.
    1. 0
      25 September 2025 09: 57
      And the MiG-23PM modification never existed. The author made a typo here; he apparently meant the MiG-19PM.
  5. +8
    22 September 2025 07: 44
    And despite all this, the J-6W, based on the MiG-19, currently has more advantages than disadvantages. And the main one is that the MiGs already exist. Building a "Reaper" requires $30 million and a year of work.

    The J-6W isn't intended to be a "Reaper"; it's an aerial target for pilot and air defense training, and, at most, for saturating enemy air defenses. The US is similarly converting decommissioned aircraft.
    1. 0
      1 October 2025 08: 24
      Did you mean to overload the enemy's air defense?
  6. +14
    22 September 2025 09: 42
    In addition, already with the MiG-23PM modification, the aircraft began to feature

    What modification of the MiG 19 is this, Roman, enlighten me?
    Maybe the choir should already write about things you understand like a pig about oranges?
  7. +6
    22 September 2025 10: 19
    Who today remembers the Vought F-8 Crusader, the world's only production aircraft with a variable-wing pitch angle?

    Novel!
    Please don't write nonsense.
    1. +12
      22 September 2025 12: 15
      Quote: Alexey Sommer
      Novel!
      Please don't write nonsense.

      Hmm ...
      The wing pitch angle of an aircraft is the angle φ0​ between the central chord of the wing and the reference axis of the aircraft.

      And in the Crusader, the Yankees made this angle variable:
      A number of technical innovations were implemented during the aircraft's development. The high-mounted wing with a 42° sweep angle was equipped with a variable wing pitch system. During takeoff and landing, the wing pitch angle increased by 7°, increasing the angle of attack while maintaining the fuselage in a horizontal position.
      © VO. Sergey Linnik. The F-8 Crusader carrier-based fighter, its predecessors and descendants (Part 1).
      See the red hump behind the cabin?
    2. +5
      22 September 2025 12: 24
      Quote: Alexey Sommer
      Who today remembers the Vought F-8 Crusader, the world's only production aircraft with a variable-wing pitch angle?

      Novel!
      Please don't write nonsense.


      Well, to be honest, there's not much gameplay here...

      "By moving the supporting surface upward, Vought specialists equipped it with a system for changing the wing angle. During takeoff and landing, the wing angle increased by 7°, which increased the angle of attack, but the fuselage remained horizontal, providing a good view from the cockpit. With an increased angle of attack, the center section protruded into the airflow, acting as a powerful air brake, while at the same time, the ailerons and slats, located along the entire span of the wing's leading edge, automatically deflected to an angle of -25°. Between the ailerons and the fuselage were flaps that deflected by 30°. With the wing lowered after takeoff, all deflectable surfaces assumed a flight position. Theoretically, landing with a wing lowered was possible, but was considered very dangerous, although during operation, pilots often had to land with low wing angles of attack."
  8. -17
    22 September 2025 10: 31
    One of the last in a series of successful, long-lived MiG aircraft. Next came the masterpiece, the MiG-21, but all the success ended with the MiG-31. The MiG-23, 25, and 29 were not good multirole aircraft and quickly disappeared from the scene. Just like the once-famous MiG company.
    1. -2
      22 September 2025 15: 08
      Quote: Yuri_K_Msk
      MIG-23, 25, 29

