First-hand accounts from a MiG-29 pilot...part 2!

[RedTiger]

I figured I'd just start another thread since the radar one petered out and went on to other topics anyway.

 

In "Fulcrum", almost an entire section is dedicated to a large-scale exercise Zuyev takes part in at Mary West Air Base in what was, at the time, the Turkmen Republic. The closest thing I could think of (and what the book compares it to) is Red Flag. The account of the exercise is interesting. There are some points he made regarding NATO/American practices in large scale engagement vs. Soviet doctrine that raised my eyebrow, as well as an "interesting" choice of Soviet plane as a stand-in for the F-15! :D

 

The first thing Zuyev comments on is how his entire unit deployed to the exercise "right down to clerks, cooks, and drivers, and the civilian waitresses in the officers' dining room". They were flown ahead of the fighters in transports. He says that this was to simulate deployment to a forward air

base in a full-on NATO vs. Warsaw conflict. He claims that his intelligence officers briefed them that only individual pilots and their aircraft deployed for Red Flag. Maintenance and administrative personnel stayed behind. I didn't know if this was true, but it so, I wondered if it really was all that important to bring all those people along rather than just making use of the people on-hand at the hosting facility.

 

Oh yes, Zuyev makes mentions that MiG-23 would be playing the part of the F-15 during the excercise!! :dontgetit: Yeah, I didn't get that. How accurate could that have been?! A MiG-29 vs. a MiG-23 is supposed to represent its performance against an F-15? Right. I couldn't help but wonder why they didn't get Flankers to play some of the NATO aggressors. That would have been more realistic.

 

The "main event" of the training was a simulated nuclear strike on 3 NATO airbases guarded by Hawk SAMs. Yes, nuclear. I wasn't exactly surprised, but it was still very interesting. Part of Zuyev's group fly as the strike force in their MiG-29s, the other part flies top cover, engaging simulated F-16s (he doesn't say what plane is filing in for that role. A MiG-21 maybe? ;) ). His flight flies low to avoid the Hawks, but how the top cover avoided the SAMs is beyond me. Whats apparent as Zuyev is arming his simulated nuclear weapons and ingressing to the base, is that his MiG isn't armed with any sort of precision capability. In fact, his delivery of the nuke seems like a cross between how the Su-33 uses the Kh-41 as a predesignated target in LOMAC and how you use CCRP in the Russian fighters. Zuyev lofts the bomb (which is basically like a retarded bomb, it used drag chutes) in an immelman. He has a limited time to escape the bomb's radius and has to RTB using basic instruments to simulate the effects of EMP.

 

The exercise is considered a success. The bases are destroyed and many of the majority of the F-16 aggressors are shot down. Zuyev has some, shall we say, interesting comments about Soviet doctrine vs. American doctrine. Some of it is BS, like the part about US AWACS, and even I know that. However he makes a comment about the Israeli Air Force that, quite frankly, I had NEVER heard of. I'm going to fully quote this part, since this will give everyone plenty to chew on ;):

 

"Like all successful tacticians, my commanders had played our strengths into the enemy's weakness. And high-level intelligence briefers had stressed that NATO in general, and the American Air Force in particular, underestimated the tactics of the VVS, which were grounded in our new equipment.

 

In fact, we had learned, the Americans judged us based on a series of myths. According to American military intelligence, Soviet wingmen were helpless without their leaders; this this was false. We were all taught to fly independently and were free to maneuver and select our own targets. The Americans also believe that we were totally dependent on our GCI battle-control officers. In fact, we worked with them to build the total threat picture, and were actually more independent of radar control than the Americans, who relied so heavily on their AWACS. The U.S. Air Force also taught its pilots that their Soviet counterparts were simply interceptor pilots trained to fire missiles from poorly maneuverable aircraft. They were confusing the PVO with the VVS.

 

American myths about rigid Soviet tactics and training procedures were based in part on the poor performance of Soviet clients, especially the Arabs, in air combat against the Israelis. The Americans somehow believed that we provided the Arabs with out best tactics and training methods when we sold them our airplanes. And, for some strange reason, the Americans also chose to equate Syrian and Egyptian pilots -- who usually gained their assignments through family connections -- with professional Soviet Air Force pilots who underwent stiff competition to with their place at academies like Armavir.

