Tom Cooper

Gabor, many thanks for all the explanations, much appreciated (they're very useful also for drawing accurate artworks of these 'beasts' ;-)). Just some 'hair-splitting' here, if you like: - If one is building an Iraqi example, the 'dinghy' (that's how the Iraqis nick-named that huge drop tank), then paint it the same grey colour like most of the plane. - If one is building an Iraqi example, then yes, the 'R-40DT/DR only' configuration is the right one to go with, then the Iraqis very seldom installed any R-60MKs on their Foxbats. - But, if one is building a Libyan example, then you'll do better with a combo of two R-40s (one SARH, one IRH), and 4x R-60MKs. Finally, I must 'insist' - - that it's not truth that 'nothing' (but nuke-tipped Nike Hercules) could catch a MiG-25R/RB. Iranians have shot down at least two (one by a the famous F-14/AIM-54 combo, another by a combo of MIM-23B I-HAWKS and nifty HQ-2Js), both of which are 100% confirmed, and Israelis say they got one too (should have been a combo of MIM-23B I-HAWKs and F-15/AIM-7s).

Gauging by photos above, you can still do so. The modell obviously comes with the necessary ALKAN 915B underwing pylon, to which you'll then have to add (a scratch-built, I guess) small adapter the Iraqis developed for attaching the APU-57 launch rail (necessary for the Kh-29). On that - one only - Mirage F.1EQ-5 (serial 4563), it was still possible to carry the LDP CT laser-marker (under the LM37 pylon, installed on the centreline). This was made compatible with Kh-29s, and that's how Iraqi Mirages could lase for Sukhois. The only problem I 'see' from photos above is: the LDP CT appears not to be within the box. At least it's not to be seen on any photos. This is quite surprising, especially considering that the - beautifully moulded, and impressively looking (no doubt about this) - but very rarely used RP 35P recce pod is, as are two GBU-16s (also rarely deployed even on French F.1CTs, which, as late as of March this year, were still primarily deploying SAMP's 'dumb' bombs calibre 200 and 400kg - against Islamist stupids in Mali, for example). Is the box going to include the UHF-fillet, as added to Iraqi or Libyan Mirage F.1s? (Lack of the same is one of major problems with many of F.1-modells in 1:72 scale.)

Based on the photo below.... http://i1327.photobucket.com/albums/u677/petr-MPM/Special%20Hobby/Mirage/M-02_zpsdf7fa2a2.jpg ....it seems it comes with (from left to right): - Matra R.550 Magic Mk.I AAM - Denel A-Darter? AAM - Matra Super 530F-1 MRAAM - GBU-16 LGB - ARAL 1B Phimat (chaff & flare dispenser) - RP35 recce pod - ASTAC recce pod (under the centreline) - Raphael recce pod (SLAR) - ARAB 8B Barracuda ECM pod (two variants) - another GBU-16 - V-3 Kukri AAM - another R.550 Mk.I That's already 'eye-watering'. If they now add an AM.39 Exocet, Harold and Syrel recce pods, RPL 201 ('Irakien') drop tank, Douglas IFR-pod, LDP laser-marker (plus obligatory SAMP BGL 400GP LGBs and AS.30Ls), Remora and CT 51F Caiman jammer pods, and V-3 Snake AAMs, plus those chaff & flare dispensers that were attached on wing underside, inboard of the inboard underwing pylon (I always forget their designation)... the box with this modell would contain literaly 'everything important', and nobody can say a single word of complaint. BTW, very few 'Russian' weapons were ever matched to F.1, and if - then on what were actually 'prototypes', like that single Iraqi Mirage F.1EQ-6 (adapted for carrying Kh-29L/AS-14), or the single ex-SAAF 'Super Mirage' (re-engined with RD-33 turbo fan and adapted for carrying R-73/AA-11 Archers). Even Iraqis prefered to use Spanish and South African-made variants of US-made bombs (like the Mk.80-series) on their F.1s.