      MiG 27 has been forgotten.
    2. +14
      22 September 2025 18: 30
      Just don't mention the MiG-25. The aircraft was epochal and saw much combat. Even the first air battle between an aircraft and a drone was won by a MiG-25. The MiG-23 was superior in almost every way to the early F-16s, which were a different generation of fighter. Moreover, the MiG-23 scored a number of victories over the F-16s.
      The MiG-23 was used as the basis for the very successful MiG-27 attack aircraft, which also saw combat.
      The MiG-29 was conceived as a complement to the Su-27, and it's not to blame for the collapse of the USSR and the choice made in favor of the Sukhoi... Incidentally, not a very optimal solution. And if the MiG-29 has "disappeared," why are our fighters constantly shooting down Ukrainian MiG-29s?
      1. +1
        22 September 2025 22: 24
        Quote: futurohunter
        The MiG-23 was superior to the early F-16s in almost every way, and that was a fighter of a different generation.
        The first Block 16s were a day fighter in good weather, with two sidewinders and very mediocre equipment. The Mka was superior in capabilities, and the ML family is completely unimpressive. I don't think the Block 50 even had a TP.
        Now the 16th is catching up with the 23rd in terms of the number of aircraft produced and will most likely push it out of the top three.
        1. +2
          23 September 2025 11: 48
          The F-16 has almost caught up with the MiG-23 fighter variants in terms of production numbers. But if you consider that few pure F-16 fighters were produced, and that fighter-bombers were the main variants, and you count all the bomber and attack variants of the MiG-23BN and MiG-27, the Falcon is still a long way from catching up. And, given that the Americans are switching over and are converting all their "allies" to the F-35, it most likely won't even catch up.
          1. 0
            23 September 2025 16: 05
            Quote: futurohunter
            If you consider that only a few pure F-16 fighters were produced, and, basically, fighter-bombers were produced...
            I don't agree with you, the 16th one still developed in the direction multifunctionality, but I wouldn't call it fighter bomber.
            1. +1
              24 September 2025 16: 22
              A multirole (tactical) fighter is a fighter-bomber. This term has its roots in history. Aircraft originally designed as fighters were later adapted for strikes against ground and sea targets. The Su-7 and F-104 underwent similar transformations. The F-16 also underwent this. Initially, it was designed as a pure fighter, the American MiG-21. But it quickly transitioned into the category of attack aircraft. If we look at the combat history of the F-16, we see that it primarily operated "on the ground," not "in the air." And even if we look at the equipment "accumulated" on the F-16 as it developed, it was almost exclusively for reconnaissance of ground targets and ground-based weapon guidance.
              Bombs can be mounted on "regular" fighters, but that doesn't make them "fighter-bombers." For example, the MiG-21 carried bombs. The Ukrainians adapted the MiG-29. But they didn't become fully-fledged fighter-bombers, with equal capabilities on the ground and in the air.
              There are also counterexamples. Originally designed as multirole aircraft, the Su-30 and Su-35 operate primarily as fighters, and very rarely on the ground.
    3. +2
      22 September 2025 19: 16
      Especially the 23rd, from which, at the instigation of the Americans, equipment was diligently 'cut out' under contracts... by the way, until recently it was in the top three in terms of quantity produced.
      1. +3
        23 September 2025 20: 45
        If the USSR hadn't collapsed in 1991, the MiG-23 would have continued to serve. There was a plan to modernize at least all MiG-23MLs with the MiG-29's radar and radar. Given the MiG-23ML's greater speed and range than the MiG-29, its armament with new missiles and the ability to see and engage targets against the ground, the MiG-23 would have continued to serve for a long time in our Air Force, and in the air forces of our clients and allies. Even without modernization, they continued to serve for a long time in many air forces.
        But maneuverability, visibility from the cockpit—alas, the MiG-23 wasn't designed for maneuverable close combat; it was an interceptor. And the strike aircraft based on it turned out to be excellent.
        But the technicians servicing the 23s cursed their designers. And the pilots themselves didn't like them.
        1. +1
          23 September 2025 22: 28
          Quote: bayard
          ..servicing 23-and swore at their designers. And the pilots themselves didn't like them.
          I would ask you not to offend my favorite car. crying not a simple device, but it works
          Quote: bayard
          If the USSR had not collapsed in 1991, the MiG-23 would have still been in service
          The ML family was quite successful, well, let's not even mention the review. The MLD was not easy to handle at all. In '91, we spoke with the 'aggressor' from Marov – they had recently beaten the Cubans with 29s, according to him, of course. Rumor has it that the MLDG was nipped in the bud precisely because of its superiority over the 29 – they had to push through, while the ones built in Ozerny remained. The Peshka's capabilities were never fully exploited, they didn't have time.
          1. +1
            24 September 2025 00: 04
            Quote: Pete Mitchell
            I would ask you not to offend my favorite machine, it is not a simple device, but it works.