 

As the GRU colonel who briefed us on this scornfully indicated, the Americans had somehow put things cherez zhopu, "ass backward." Training in the Israeli Defense Force was based almost entirely on the Soviet military. In fact, during the Israeli War of Independence in 1948, their ground and air officers had been Red Army veterans of the Great Patriotic War. And today, Israeli pilots were trained exactly as I had been: selected as teenagers right out of school, and flying jets in their second year at the academy.

 

If anything, the amazing record of success Israeli pilots had achieved over their Arab opponents was an endorsement of Soviet training doctrine, not a condemnation of it. But, as our GRU colonel reminded us, if the Americans chose to believe differently, so much the better. pg. 202-203

 

Ok, some BS mixed with some valid observations, IMO. The bit about US being reliant on AWACS is just plain wrong. Its used just as he claims GCI is "working together to create a total threat picture". About U.S. training vs. the Soviets, I've read that the USAF took the Soviets VERY seriously. They trained like their enemy was "ten feet tall", as I recall reading an Eagle driver saying. The bit about Soviet capabilities being judged by Arab vs. Israeli wars has some truth. I've heard that Western military analysts were anxiously watching those wars as some sort of indication of the outcome of a war with the USSR. I always thought that was total BS, if true. I don't think much useful information about USSR capabilities could be gleaned from those wars.

 

I have NO CLUE what to make of the stuff about the IAF. I've never heard any of that before. I'm most interested to hear what others think. I know that Russians settled in Israel and that Russian is one of the main languages spoken there today, but never that the IAF used Soviet doctrine! I don't know if thats right!

 

I'm sure there will be plenty of people calling shenanigans on this one. Don't kill the messenger please. :music_whistling: Beyond what I've already commented on, I'm not saying I agree with anything. I'm just finding this book interesting and I thought I would share this stuff so you don't have to wade through Zuyev's personal life to get to it. :)

[IvanK]

"If anything, the amazing record of success Israeli pilots had achieved over their Arab opponents was an endorsement of Soviet training doctrine, not a condemnation of it. But, as our GRU colonel reminded us, if the Americans chose to believe differently, so much the better. pg. 202-203"

 

And the disastrous performance of the Arab air forces in these conflicts ... reflects whose training and doctrine ? :)

[Pilotasso]

HEy redtiger, Mig-23 has been retired for decades in russia now.

[Pilotasso]

"American myths about rigid Soviet tactics and training procedures were based in part on the poor performance of Soviet clients, especially the Arabs, in air combat against the Israelis. The Americans somehow believed that we provided the Arabs with out best tactics and training methods when we sold them our airplanes. And, for some strange reason, the Americans also chose to equate Syrian and Egyptian pilots -- who usually gained their assignments through family connections -- with professional Soviet Air Force pilots who underwent stiff competition to with their place at academies like Armavir.

 

pg. 202-203

 

 

BS indeed. This person forgot the soviet 130 Mig-21's and respective pilots sent to help the Egyptians in the 1973 war. The soviets were the ones basing themselves on myths because they were slaughtered along with the egyptians in the air. In the end they were just as innefective as the arabs they were mocking.

 

Funny thing they should mention americans over dependence on AWACS because if you take that and GCI away from Mig-21/23 and 29's they are basicaly blind BVR. An F-15 would easely pick them up from 60 away and F-15's often have to double check contacts if AWACS doenst see them.

 

Russia has recently tended to go for the west aproach to the battle (more powerfull radars and AWACS), not USA going back to Soviet tactics.

[RedTiger]

HEy redtiger, Mig-23 has been retired for decades in russia now.

 

And...?

 

This exercise took place in 1986 IIRC. The MiG-23 was old news even then. Did something in my post somehow make you think I was saying the MiG-23 was still in service?

 

From your second post it seems that you're taking this out of context. The events of this book are during the Cold War. In fact, I don't think the author even lived long enough to see what Russia has been doing recently, seeing as how he died in 2001.

 

Yes it is quite nice how he took this supposed myth about Soviet doctrine and flipped it around back at the USAF and their AWACS.

 

I guess, for the benefit of anyone reading the thread, I'll have to explain again why I shared this. This is coming from a MiG-29 pilot who defected from the Soviet Union. Any boastfulness about the military prowess of the same system he came to despise for chewing people up and spitting them out is worth note, IMO. If I hated my country's political-economic system so much that I would betray it, would I then boast about how friggin awesome its war machine was and how my arch-enemy totally underestimated its abilities? Its a bit of a conundrum, no? Is Zuyev really the only author? Is he being paid to say these things? Does he feel pride in the achievements of his countrymen in spite of his feelings of contempt for his government?