I can only help you with BS381C equivalents of these colours: - beige, BS381C/388 - grey green BS381C/283 - black green BS381C/298 - light admiralty grey BS381C/697 These colours were used by the Egyptians (and Soviets) - starting from around 1968, first on MiG-17s, then on MiG-21s (different marks; even as of 1973, there were still very few MiG-21MFs painted that way) and Su-7BMKs. Sadly, I've really got no clue what are Gunze's equivalents, but if anybody can help, he would be most welcome. From that standpoint, starfighter84's work is excellent reference (his beige/sand might appear slightly too dark, but let's say that's 'wear').

Here a review of 'prequel' to the book mentioned above, namely Great Lakes Holocaust, describing 'how comes' to the 'I African War', described in Great Lakes Conflagration. There was not that much 'flashy stuff' about fighter jets or even any kind of tanks, APCs etc. to report in that volume, but I guess the rare collection of artworks and photos showing such 'exotic' topics like Rwandan RG-31 Nyalas, Zairian AML-60s, Ugandan Caspirs, ex-Serbian J-21 Jastrebs flown by Serbian mercenaries in Zaire, ex-Royal Flight's Andover C.Mk.2 used by Franco-Belgian mercenaries, and various of Victor Bout's gunrunners, might be of some interest here too.

Oh, somebody who knows something about the Czechoslovak paint system - great, thanks JBr! (Like I said, I simply 'love modellers' ;-)) OK, here the details in question... Camo: - Bezova (Beige/Sand) S2013/6270 - Khaki (Khaki) S2013/5450 - Modra (Blue) S2013/4265 Markings: - Cervena (Red) S2013/8190 - Zelena (Green) S2013/5300 - Bila (White) S2013/1000 - Cerna (Black) S2013/1999 If you could point me somewhere where I could find 'specimen' of these?

I think that this with operationality of equipment is related to the times when the person in question served. Before, say, 1983, and especially before 1986 (Chernobyl catastrophe literally bankrupted the USSR), everything was actually quite fine. For most of the 1970s the GSFG could 'switch' to war within few hours. Most of their allies too. But after 1983... when I only think about all the never-solved-problems with machinery of various Soviet Navy warships, leaving these to endlessly iddle around their anchors from that time onwards... Sufficient to say that from that time onwards the condition of - not only - the East German Army was not much better either.