            Well, that's what the pilots told me. A classmate of mine flew one of those, too, but not for long—they offered to retrain him on the PSS Mi-14 helicopter, which is what he later flew in Crimea. I asked him about the Mi-23, "How's it going?" and he just waved his hand and replied with one word: "Fuel." And the MiG Design Bureau test pilot, recalling the MiG-23, grimaced and said, "It was definitely a clumsy airplane." But he mainly taught me to fly the MiG-29, from the very beginning.
            Quote: Pete Mitchell
            According to rumors, the MLDH was nipped in the bud precisely because of its superiority over the 29th - it was necessary to push through,

            Well, their missions are fundamentally somewhat different. The MiG-29 is a frontline fighter for maneuverable combat, with the potential for multirole capabilities in future modifications. The latest modifications of the 23 are still primarily interceptors. Although they were already capable of maneuverable combat, the cockpit visibility wasn't particularly conducive. If they had been smart and avoided the hysteria of perestroika, then even if they abandoned the bulk of the 23 fleet, they could and should have been sold to those who wanted them after modernization. And there were always those who wanted them. But they decided to sell the 29s. It's a shame. What potential wasted.
            1. +1
              24 September 2025 09: 02
              I interned several times at the plant where the 23 was manufactured, assembling it on the assembly line myself. The plant's chief designer lectured us. I visited the plant where the 27 was assembled, and later I had the chance to speak with the pilots who flew it. But no one had much praise for the plane. It was a problematic machine.
              1. +2
                24 September 2025 12: 04
                Quote: Sergey Valov
                The car was problematic.

                Variable sweep is always a challenge for a light single-engine fighter. And to remove the engine (as the techies used to say), you have to disassemble almost half the plane.
                Nevertheless, it was a machine with considerable potential, boasting a high maximum speed at altitude, performing well at low altitudes and able to sustain such flight far longer than any other enemy fighter. It was also honed for medium-range missile combat. With a new Doppler radar and new missile-launching missiles, it could have fought quite well, albeit not in the lead role. But the technicians certainly breathed a huge sigh of relief after they were removed from service.
                And they could have still sold most of the fleet instead of scrapping it. And they could have certainly sold the MiG-27s. That's the only regret.
            2. +1
              24 September 2025 09: 18
              Quote: bayard
              The latest modifications of the 23rd are still more of an interceptor, even though they were already capable of maneuver combat.
              After all, the 23rd generation aircraft are versatile, and Afghanistan proved that. And the Peshka, the last production version, was also designed for interception because it could be controlled via communications links from the automated control system, so to speak. network-centric The capabilities were there, but the automated control system didn't quite gel. The rest of the ML family was universal, as the Americans demonstrated by insisting on eliminating ground operations capabilities. Despite everything, even air defense regiment pilots sometimes earned the status of "carriers."
              The car was clearly not dumped because all possibilities were exhausted; there were other reasons.
              1. +1
                24 September 2025 12: 12
                Quote: Pete Mitchell
                The ML family was universal, which was proven by the Americans by focusing on 'cutting out' the possibilities of working on the ground.

                This isn't surprising – after the then-new MiG-29s entered service with fighter regiments, the entire MiG-23 fleet could have been converted to strike aircraft (as the US and NATO had done with their Phantom fleets). And given that the MiG-23s were very sensitive to low-altitude supersonic breakthroughs during WWI, the strike capabilities of our aviation could have been greatly enhanced. And with the new radar and air-to-air missiles, they could still conduct air combat as multirole aircraft. This possibility of being re-purposed as strike-focused multirole fighters was precisely what they were hedging their bets against. And the possibility of their mass sale, which would have undermined US trade in its aircraft. Because as strike aircraft, they were certainly much better than the Falcons.
                1. +1
                  24 September 2025 13: 24
                  Quote: bayard
                  Quote: Pete Mitchell
                  The ML family was universal, which was proven by the Americans by focusing on 'cutting out' the possibilities of working on the ground.
                  It's not surprising - after the then new MiG-29s entered service with the fighter regiments, the entire MiG-23 fleet could have been transferred to...
                  The 29th was replacing the 23rd en masse in the Air Force, and the 23rd was simply dumped. The 29th handled the fighter duties; for strike missions there were the 17th/25th/24th, and of course the 27th. The 23rd turned out to be out of work In the Air Force. I can't say how many regiments of the 23rd there were in the Air Force by '91, but not many. And there were still plenty of them in the air defense: MLs, MLDs, and Peshkas, with strange sighting combinations. It wasn't because it was an "exceptional interceptor"—it just happened that way.
                  Then they 'optimized' everything, 'combined' it, and got rid of the single-engine machines... not from great intelligence
        2. 0
          24 September 2025 08: 52
          "It was specifically an interceptor" – no. The MiG-23 was designed specifically as a frontline fighter, as a replacement for the MiG-21. The Su-15 and MiG-25, its contemporaries at the time, were pure interceptors, which were far superior to the MiG-23 in this regard.
          1. +1
            24 September 2025 09: 11
            Quote: Sergey Valov
            The interceptors, its contemporaries at that time, were the Su-15 and MiG-25, which were much superior to the MiG-23 in this regard.
            Well, both the 15th and 25th were specific and older machines. The 15th certainly wasn't superior in capabilities, but it outdid everyone in terms of reliability. The 25th, of course, thanks to its speed, could solve problems differently.
          2. +1
            24 September 2025 11: 07
            Quote: Sergey Valov
            The MiG-23 was created specifically as a frontline fighter, as a replacement for the MiG-21.

