Aggressors

[philp]

Seen several nice profiles here about Soviet aircraft in US, British, Canadian, etc markings.
How about them being used as Aggressors in those countries?  A Su-27 in Grape or Lizard wrap around.  A Mig-29 used by a RAF Aggressor squadron.  F-15 used by a Soviet Top Gun group. 

Other ideas, profiles?

[AeroplaneDriver]

I got one of those little 1/100 Tamiya MiG21s that I was thinking may look nice as an RAF aggressor.  I was thinking the same thing with a Fujimi -21 too, maybe with 100 Sqn markings since that is part of their current role in the Hawk.

[Maverick]

For whatever reason the 'bad guys' rarely fly aggressor ships, although I believe the Soviet/Russians have a unit.  I guess it's something to do with their doctrines on air warfare or the like, but I think 'Red Hat' Soviet/Chinese units would be cool (or should that be Blue Hat?).  That said, they'd most likely head for older Western aircraft procured from 'other sources' much like the US did with their Su-22s and Mi-24s.  Added to that, one would assume they'd be in Compass Ghost colours or some equally bland Western air defence camo, but it might make an interesting change to see a MiG in Compass Ghost colours attempting to pretend to be a Bug or Viper.

I modelled a Top Gun MiG-29 out of the Hasegawa kit in 72nd donkeys ago, before I joined the site.  I believe I've got it up on my Build Thread.

I'll have to put my thinking cap on and see a) what I've got in the profile stash & b) what I've got in the kit stash as this sounds 'very interesting' as Colonel Klink would say.

Regards,

Mav

[Geoff]

There is a photo of Ramenskoya (not sure of the spelling) which shows a MirageIII/5 and a F-4B/C/D/J under tarps, which is why you cannot tell which specific model they are.

[Ian the Kiwi Herder]

I've mentioned this before on this here site: I really think that Aggressors of whatever flavour is a massive (and relatively untapped) vein of What If'ing. And I'm as guilty as anyone having produced just one in the last three years - an F-20 (it's in the GALLERY).

I'm thinking of a couple of scenarios to expand the idea......

Canadian Voodoo's & Starfighter's from the 'real world' together with Mirage III's & F1's in as many Aggressor schemes as you can think of !

Joint Warsaw Pact Aggressor Regiment, MiG 21's painted like Canadian/Dutch/Greek etc F-5's. MiG 23's & 25's in F-4 schemes, MiG 29's & first generation Sukhoi 27's in 'eff-teen' series schemes (yes that includes pseudo Tomcat markings !)

It's easy to go nuts with this one, doncha think 

Ian

[Maverick]

For those interested, I've knocked up three Soviet 'aggressorskis' on my profile thread.

Regards,

Mav

[Mossie]

Added to that, one would assume they'd be in Compass Ghost colours or some equally bland Western air defence camo, but it might make an interesting change to see a MiG in Compass Ghost colours attempting to pretend to be a Bug or Viper.

Ian alluded to it, but you don't have to stick purely to grey Mav.  The majority of Soviet fighter & interceptors where grey too, part of the reasoning behind agressors schemes is not only to simulate potential enemies, but to differentiate completley from your own aircraft.  A lot of schemes are rough approximations, or, like the Japanese aggressors or British (simply adding dayglo patches), don't reflect any enemy at all.

Even then, their are plenty of colourful US schemes to simulate, & not forgetting other NATO countries.  Green/grey was the thing for most European Air Forces during the 70's/80's, so maybe something approximating that would work?

[Ian the Kiwi Herder]

1:72 MiG 25 in RAF colours/Soviet markings anybody ?? 

Alternative Aggressor GB anybody ?? 

I'll get me coat (again)

Ian

[Maverick]

Ian alluded to it, but you don't have to stick purely to grey Mav.  The majority of Soviet fighter & interceptors where grey too, part of the reasoning behind agressors schemes is not only to simulate potential enemies, but to differentiate completley from your own aircraft.  A lot of schemes are rough approximations, or, like the Japanese aggressors or British (simply adding dayglo patches), don't reflect any enemy at all.

Even then, their are plenty of colourful US schemes to simulate, & not forgetting other NATO countries.  Green/grey was the thing for most European Air Forces during the 70's/80's, so maybe something approximating that would work?

Simon,

The Aggressor concept is primarily one, as we know, for DACT (Dissimilar Air Combat Training).  Simulating Strike aircraft to allow more 'colourful' schemes post 80s would be difficult to justify in my opinion.  If older airframes were used thinking along the lines of 70s-80s, sure, different fighter schemes would be available.