 

I'm making NO judgments or arguments here, just presenting these claims in this context for discussion. If you don't think its worthwhile to discuss, it can gladly drop off the front page and I can go back to reading my book. :)

[RedTiger]

"If anything, the amazing record of success Israeli pilots had achieved over their Arab opponents was an endorsement of Soviet training doctrine, not a condemnation of it. But, as our GRU colonel reminded us, if the Americans chose to believe differently, so much the better. pg. 202-203"

 

And the disastrous performance of the Arab air forces in these conflicts ... reflects whose training and doctrine ? :)

 

Good question. :D

[nscode]

If I hated my country's political-economic system so much that I would betray it, would I then boast about how friggin awesome its war machine was and how my arch-enemy totally underestimated its abilities?

 

As people have told you, and I'm telling you now (it's about the 10th time I think ;)): YES. Those are totally different and separate things. And I am telling you this from personal experience. I can be very proud of how my country's army stood up to NATO, and hate the politicians who were taking the nation to it's fall.

[IvanK]

The answer is ..... Soviet doctrine, Soviet training, Soviet equipment ... all were found wanting in every Middle East engagement... But, that is not the complete story. The Middle east conflicts both in Geography and allegiances bear little resemblance to the Cold war scenario that this Soviet doctrine was made for.

 

Now that is not to say the Israelis follow any specific countries doctrine. They have always been Western oriented. However the Israeli circumstances are unique. As a nation they have been on a no Shizer combat footing since Israel came in to existence. They have developed their own system that fits (and demonstrably) works in the unique circumstances presented.

[Pilotasso]

As people have told you, and I'm telling you now (it's about the 10th time I think ;)): YES. Those are totally different and separate things. And I am telling you this from personal experience. I can be very proud of how my country's army stood up to NATO, and hate the politicians who were taking the nation to it's fall.

 

Totaly agree. You can hate the politics but love the country and the people you are with to the point you can still find many things to be proud but without forgetting what to look forward for improvement in the future.

 

You might be surprised but I feel similar things about my own country, most of it is past tense, some are present today.

[RedTiger]

As people have told you, and I'm telling you now (it's about the 10th time I think ;)): YES. Those are totally different and separate things. And I am telling you this from personal experience. I can be very proud of how my country's army stood up to NATO, and hate the politicians who were taking the nation to it's fall.

 

You mind showing me those 10 times? I can recall GGTharos saying something to this effect, but thats it. ;)

 

Chalk this one up to an idiosyncracy. If I were in Zuyev's shoes, I would be very begrudging of giving credit where credit is due. If there was NO credit due, and it was all hype from the system, I would make damn sure that everyone knew that it was just hype. The fact that he actively tries to harm the system with defection and treason just seems more extreme than just hating it.

 

Remember, he's not making any mention of the people, in this particular example he's just commenting on technology. Maybe I'm alone here, but I tend to equate military technology as much more of a product of the government/political/economic system than any sort of innovativeness on the part of my country. Sure, the innovativeness is what drives the technology, but in the end, its the government purchasing and issuing you your rifle (or fighter jet!). ;)

[GGTharos]

I'll also point out that there was /no/ lack of propaganda within the USSR itself. I'm not trying to say that there isn't any in other countries - just keep in mind - if the Soviets got slaughtered in the Egyptian theatre, they might have wanted to make that too known.

 

I recall in my travels to the east, surprising people 'in the know' with my own, very basic knowledge of their aircraft's performance capabilities that THEY considered classified!

[mvsgas]

..intelligence officers briefed them that only individual pilots and their aircraft deployed for Red Flag. Maintenance and administrative personnel stayed behind...

This is not true, we take every one that we need to take. More that likely, base "X" will have a support staff (cooks, personalist, police,etc) establish there or going there with you. But for the most part every unit always takes with them the people involve with maintaining the aircraft. Every base can handle a certain amount of aircraft not assigned to that location, but this is use more for aircraft diverts, so that those diverted aircraft can be quickly repair and send back to their home base.

[RedTiger]

Thank you for that clarification, mvsgas. Somehow I figured that this was the case.