            It was designed for this purpose, but it turned out to be just another interceptor. In essence and in fact. Because maneuverable combat, especially in its early modifications, was completely nonexistent. The wings would crack on turns, G-force limits were imposed, the MiG-21 easily out-twisted the 23 in close maneuvering combat, and when it came to a training battle with a captured F-5E from Vietnam... it was a complete embarrassment – ​​the Tiger did whatever it wanted with the 23 in close combat. Therefore, although it was supposedly a frontline fighter, it was used/utilized primarily as an interceptor.
            But the latest modifications have already eliminated a number of shortcomings and were already capable of maneuvering combat. But look at its cockpit, the visibility from it, the monstrous closing angles for viewing the rear hemisphere. And then look at the cockpit of the same Su-15, which, by the way, was also capable of maneuvering combat. It was because of these shortcomings that the MiG-21, which it was supposed to replace, was retained in service. And specifically for close combat. In fact, the MiG-23 was more of a "frontline interceptor," since it was used for medium-range interceptions, while the MiG-21 was engaged in close maneuvering combat. In principle, the MiG-23 was designed for missile duels with Phantoms, and in this the MiG-23 was quite good. But in group dogfights that threatened to escalate into close combat, they were generally preferred to be used alongside the MiG-21. Much like the Israelis used Phantoms alongside the light and maneuverable Mirages—the Mirages would engage in combat as a demonstration formation, while the Phantoms would come in at low altitude and engage the enemy's RAV SD Sparrow fighters.
            With the advent of the MiG-29, this whole circus could be abandoned.
            Or the latest versions of the MiG-23 could have been retained for operations in the same vein, only alongside the MiG-29. Or they could have been repurposed as strike/multirole aircraft for low-altitude supersonic breakthroughs. Because they were much more comfortable in supersonic mode at low altitudes and could sustain it for much longer than the MiG-29.
            1. +2
              24 September 2025 13: 14
              Quote: bayard
              Quote: Sergey Valov
              The MiG-23 was created specifically as a frontline fighter, as a replacement for the MiG-21.
              It was created for this purpose, but it turned out to be just another interceptor.
              I'm so terribly sorry, but you're missing the point: the 23rd generation was superior to the 21st in every way in terms of equipment, and even the 15th. There's no point in even talking about the Su-15. Starting with the Mka, it was a multirole aircraft: it had the capability to employ guided weapons on the ground—how it was used is another story. In maneuver combat, it wasn't a 4th generation, of course, but it could handle the 7,5. The MLs moderately outperformed the 8,5 and became even more versatile. Yes, they didn't get rid of the visibility issues, but the Su-15's decent visibility didn't make it an air-to-air fighter—it was born in an era dominated by theory. missile duelsThe review from the 21st isn't much better, but its time has passed.
              The fourth generation offered different capabilities, coupled with changes in the government and other factors: otherwise usable equipment was abandoned at bases like Chebenkov... to be destroyed. With the outbreak of the First War in the mountains, they were no longer able to return the aircraft to service. Although some regiments still flew and fired, and did quite well. In the Sverdlovsk Army alone, four regiments were slashed... And then...
              1. +2
                24 September 2025 14: 12
                Of course, the MiG-23 had a much more sophisticated and powerful avionics suite than the MiG-21, but the MiG-21 was not removed from service; instead, it was used jointly, sharing tasks in group air combat. The MiG-23 was used primarily at medium range, often approaching the attack target at low altitude.
                Well, why bother raking over the ashes of the past? High Treason took place, a Great Power and its Army were destroyed. And now... a Strange Military Order is underway.
                1. +2
                  24 September 2025 14: 19
                  The war in the mountains was stirred up when the state of the country and the Armed Forces were in deep trouble... they were searching for the trained ones one by one.
                  Now it is heavily mixed with politics.
                  Nothing changes - there is nowhere to retreat
                2. 0
                  24 September 2025 15: 20
                  Quote: bayard
                  The Great Power and its Army were destroyed

