su-11 fishpot and yak-28P firebar service with PVO

To stick to the point, both POV fighters were developed in the late 50s to carry two big AAMs against less manouverable bombers/ similar recce-ac or high flyers. .

indeed but a lot of tactical strike planes in the 60s to mid-late 70s were high flyers too esp with non-NATO states on border of USSR , so they can be used again them too in a pinch if needed …fair to say ?

To stick to the point, both POV fighters were developed in the late 50s to carry two big AAMs against less manouverable bombers/ similar recce-ac or high flyers. At hand already they were kept to the late 70s to pose some threat for the worst case. Neither Turkey nor the Iran dare to attack the atomic-power SU to learn how that POV fighters will come out against a F-100 f.e.. .

See where those two PVO fighters were deployed in the 70s and you realize, that non had a chance to come near the western tactical aircraft mentioned. Just kept to bolster numbers.

thanks I understand
But in those regions they were deployed close to Iran Turkey border and both these countries had modern aircraft in service

The heat sig of a f100 or lightning would be a lot more imho

http://www.easternorbat.com/html/bak…rict_in_6.html
Baku Red Banner Air Defence District
in January 1, 1968
North Caucasus, Transcaucasian and Western Turkestan Military District
Here you can find the units with the two fighters mentioned. 1968 no longer in production.

“Unfortunately, the new modern high powered Su-11 Fishpot-C and Yak-28P Firebar interceptor models were not able to intercepted low-altitude targets. The use of fighter aircraft is illustrated by history below: The Yak-28P Firebar of the 171st regiment intercepted an Antonov An-2 biplane defector on 13 March 1967. The An-2 tried to fly over the Black Sea to Turkey. The An-2 didn’t have much of a heat signature flying very low over the waves.

The Yak-28P Firebar crew wasn’t able to get a good missile lock, but the Firebar interceptor was able to use its long-range radar to guide the other MiG-17 from 171th regiment to the slow target, which then shut down the biplane into the sea with cannon fire.”

operated Yak-28P, when replaced by MiG-25 and MiG-31

See where those two PVO fighters were deployed in the 70s and you realize, that non had a chance to come near the western tactical aircraft mentioned. Just kept to bolster numbers.

Even running into a striker by luck only. They had no head-on capability nor a weapon to down something close to the lawn.

so in the 80s both of them are completely obsolete but in the 70s they had some relevance as some NATO tactical aircraft did operate in the medium altitude realm

To avoid misunderstandings the the Yak-28 variants were usefull in their roles similar the French Vautours. The Firebar was used as night- or all-weather interceptor against loaden aircraft at medium heights or above and did it. Against tactical strikers at low level it will not. The same for the Fishpot at low level, by the limitation of its weaponary.

[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”su11vsyak28.JPG”,”data-attachmentid”:3859379}[/ATTACH]

Even running into a striker by luck only. They had no head-on capability nor a weapon to down something close to the lawn.

Both were day/night interceptors with AAMs against high flying bombers or similar recce birds. They had no look-down and shoot-down capabilty.

for the most part they were guided by GCI radars
against the contemporary strike aircraft when they are laden with fuel and ordanance (like jaguar, buccanear , f-105, A-7, F-100 )
they would not be able to intercept them at all ?

I was under the impression that yak-28P had decent low level performance

http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/iap/393gviap.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/iap/790iap.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/iap/191iap.htm
Looking on the map where the PVO regiments were based with Su-11 in service. .

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%83-11
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AF%D0%BA-28
The limited number of both interceptors interceptors built showed their practical value.
I used the Russian Wiki about that.

Both were day/night interceptors with AAMs against high flying bombers or similar recce birds. They had no look-down and shoot-down capabilty. Even the later Su-15 was limited against low flying intruders and supplemanted by the MiG-23P for that purpose. The given high-up range were without power-climb under ferry range conditions and no external AAMs.

The Su-11 was basically a modified Su-9, with a more powerful engine and radar.
As such, it might be viewed as an interim type, an upgraded Su-9, pending the imminent arrival of the Su-15.
As said, it was a Mach 2 aircraft.

The Yak 28 Firebar was a long range interceptor, akin to the contemporary F-101 Voodoo… both types had similar top speeds, service ceilings, range exceeding 2000km..etc.

I do not think their performance was relatively poor compared to their contemporaries.
They had their tasks and roles, and were then replaced by their designated successors, much like elsewhere.

Su-11 had sufficient maneuverability to participate in the “dog fight” Yak-28 had a longer range, better radar and co-pilot. But obviously the ability to combat maneuvering is not his “strong suit” Later, instead of su-11 appeared su-15, Yak-28 was replaced by Tu-128

the Su-11 is a Mach2+ interceptor.