Jump to content

NATOizing ex-east block aircraft


Recommended Posts

The Romanian MiG-21 LanceR carries French Magic II and Israeli Python 3 missiles as well as the Litening II targeting pod so I guess GBU-12 should be possible as well. MK-83 is cleared to carry. The Iraqi Air Force adapted at least some of its Floggers to carry the French Exocet Anti Ship missile.

B/r

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC, the MiG-23 couldn't really support the Exocet missile, the image shown was just a mounting demonstration.

 

Also, the Iranian F-14 with Hawk missiles or R-27 also didn't work out. They still use the old, but presumably locally refurbished, Sidewinders and Sparrows.

Edited by ijozic
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SCOUT712 said:

...The Iraqi Air Force adapted at least some of its Floggers to carry the French Exocet Anti Ship missile...

 

That's interesting 🤔

Iraqi AF also use Mirage F.1 equiped with Russian Ch-29L A2G rockets. Israelis use R-3 rockets captured from Egypt on their Mirage IIIC.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mig-21 said:

Wonding if any of the ex-east block, now NATO countries, tried too or have modified soviet aircraft with NATO weapons
 

For dumb weapons it shouldn't be hard, the Soviets/Russians made their racks to NATO standard deliberately.  Part of their war plans involved quickly seizing NATO airfields and operating from them, using weapons left behind while they waited for their supply trains (which would take a while, as their rail gauge is different).

 

Looks like that was all a pipe-dream, though....

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the complexity on adopting NATO ordnance to ex-East Block aircraft it depends on weapon, missiles are easier since the Soviets copied NATO missiles and designed some of their launchers after US designs but bombs are harder.

 

For free fall bombs (dumb and guided), there are differences in lug spacing/size, weapon interface (with the bomb rack/pylon) and voltage differences between Soviet aircraft and NATO bomb bodies/fuzes just to name a few issues.

 

From my limited study of Soviet and Eastern Block free fall bombs; 

 

Soviet (and Eastern Block) bombs use either a single lug or a dual lug suspension, the problem is that most NATO bombs uses either a 14 inch or 30 suspension while Soviet bombs use a 250 mm suspension (approximately 9.9 inches) so it will be difficult to adapt a NATO bomb body onto a Soviet bomb rack. Also, the lug sizes are different, Soviet lugs seem to be bigger, making it hard for them to fit in NATO bomb rack hooks.

 

Voltage, most modern NATO bombs use an electrical fuze, Soviet (and Eastern Block) block aircraft use mechanical fuzing. I have not seen many Soviet bombs racks that are capable of electrical fuzing so you would have to source mechanical fuzes (the USN got rid of mechanical fuzing years ago, think the USAF still uses them though). Also, Soviet aircraft use a different voltage than NATO aircraft so you would have to adapt the aircraft electrical weapon system to accommodate the NATO weapon, in addition to making the rack electrical fuzing capable. 

 

Weapon interface: there is a difference between how the weapon interfaces with the Soviet style bomb racks (ie sway braces, arming solenoids, arming wire routing, etc) and NATO bomb bodies that must be worked out. The sway braces must be able to mate with the weapon, arming solenoids must be able to accommodate NATO style arming wires/lanyards and you have to be able to route the arming wire/lanyard so that it will functions properly and not get hung up with parts of the rack during weapon separation.

 

One must also factor in separation testing, how will the weapon handle once it's released from the aircraft, will it fly up and hit the aircraft? The difference in ejection velocity between NATO style bomb racks and Soviet style bomb racks will effect weapons performance and trajectories, will the rack "kick" the bomb away without damaging it? It's not as easy as just slapping on a bomb and going flying, there's a lot of challenges that must be solved, not saying it can't be done, just that it will take some serious engineering and work to make it happen.

 

Just my $0.02

Link to post
Share on other sites

The US/NATO Mk 8x series is one of the most widely used (dumb) bombs around, exported and produced under licence many places. If not officially licenced, copied indiscreetly. Given that NATO and many other allies of the US use US-manufactured planes, it would be odd if the attachment points were not the same across the various fighter and bomber types in use. As such, its easy to standardize the attachment points to suite. 

 

The more technical bombs like the GBU-series however require a different interface with the carrier aircraft, so not so easy to integrate as the "dumb" bombs.

On this basis it's no wonder that the Mk 8x series fits most aircraft around.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, there might be a case, where some former Warsaw Pact countries have surplus ex-Soviet weapons. I remember there was a rumor though, the PolAF expelled it's stock of R-27's. Mostly our MiG-29's fly with R-73's nowadays.

Rearming former soviet aircraft is a lot of work, for some serious money. It requires new procedures for handling, loading, unloading weapons. Perhaps some additional testing for separation and stuff. And I don't think western weapons are that much cheaper to justify that. Hell, I don't think US made bombs are cheaper at all. It'd be more of a case of separating oneself from Russian delivery sources. And even then, I'm pretty sure stuff like bombs and rockets are produced locally in say Poland. There apparently was a 2020 contract for some FAB-500 bombs.

So the "why" part of the question would have to be first answered, but as in "why would they"? I wonder who else in NATO is planning to operate ex-Soviet missiles and aircraft launched weapon systems for long.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...