Whilst there were plenty of grey or natural metal Soviet interceptors, there is also Frontal Aviation to consider, as in the MiG-23.  A tactical fighter, much like the Viper and frequently resplendant in camos of all sorts.

As for the US camouflage on their Aggressors, prior to the more recent 'Desert Bogeys', 'Tomcatskis' and others, they made no attempt to replicate any known camouflage pattern.  This, I guess, was the whole 'completely different' idea but I still think that their later incarnations, particularly the NSAWC schemes I've mentioned are more appropriate because at the end of the day, you are trying to replicate everything within the Aggressor unit, tactics, performance and even mindset, so why wouldn't an 'authentic scheme' be more appropriate than the plethora of 'aggressor' schemes used earlier by the Navy and still for reasons unknown for the USAF?

As for a Soviet aggressor force, I've gone with three fairly basic US schemes primarily because I believe the Soviets would have thought these particular aircraft to be their greatest threat.  I expect they would have other nations' schemes available or planned, but for the most part, I think US would be appropriate.

Once again, it falls to timelines really.  Anything prior to the 80s and SEA or other NATO schemes would be appropriate. Post 80s, and I believe it's back to BOG, as many NATO countries followed suit with F-16 & F/A-18 purchases resplendant in shades of grey.

Regards,

Mav

[nev]

/quote]

Yeah baby!

[Shasper]

Mav - Back in the day (which continues till this day), the USAF had strict guidelines when it came to colors & patterns for their Aggressor a/c, which is quite opposite in the NAVAIR Adversary community (the main reason why you'll never be able to get the exact colors/pattern for a specific a/cs lifetime correct, one and/or both were changes frequently). The USAF tok their best guess as to what the Soviet 3-tone desert camo looked like, then just swapped colors around. The Navy guys took more of a artistic license when it came to the colors & patterns, the VF-45 "Boca Chica" coral scheme is a prime example of this.

Now while I admire some of the exactness of what the REDAIR guys do, I think that there should be some fudge factor in the camo department, if for no other reason that the coolness factor!


Shas    

[Maverick]

Shas,

Whilst the AF might like to claim a 'system', I really doubt it.  80s AF aggressor schemes (eg 'Sand', 'Pumpkin' & 'Old Blue' as noted on the Don Colour site) & my own recollections of 'Snake' & 'Grape' have little validity when compared with any Soviet scheme that I'm aware of.  Their latest incarnation 'Arctic Aggressor', whilst undoubtedly cool looking, is a prime example of the 'artistic licence' that the AF employs in equal or greater quantities to the Navy.  Unless of course they're intending on going to war with Finland or someone in that neck of the woods?

I think that the AF, like the Navy, merely had 'exotic' schemes created to look different from the aircraft they were pitted against, but unlike the Navy, the AF attempted to give some credibility to their attempts.

I still believe my initial assertion is valid.  That is aggressor aircraft should be camouflaged in colours & patterns approximating potential threats to better visually cue the pilots they fly against, rather than some fictious scheme that looks nice, or have big blocks of orange or yellow (WTF is up with that?!?!).

Regards,

Mav

[r16]

most if not all of the agressor schemes over the years if we are to believe the claims  represent a known threat ; published photos of Iraqi or Iranian camouflage shows the Americans are intending to fight the named countries if necessary , meaning the Soviet schemes were only alluded to but not exactly represented . Now what  USN got to do with Swedes in late 80's I don't know but this is supposed to be the basis . And there has been only a few mistakes ; I believe there was a Banana F-5 that had "signal yellow" and bright green and it is supposed that it really looked weird .

[Maverick]

Duncan,

I guess your aware of the various captured aircraft flown by both the Axis & Allies?  Zirkus Rosarius and their P-38s, -51s, etc, the USN & AAF with their Zeros and Fw-190s, the RAF with their Bf-109s, etc.

Regards,

Mav

[Maverick]

I figured that would be the case.  One interesting sideline is the RAF's adoption in OTL of the Luftwaffe's 'Schwarm' tactical formation, as opposed to the original, more unwieldy 'V'.  It was an experience thing, more than a training issue, but I guess if RAF pilots were flying during training against aircraft operating that way, they might very well have twigged it was a winner.

There is of course the issue of time however.  Like in real life, the unit/s would tour bases giving front line pilots a chance to see what the deal was, but given the exingencies of war, I can't see it being quite as widespread as more modern factual examples.

Regards,

Mav