Can and has.

3-6039 was the F-14A used to shot down an Iraqi Mirage F.1EQ on 20 February 1987 by a single AIM-54A from a range of almost 150km. The Iraqi pilot, 1st Lt. Ahlan, did not survive the hit.

150 kms out? I doubt it. I would love to know how exactly that kill was confirmed? Lt Ahlan seems to have had very good eyesight?

They can, but the firing position is different, their guidance is different. Don’t know a lot about these SAMs, especially the Hawks, which surprisingly enough I have seen up close more times than I could count.

I think the phoenix has a proximity fuse, but perhaps not fine tuned enough for a small target.

I’ve never heard of any problems with the proximity fuse on the Phoenix – I’m sure it would have been updated on the C version in the 1980s?

Yes, nonetheless people still give the F-14 a longer reach than other fighters because of it.

And as far as use, I vaguely remember not seeing F-14s carrying the phoenix at all from the mid 90’s on. did not have internet back then and relied on magazines though so I could be wrong.

Yeah, scratch that, I found a photo (wikipedia nonetheless) that shows a phoenix on a tomcat in 2003.

Didn’t the F-14 have a longer reach with the Phoenix missile, outside the R-33 armed MiG-31 in the RF?

Well, don’t ask me that.. It was a claim made directly by the Israeli F-4 crews that the Soviets were inexperienced and didn’t know how to handle the aircraft in a combat situation.. Don’t be lazy and read it up before posting..

I don’t have to do my own research to back up your claims – anyway how would the Israeli pilots know what sort of experience level the Soviet pilots were compared to other Soviet pilots. My personal theory for the Soviets’ alleged lack of WVR dogfighting skills – they were PVO pilots – trained to shoot down B-52s and B-58s over the USSR, dogfighting skills not needed?

It is good to see that Richard Ward’s paper has remained in the public domain, and is still finding readers.

He expressed two concerns to me shortly after it was completed. One was that it might be retrospectively classified, and thus taken out of wide circulation. The other was that some readers might understand it, and see it as a call for the US to adopt the Soviet approach to aircraft design rather than an indication that there were viable alternatives to some aspects of the US approach.

GD artists did a couple of full-colour drawings of conceptual next-generation Soviet fighters for Ward, but I cannot remember if these were included in his paper. I have long mislaid mine, but if anyone (such as LowObservable) has copies, it might be amusing to post them.

Is this the document you’re looking for?

https://de.scribd.com/doc/298950019/FIGHTER-DESIGN-From-Soviet-Perspective

I can’t imagine there was any real danger of it being classified – surely most of the information contained in it was common knowledge anyway?

I was not getting into that. I’m just responding to your MiG-21 comparison and pointing out that the Su-11 was a bomber interceptor so it had a different set of requirements to fulfill compared to the contemporary MiG-21 (like longer range, bigger radar set, longer ranged BVR weapons, etc.).

I’m almost sure that the MiG-21 was originally developed as a PVO ‘bomber interceptor’ in the 1950s as well.

Meanwhile in Syria..

http://sputniknews.com/military/20160902/1044898945/su33-guided-bombs-syria.html

It seems there are some more rumors about Su-33’s being upgraded with Gefest.

http://defence-blog.com/news/russia-to-modernize-sukhoi-su-33-carrier-based-aircraft.html

From the same article:

“In practical terms this means that every 30+ year old Russian ‘dumb’ bomb can now be delivered by a 30+ year old Russian aircraft with the same precision as a brand new guided bomb delivered by a top of the line modern bomber,” the expert noted.

Sure.:rolleyes:

Unpaved airfield built in the South Military District, during the last readiness check. That rare moment when you recall what’s the real purpose of this huge landing gear.

A very useful capability I’m sure. I notice though, that they are not operating at anything near maximum take-off loads?