                  Quote: neighboring resource
                  Deinekin decided the Air Force needed to transition to twin-engine aircraft. But there was no money! Previously, 90% of the Air Force would be rearmed in two or three years, with equipment constantly being upgraded. They were planning to deploy Su-34s to the IBA, but there was no money. And the MiG-27s had already been returned to their bases… Such aircraft! It would have been better to sell them to someone, to some African or other, than to let them rot quietly like this!
                  1. +1
                    24 September 2025 17: 28
                    Quote: Pete Mitchell
                    Deinekin decided that the Air Force needed to switch to twin-engine aircraft.

                    This decision was made back in the 70s, based on the experience of the Vietnam War and the Battle of the Black Sea. This is how the technical specifications for the MiG-29 and Su-27 were created under the slogan "From now on, only twin-engine aircraft." I read about this back in the mid-80s in detailed materials dedicated to the adoption of the MiG-29 and Su-27.
                    And what's especially surprising is that the US, at the same time, made a radical decision: only single-engine fighters in the light class. They issued specifications for the creation of their own "MiG-21 analogue" – the F-16. They also decreed that two-thirds of the entire fighter fleet should consist of light single-engine fighters.
                    And we had them with the "Phantom" and its survivability thanks to its two separated engines, when it often left the battle on one engine.
                    The fate of the latest MiG-23 and MiG-27 fighters, in the context of the destruction of a Great Power and its Army, is not surprising. The "reduction" of the country's air defense system is also a sight that is more than just heartbreaking.
                    1. +1
                      24 September 2025 17: 44
                      Philosophy lectures/heavy El Khavir worked, the Americans didn't have that opportunity. In fact, this idea was born from accountants – after counting the losses after another war with the Syrians, they were moved to tears: that's how the combination came about. light/heavy and the 'hit the boiler' technique. I don't think they were worried about the number of engines - they just know how to count.
                      The country's aviation was beaten not in the field, but at the table, trying to play with cheaters.
                      1. 0
                        24 September 2025 18: 29
                        Yes, this combination of light Mirages and heavy Phantoms was first used during the Israeli-Egyptian war, when our MiG-21 pilots suffered serious losses in their very first engagement. But the Americans, already fighting in Vietnam and facing single-engine MiG-17s and MiG-21s, and seeing their losses, began demanding from their Defense Ministry "the same as the MiG-21—light, single-engine, maneuverable, and inexpensive."
                        But the first to use light fighters in combination to engage in maneuverable combat, and heavy fighters to attack the SD missile defense forces from low altitudes, were, of course, the Israelis.
                      2. 0
                        24 September 2025 19: 54
                        "They began to demand from their Ministry of Defense "the same as the MiG-21 - light, single-engine, maneuverable and inexpensive." - at that time, the F-5 already existed.
                      3. 0
                        24 September 2025 20: 21
                        Quote: Sergey Valov
                        At that time, the F-5 already existed.