No problem, Yury: that's why I added the word 'now' to my sentence. I didn't know it until a year or so ago either, and my conclusion in relation to Soviet MiG-15s is something like 2 days old. Now, regarding 'doubts' about Soviets using BS381C: this is really no 'day-dreaming'. The guys at the IAI have had all the possible colour plates and all the time of the world to check. Nothing else matched - but the BS381C. Whether this was related to 'customer requests'... Obviously, I have no clue, but I strongly doubt that the customers were really influential (at least not in 1950s, 1960s or 1970s; I did very little research about subsequent times). Surely, no Soviet combat aircraft were delivered already painted in camo colours before Egypt began camouflaging their aircraft (immediately after the June 1967 War). So it seems that in the case of the late 1960s, it was 'Egyptian experiences' that influenced corresponding decisions. But the point is this: except in regards of number of aircraft and armament they delivered during those times (i.e. before, say, 1980), Soviets - generally - couldn't care less about customer requests. Most of the times they delivered what they preferred to deliver (based on status of the ally/customer in question, Moscow's preferences and availability of the hardware in question). Sometimes, they would deliver even more than was requested (see deliveries of Kh-66s and Su-20s to Iraq, as example), but such cases can be counted on fingers of one hand. Also, many of export customers (see various African countries as example, but also Egypt and Syria) initially used their own paints. Indeed, when Egyptians began applying camouflage on their aircraft, immediately after the June 1967 War with Israel, they used car paints that were available at one of factories in Helwan (and applied them without any varnish, which is contrary to Syrians, who followed in fashion just a few weeks later, but applied varnish before painting)... (Another example: when Egyptians purchased 30 MiG-21F-13s from Czechoslovakia, in 1968, it was the Czechoslovaks who decided how and in what colours to paint these. And whether the Czechoslovaks used BS381C... really, no clue. Their instruction sheet for camo application simply cited 'sand, green and blue'.) I'm also not sure - there is no way to say, right now - if such colours were applied on MiGs only, or on Sukhois and other exported aircraft 'too'. The IAI has never overhauled any of Sukhois (except for one of Georgian Su-25s, which was apparently delivered still in 'primer'), and I've never got any piece of any exported Sukhoi to check. But, the point is that camouflaged Su-7BMKs became available (from the USSR) during the period 1968-1970. With exception of training aircraft, the first Soviet aircraft that were delivered to any foreign customers already painted in camouflage colours were Su-7BMKs, delivered around 1968. For comparison: first few batches of MiG-21Ms delivered to Egypt, Algeria or Iraq, arrived 'painted' in natural metall overall, in 1970. They were camouflaged only during overhauls, usually undertaken in the USSR (except in the case of Egypt, which did this locally). Only MiG-21MFs that began arriving in spring of 1971 were camouflaged 'right away'... Thus, theoretically, one could guess and say, 'hey, the Ruskies have introduced the BS381C only after the RAF did so'. But, sorry, that was simply not the case: as mentioned above, it was already long before that (must be sometimes in first half of 1950s, gauging by Egyptian Yak-11s and -18s delivered in 1955), that the Soviets began painting their training aircraft in what I used to call 'Russian Light Blue' (overall). This colour is meanwhile confirmed as actually being the 'Russian variant' of the BS381C/697 Light Admiralty Grey. It was in widespread use in the USSR back then, and is still in use in Russia and in number of its 'customer air forces' abroad until today. That was another reason that led to my conclusion: the colours delivered to Korea must've been based on the same, BS381C-related, system, obviously introduced at a much earlier date (i.e. 'at latest sometimes in the first half of 1950s', rather than second half of 1960s).

Phil, AFAIK, 'Wings over Ogaden' should be out sometimes during winter or early spring 2014. So, it might come 'just on time'.

Sorry, 'nope'. Ask any of GSFG vets, any of East German, Polish, Czechoslovak etc. vets: on Friday evening they remained locked in their barracks, just like every other day over the week. ('Exception' to this rule were East Germans, who were dictated by the Soviets when and what to do.) And even if: especially in the former USSR, there was usually no place to go and get some booze.... But hell, that's probably why 'we' then 'won': our weekends were nicer and they decided to join.

Very nice. I'm looking forward for your other answers (and, I guess, not only I). Meanwhile, let me address the 'core' issue again: OK, let me specify and, I hope so, provide some help. One might wonder, 'why should it be important to know the precise green colour [or any other shade] applied on V-VS/V-PVO MiG-15s deployed during Korean War'? Well, one of reasons I really love modell-builders - and I stress here: 'enthusiasts', modell-builders that usually have no 'academic historian' background - is that there are plenty of them who are so damn precise in their work, in their search for reference materials. They are so much striving to 'produce' an as authentic modell as humanly possible, that without them we all would simply be clueless in the case of a huge number of topics. They are not only a fantastic source of information, but also so often 'driving' and motivating me to do additional research, that it's amazing. From my standpoint, it's beyond doubt that 'modelling' is often developing into an outright sort of science, meanwhile - and whether the 'true' academics might like this or not (that said, most of academic historians have no clue even about what a 'MiG-15' looks like). This is not exclusively related to colour references, but to plenty of other issues too (just one of newest examples: I would never came to the idea that the ex-Queen Flight's Andover CC.Mk 2 was used to support Franco-Belgian mercenaries fighitng for Mobutu against Rwandan-led invasion of former Zaire, in 1996-1997 - without an 'enthusiast' like Phil Scoggins) Related to this is the following fact: it is such 'enthusiasts' - 'modellers' - that we can thank for 'discovering' that for most of the 20th Century, the Soviet Union was using the so-called 'British Standard 381C' in production of its military-related paints. Definitely, this 'BS381C', not some 'own' tables, not the German RAL, or the US Federal Standard. Why is this 'known' or anything like 'sure'? That's thanks to several former employees of the Israeli Aircraft Industries. The gents in question have had the opportunity to compare various colour tables (US 'FS', 'BS381C' etc.) with original colours applied on various MiG-21s that were overhauled by the IAI in the 1990s. That's why gents (and modellers) like Yoav Efrati for example (guess, many here might know him for his fantastic features on Israeli combat aircraft in various modeller magazines), were extremely helpful in preparation of - very precise - colour references that one can meanwhile find in books like the Arab MiGs and African MiGs series. Now, you might wonder why would any of African or Arab MiGs be 'imporant' in relation to Soviet MiG-15s from Korea: well, because they were originally all painted pre-delivery, in the USSR. And also because most of export customers in question continued purchasing and using Soviet-made colours for 'their' MiGs. In turn, because of this, and because of your 'intervention' above, we now know that the colours issued to that 'Painters Brigade' assigned to the 64 IAK, were also based on the Soviet equivalent of the same, 'BS381C'. And that, Yury, is narrowing the possible choice of paints mixed to create camo patterns applied on Soviet MiG-15s by quite some. Namely - and while I'll try not to exaggerate it, or turn this into some sort of 'hairsplitting': it makes quite some difference if one is - a.) 'just using any green and black available in China as of the given time and place' to get 'his' colour; or, - b.) if one is - just a 'wild' example (since we still do not yet know the exact shade) - mixing the BS381C/298 Olive Drab with BS381C/642 Night, or BS381C/220 Olive Green with any sort of Black. So, I think you gents in Russia could kindly do us all a big favour and try to find one of involved painters. Somebody must still be around and know 'slightly more' about what colours they've got from the factory, and how did they mix them. If it was meanwhile possible to find out the exact shade of green used to paint most of T-34s manufactured and deployed in combat in WWII, it must be possible to find out about this too. And, so I'm sure: whoever finds this out, and publishes his findings as first, is likely to become a kind of a 'star' in specific circles. ;-)

Thanks for your reply, Serge. So, if I try to summarize, because of the lack of time, you guys were 'feeding' info to Igor, unless you 'parted for differences in methodology'? Must've been quite a 'transfer of know-how'... That said, his books like this one Sovyetskiye Assi Koreyskoy Boyni (see the link also for plenty of additional interesting artworks) - are really massive, and definitely full of in-depth information. On the basis of some of the photos I've seen in them (classic example would be application of camo on 'Red 325'), they not only contain much additional info, but also colour references and artworks that are much more precise than in Yury's book done for Osprey (no pun intended). Together with Igor's care to cite sources of reference in endnotes (quite 'Western/schoolar' method, so to say), and his care to mention relevant orders about camo, markings etc, such 'details' were was what led to my conclusion that Igor is quite 'unbeatable' in this regards. Anyway, if you find some time, I would appreciate it very much if either you or Yury would be so kind to address other of my questions from above.