                        Developed from the T-38 trainer for its junior customers and non-NATO allies, the Tiger proved highly maneuverable, inexpensive, and extremely convenient and easy to maintain. During the Iran-Iraq War, Iranian aircraft technicians set an absolute record for interflight maintenance. They worked like a Formula 1 team of technicians and completed the task in 5 or 5,5 minutes!
                        But there was a drawback—low thrust-to-weight ratio. To address this, a telescopic landing gear strut, like that of carrier-based aircraft, was used during takeoff, raising the nose of the aircraft during acceleration to shorten the takeoff roll. Generally, these aircraft were supplied in large numbers to second- and third-tier allies and became very popular. The South Vietnamese Air Force also had quite a few. After the war was won, they sent us several examples of American aircraft, and they were thoroughly tested and flown. The plane was a surprise.
                        But the US Air Force command specifically wanted a single-engine, lightweight fighter for maneuverable combat. And the F-16 was born from this specification.
                        Soon, they tried to develop a more advanced, single-engine, simple, and inexpensive aircraft based on the highly successful Tiger, using a Phantom engine. This is how the F-20 prototype was born—it was good in every way, but since the Falcon had already appeared, everyone wanted it because it was better, even if it was more expensive. And so began the F-16's triumphant march through the air forces of the world.
                        At the same time, we had the MiG-29 – a superb light fighter with an incredible thrust-to-weight ratio, maneuverability, avionics, and weapons package… But it was quite labor-intensive to maintain. And its maintenance costs were practically on par with the heavy Su-27. So, after a while, MiG-29 sales almost completely stopped. Meanwhile, the Su-27 and Su-30 were snapped up like hotcakes in besieged Leningrad.
                        In the world right now, I prefer single-engine LFMIs, something we couldn't offer for a long time. Perhaps the Su-75 will finally satisfy this demand from our customers, and our Aerospace Forces (if they succeed) certainly wouldn't hurt to have 500-600 of them.
  9. 2al
    +9
    22 September 2025 10: 54
    The author didn't mention that 1450 km/h is only in afterburner mode, which, by the way, can reach altitudes of 20 km; cruising mode with a maximum range is 800 km/h. Apparently, China installed a shock absorber on the J-6; the Taiwanese reported this. It's a good feature in the unmanned version; the MiG-19 airframe itself can withstand 12g.
  10. +2
    22 September 2025 11: 20
    "In addition, the MiG-23PM modification began to equip the aircraft with guided air-to-air missiles."
    What is this? Yes
    1. +3
      22 September 2025 11: 55
      That's a typo. I meant MIG-19PM.
  11. -2
    22 September 2025 11: 26
    The brazen American flew from the Soviet-Afghan border to Sverdlovsk, where he was subdued by S-75 anti-aircraft gunners...

    There is a version that the U-2 shot down the Su-9, but Khrushchev needed the missile troops to win.
    1. 0
      22 September 2025 12: 25
      Yes, Khrushchev idolized corn and rockets...
  12. +6
    22 September 2025 12: 24
    "I executed it, approached from the right wing..." A dubious memoir. A professional wouldn't say that. There's no "right wing," there's a "right plane." A biplane has two wings.
    1. +6
      22 September 2025 14: 00
      A professional wouldn't say that.


      This is what retired Colonel Vasily Polyakov told a Komsomolskaya Pravda correspondent.

      The journalist could have rewritten it "to make it clearer to readers."
    2. 0
      22 September 2025 19: 59
      A biplane also has one. Any aircraft has only one wing. But there can actually be more than two planes.
      1. +2
        23 September 2025 11: 41
        Did you even understand what I just said? A biplane has two wings. "Bi" means two, "plane" means wing. There were also triplanes, quadplanes, tandems, and even multiplanes. A wing includes two semi-wings—two planes. Actually, the term "surfaces" is more accurate. Incidentally, they can be lifting surfaces (those that create lift)—wings—and non-lifting surfaces—for example, the empennage (except for canard configurations, where the empennage is lifting).
        1. +1
          23 September 2025 14: 21
          I understand everything perfectly. In my very first lecture on the subject, when I was graduating from MATI, the professor explained it clearly to us; it was ingrained in our heads once and for all. As for the term "surface" (I wrote "plane," which is essentially the same thing, although we were taught "plane"), it's exactly as you wrote it.
          1. 0
            24 September 2025 16: 04
            Thank you!
            A meaningless line to avoid the site's nitpicking of a short message
  13. +6
    22 September 2025 13: 04
    The Somali Air Force has approximately 30 aircraft, Sudan still has eight aircraft after receiving 14 more in 1981, and Zambia still has six. However, the primary operator today is the North Korean Air Force, which maintains approximately 100 aircraft in combat readiness.

    I usually refrain from criticizing other authors, but this is going too far, and the article is full of such flaws. Why write about something you don't understand? request Somalia has no air force, absolutely none. And the data for other countries doesn't reflect reality either. No.
    1. +3
      22 September 2025 14: 25
      Quote: Bongo
      Somalia has no air force, not even a single one.