Hi Yury, nice to meet you, so to say. Since it looks like I've 'hit the nerve' there, I'll start my reply with the end of your's (i.e. regarding your complaints about Igor). One can say about different researchers and writers whatever he/she likes. Especially so on the internet. As published authors, you and me can endlessly discuss the 'space' left (or not at all) to authors by specific publishers for use of end/footnotes, so to properly cite their sources too (see Osprey which is not doing that, and some others that do). BUT, if there is an author that's citing dozens of TsAMO documents (whether Combat Reports of the 64 IAK, 151, 324 IADs, 196 IAP etc., etc., etc., or stuff like 'PERECHEN' (Svedeniy iz dokumentov Tsentral'nogo Arkhiva Ministerstvo Oborony o sud'bye ehkipazhey samolotov amerikanskikh VVS, sbiitykh istrebitel'noy aviatsiey nad territoriyey Severnoy Korei v 1950-1953 gg), plus something like 60-70 (first hand) interviews with participants (including their permissions for use of 'personal' documents), in his publications... Well, then I'd say, 'the guy has done his homework'. So, unless I missed some sort of 'grandiose' publication out there, the situation (in regards of Igor) is 'quite clear' for me. That said, I do not want to enter any of possible disputes there might be between any of you in Moscow. These are your own issues, not my business. I do have a question - or few - related to research about painting of V-VS/V-PVO's MiG-15s in Korea. On one side, it appears 'incredible' to me to hear explanations like 'use whatever colours you like', when there was a strictly centralist command system, making it perfectly clear that 'disobeying orders' was the best way to end one in some gulag. Now, let's say Igor is wrong, or I am completely misunderstanding his original manuscript for the book eventually published as Red Devils over the Yalu, and this with use of local colours is a hogwash. But, if I follow your line: this system was issuing perfectly clear orders, deployed a 'brigade' of painters responsible to do the job, AND supplied colours the painters were ordered to use... Now, since I doubt the 'brigade' in question was deployed in China for vacation, I fail to understand how comes we are now said that nobody cared about the system or orders there? Another question is this: to me it appears that most of you gents researching about this topic are explaining this about 'use whatever colours you like' primarily because all of you have so much concentrated on research with help of pilots only, that you simply forgot to ask the people who were applying this colour on the aircraft in question about what colours did they apply. My experience is (and I guess there are going to be a number of people with similar experiences from RAF, FAA etc. on this forum), that pilots - generally - can't care less about colours applied on 'their' aircraft. For a 'small million of reasons'. It's the ex-technicians that care - and know - about 'such details', first and foremost. That's making me wonder: how many of Soviet painters deployed in China and Korea at those times (or technicians that might have been ordered to get the can and air-brush into their hand) did any of you find AND interview, over the time? Finally, if it was so that pilot's wish to apply a kill marking 'didn't matter', that only kill markings 'authorized' by division CO's were applied, and since it was already then known that quite a few people were exaggerating with their claims....what am I missing here: how comes there were two types of kill markings ('full', for 'confirmed' kills, and 'outline' for 'probables')?

A pal of mine wrote an excellent article on camo colours for Soviet aircraft during Korean War for a specific modelling mag in the UK, few years ago. The feature in question was based on research run in Moscow, with help of authentic and official sources. Sadly, shortly before this was about to be published, the editor was replaced, and everything went down the sink... Anyway, there were actually some very strict rules, and also some very strict orders about application of camo and markings. For example: bort numbers were principally applied at factory (and if some plane was re-numbered, then during overhauls in factory), and had clearly defined forms and dimensions (even the width of their outline was clearly specified). There were also strict rules regarding what the Soviets called 'Elements of Fast Recognition' (Elementi Bystrogo Raspoznavaniya, or EBRs): that is, markings applied on noses (and periods when these were applied or removed) and tops of the fins (so-called 'pilotki'). Correspondingly, there were also very strict instructions regarding application of camouflage. The first such rule (Order No.10) was introduced during 1952, when the 64 IAK (top Soviet AF authority responsible for ops in Korea) introduced the so-called 'air superiority' camo. This pattern, developed by the 64 IAK in cooperation with the Ministry of Aviation, Factory No. 21 and representatives of the GIPI-4, consisted of grey-green on top surfaces and sides, and dark blue on bottom surfaces. The colour in question was the same for all Soviet-flown MiG-15s: it was specially mixed by a 'brigade' of painters from Factory No. 21. The next rule - from autumn 1952 - dictated the introduction of 'autumn-winter' camo, consisting of light grey paint overall. This was followed by another rule, introduced just a few weeks later, that envisaged addition of thin stripes and spots of dark green colour atop that light grey - though only on top surfaces and sides. In all of these cases, bort numbers were left as they were, i.e. colours were applied 'around' them. In spring (March/April) 1953, the winter-autumn camo was replaced by regulation about spring-summer camo, which dictated the use of dark green, light green, sand and brown colours on top surfaces and sides. Bottom surfaces could be retained in light grey, though often enough a mix of blue and grey was applied instead. Night fighter regiments (351 and 298 IAPs) were ordered to paint bottom surfaces of their planes in black. Already by the time the autumn-winter camo was introduced, 'conditions in the field' were different than in some bureau in Moscow, and the colours available (and thus used) and the methods of their application were often different than required. More often than not, dark green was simply not available in local Chinese shops (at least not in sufficient amounts), so the Soviets purchased grey green or even light green instead. Also, application of colours differed not only from division to division, but even from regiment to regiment: some technicians preferred 'pyatnistyy' (spots), others 'polosatyy' (stripes). BTW, the same rule that introduced the first camo, has also required deletion of all earlier EBRs, and even kill markings. Therefore, by late 1952/early 1953, there was only a handfull of MiG-15s left wearing camo _and_ kill markings: indeed, every single pilot that wanted to apply his kill markings to a specific aircraft had first to ask for permission to do so, and most often this was simply not granted. Thus, do not believe all the reports and artworks 'flying' around the internet and printed media: not few of these are based on lots of wild guessing, misinterpretations, and simply bad memory. Many artworks show entirely wrong colours (the most typical mistake is the use of sand instead of grey on top surfaces and sides; this resulted from 'partial application' of spring-summer camo over the existing autumn-winter camo). Actually, I recommend only sources related to Russian author Igor Seidov as reference in this regards. BTW, if you want me to 'further complicate' this issue, let me know: then I'll be happy to explain the chaos (in regards of camo) caused by replacement of the 303rd and 324th IADs by 97th and 190th IADs, in early 1952...

AFAIK, he didn't report that during the flight, i.e. before opening fire. To him the rows of lights didn't matter: the 'nature' of the intruder was 'clear'. What is next to never mentioned in regards of Nimble Archer, KAL007 etc.: in summer 1983, the US Navy run a big exercise in NW Pac, pitting USS Enterprise, USS Midway and USS Coral Sea directly against forces of the Soviet Far East Military District. There was lots of 'playing games' on that occassion, like launching simulated alpha strikes against local Soviet 'bastions', one of CVBGs going 'emcon' and 'disappearing' from Soviet radars for days, then 're-surfacing' in unexpected places (like quite close to the coast of Kamchatka Peninsula), close calls on a number of Soviet Navy Tu-16s and Tu-95s etc. And amid all of that USN subs were regularly driving into the Okhotsk Sea (which the Soviets considered their territorial waters) to tap underwater telephone cables between Petropavlovsk and Vladivostok... So, perhaps the Soviets getting upset over Nimble Archer was 'hogwash', but that was not the only reason they got upset. And plenty of what the USA and NATO did was neither friendly or anything of that kind: at least it definitely appeared anything else but 'hogwash' in Moscow.

Here another one: when Lightnings were mimicing Argentinean Mirages in DACM training against FAA's SHAR crews, during work-ups before the Falklands, their pilots were prohibited from using ABs (so they could mimic Mirages 'in more realistic fashion').