      In the present, yes, they are absent, but "the Air Force was formed in 1960, after gaining independence from Great Britain and Italy, and with Soviet military assistance soon became one of the most powerful and combat-ready air forces south of the Sahara" and belonged to one of the branches of the armed forces of the Somali Republic, which collapsed in 1991
      1. +6
        22 September 2025 14: 58
        Quote: Igool
        In the present, yes, they are absent, but "the Air Force was formed in 1960, after gaining independence from Great Britain and Italy, and with Soviet military assistance soon became one of the most powerful and combat-ready air forces south of the Sahara" and belonged to one of the branches of the armed forces of the Somali Republic, which collapsed in 1991

        Thank you, I know! Yes But this publication is talking about the present time, and there are no operational combat aircraft in Somalia for a long time!
    2. +3
      22 September 2025 19: 20
      Quote: Bongo
      but this is already too much, and there are plenty of such mistakes in the article
      In general, it’s interesting where the author gets the materials for his articles about aviation; he finds it somewhere.
      1. +4
        22 September 2025 20: 02
        The internet is vast, and there's something for every taste and color. I'd venture to guess that it's quite difficult to come up with something like that.
      2. +5
        23 September 2025 11: 33
        It is highly likely that the author is a neural network, using the pseudonym "Roman Skomorokhov"
  14. The comment was deleted.
  15. +4
    22 September 2025 14: 57
    Great and mighty was the USSR.....
  16. +3
    22 September 2025 16: 34
    I don't understand something about Omsk. Where were we storing thousands of tanks? In Novaya Stanitsa? In Cheryomushki? In the forests at the tank training grounds? Did I miss something? Sorry for being off topic. I was just surprised.
  17. +2
    22 September 2025 17: 28
    but it was never officially adopted into service. It's a paradox, though.
    1. 0
      23 September 2025 15: 02
      For the Soviet Air Force, this is not a paradox, but normal practice: the Yak-28 was also not officially accepted into service! laughing
  18. +5
    22 September 2025 18: 25
    Roman wrote again, and it's unclear what he wrote. But for some reason, the MiG-19 never really caught on with the Soviet Air Force. And it was only the Chinese who truly perfected it. Before the MiG-21, the MiG-19 was truly their workhorse. And that's all... But the author was wrong to write almost nothing about the Q-5 attack bomber. The MiG-19's development was very interesting. The Chinese even used it to drop atomic bombs.
    As for converting old fighters into drones, the Americans have been doing this for a long time... starting with the F6F Hellcat. Now, F-16s are being converted into drones. There's nothing new under the sun...
    1. +1
      22 September 2025 20: 06
      "As for converting old fighters into drones," well, old planes have been converted into aerial targets for decades already, but the word "drone" wasn't used back then.
      1. +2
        22 September 2025 23: 51
        In fact, the word "drone" has been used since the 30s. "They have it." We brought it over with a bunch of other English words in the 90s. Before that, we used the term "UPV," before that "RPL," and even earlier, "aircraft-missile." However, cruise missiles were also called "aircraft-missiles," and there's no mistake about that. Missiles, even guided bombs and projectiles, can be classified as UAVs. I wrote about the conversion of old aircraft into UAVs in the US. This began en masse after World War II. I'm not aware of a similar practice in our country. Although UAVs have been mass-produced here since the 60s.
        1. +3
          23 September 2025 08: 21
          “I am not aware of such a practice here” – MiG-15M, MiG-17M and MiG-17MM, Il-28M. Tu-4s were also used as targets.
          1. +2
            23 September 2025 11: 32
            Thanks for the information! I didn't know about this.
  19. +4
    22 September 2025 22: 25
    After reading the article, it was clear that Roman was in a hell of a hurry and the editors were in a hurry, so many typos... run, run, run... well, somehow it's not worth it.
  20. Eug
    +1
    23 September 2025 12: 32
    What's the range of such a fighter jet? I recall the MiG-19's flight endurance is quite short. But mass use with preliminary "punching out" of enemy air defenses by other means—that's all about it...
  21. 0
    23 September 2025 21: 28
    Quote: Yuri_K_Msk
    Next came a masterpiece - the MIG-21

    Here is a masterpiece.
  22. 0
    23 September 2025 21: 29
    Quote: bayard
    There was a plan to modernize at least all MiG-23MLs with the installation of an radar and radar from the MiG-29.

    The radar on the 23 was better in terms of target characteristics.
  23. The comment was deleted.
  24. The comment was deleted.
  25. DO
    0
    7 November 2025 10: 48
    Yes, the Chinese are great - they breathed new life into the old MiG-19 as a drone!
    What about us? Maybe we could also make a bunch of drones out of old fighter jets that haven't been scrapped yet? These could be not only attack UAVs, but also reconnaissance radars flying close to LBS (and therefore, with a short lifespan, on average).