...just remember the DEFCON 3 from October 1973... ;-)

Dave, I'm sorry, but you simply can't draw conclusions about Soviets on the basis of 'NATO' experience. Soviets were different, and they were thinking differently. Like so many things about them were (or still do) appearing as 'hogwash' already back then, so also many of things about us were (and still do) appear as 'hogwash' to them. And that was not only so in regards of strategy, doctrine, tactics, technology etc., but in regards of many other things. The classic example I'll never forget was Viktor Belenko (MiG-25-pilot that flew his Foxbat to Japan, in 1976) serving doog food to his friends (or family?) - and them finding it delicious, simply because they were not even used to any kind of decent meat, back then (food supply was always a problem in the USSR)... or the fact that the V-PVO's MiG-25-fleet was regularly grounded simply because ground crews were draining the alcohol that was used to increase the thrust of afterburners, so they can make vodka from it...

There's one on ACIG.info forum: I'll e-mail it to you.

BTW, if somebody is up for some trully 'exotic' MiG-29s: surviving Syrian MiG-29s (9.12Bs) have been upgraded to M2-similar standard, recently. Two of them have been sighted carrying APU-58 launch rails (for Kh-29s, for example) on inboard underwing pylons, a month or so ago. Seems, they have been so much rushed back into service, even their camo is still the same as from the late 1980s (though badly weathered and worn out): just their noses and other dielectric pannels are now dark grey (similar to Extra Dark Sea Grey).

My pleasure, really. BTW, the next volume is going to cover the air war between Ethiopia and Somalia, in 1977-1978 - the so-called 'Ogaden War'. So, more (African) MiGs and then also plenty of Ethiopian F-5As and F-5Es are already 'on their way'. ;-)

Hehe, I thought something of that kind (tube would've been my next idea). ;-) IMHO, with some of sizeable nations around the world meanwhile 'going e-book' (see Brasil, where there are no 'school books' as such, but everything is available in e-book-format only), that's the future of most of the publishing industry. However, e-books are going to remain problematic in regards of illustrations for a number of years longer. If one wants decent photos and artworks, print is presently superior, and that's likely to remain that way for a while. Plus, plenty of enthusiasts prefer to 'open that book and hold it open' while working on some project and searching for reference material: at least I'm yet to find one that prefers to 'open his i-pad and hold it open' or anything of that kind for such purposes. So, it is likely that publishers of 'niche publications' - like books of this kind - might go on with print for some time longer too. Perhaps that's going to change once Osprey comes out with some of its series in e-format (something they announced already the last year, if I recall this correctly), and there are different (read 'positive') experiences.

Thanks. I guess that modellers frustrated by all the recent 'grey-in-grey' developments in Western air forces, might want to have a look too. Conflicts of this kind are definitely offering plenty of 'inspiring' motives, IMHO. The issue of publishing 'e-books' is related to publisher's policies. For example, Harpia (which is publishing books like Arab MiGs and African MiGs), insists on having very high production standards (top quality paper, binding, print and best possible reproduction of illustrations in digital-offset print) while keeping the price as low as possible (that's why they do no hardbacks). They did run some extensive testing of different software for e-books the last 5-6 months or so, but found none of what is presently available for even 'adequate' for their purposes. Main problem is how the software in question is working with illustrations. Presently, most of available software is 'specialized' for 'text only' books, and thus reproducing photos and artworks in rather dispointing (and often chaotic) fashion. Some new, more suitable software has been announced recently, and they'll test that too: we'll see what comes out of that. Helion (which is publishing books like Africa@War series), is working in different fashion. Publishing an e-version is a part of every of their contract (with authors), provided there would be enough interest. So, I guess, they might decide to do so if these books (like on Congo) might 'sell'. I do not have an insight into what software they might want to use for that purpose, though.

Pity, because IrAF examples saw really a lots of action in 1991. But, should you change your mind, colours were FS26373 Light Grey overall, with wide splotches of FS35352 Grey-Green (which tended to rapidly deteriorate into various shades of blue-grey). Especially national markings on bottom wing surfaces were usually applied in rather 'kiddy' fashion (completely out of alignement with any axis of the aircraft, any panels or wings), but well, 'nobody's perfect'. ;-)

Be careful, please: if you continue making this Sukhoi that well, its photos are going to end in some TV news, as illustration for who-knows-what conflict...