firebarSpeaking of good dogfighters I watched the movie comedy Hot Shots! the other day with some friends. Now the Gnat……that is a neat little aircraft that’s a very good dogfighter for its era. Known as the Sabre Slayer right?
It was very good dogfighter but it had some serious vices.
Its engine choked when guns were fired at medium to high altitudes and it had one of the smallest range of any fighter.
firebarIt was a later aircraft, but I think that the F-5A was actually a closer equivalent to the MiG-19 than the F-100. Like the MiG-19, the F-5A was a nimble little twin engined point defense fighter with about the same max speed. As far as I know, it didn’t have any of the vices that plagued the F-100 or the MiG-19. I really couldn’t say which one would prevail in a dogfight.
Mig-19 had far higher T/W ratio. Not in the same class.
firebarF-16 had advantage in close combat, but only below tropopause. Above that Mig-23 is better. F-16 engine is not very good for high altitudes where it not tolerate high maneuvering. It is prone to compressor stall among other things and its thrust falls rapidly with altitude.
Regarding armament, Mig-23 had definitive advantage in shooting from distance before advent of Amraam. In close range, also, R-60 and R-73 are much better than Aim-9L.
Late versions of Flogger have HMS with R-73. It is real danger to any threat.
R-60M is connected to HMS, also.
firebarGBU-15
” GBU-15 TV/command link guided stand-off weapon entered USAF service in April 1983. It was first introduced in IAF and was used in 1982 Beka war with dramatic results.” The Phantom story- Thornborough
firebarTo be an “outstanding” dogfighter of its time (50s-70s), the MiG-19 was awfull short on fuel. This shortage was felt at low level most.
Thrust/weight ratio says nothing without thrust/drag ratio.
A small fuel fraction versus a high fuel consumption limits the usage further. Using selected numbers for arguments becomes sometimes senseless.
If I remember well, I am not the one, who put the MiG-19 in a modern fighter class.
Mig-19 is not so awfull short of fuel compared to Hunter, Lightning,Mirage3C etc. There were many fighters in 60,s with lower range than Mig-19.
Of course that thrust/drag is also important, that is why Mig-21 is better above 0.8 Mach. Bellow that speed drag rise is not pronaunced, and Mig-19 is definitely better.
Take into account also very heavy gun armament.
firebarThe last sentence is true. But the statements before are misleading.
Not going into two much details, but raw numbers are very misleading sometimes.
The MiG-19 was heavier than the MiG-21F13,
it was draggier than that MiG,
it had less internal fuel than that.
The engines had a higher sfc than the R-11.
The similar limited weapons-load to both.
Make up your mind about usefull combat endurance by that.
The MiG-19 was a very limited point-defence fighter and the Russians handed it down as quickly as possible.
The later ones F-6 were more durable but still very limited.
” put Mig-19 in modern dogfighter class. In its times it was outstanding.”
The Egyptians got their Chinese examples in 1979 for 1 million $ each to allow the EAF to maintain the flying skills of its pilots at a relatively low cost. Second line at best.
The comparison withe the MiG-21F13 was done, to show, that the MiG-19 was inferior to that in nearly every respect. The shortcomings of the MiG-21F13 are known very well and not disputed. (“The flying sportscar”)
😉
It is true that Mig-19 is draggier but they are about the same weight.
They have about the same internal fuel range. Mig-21F-13 is also limited weather interceptor like Mig-19.
Mig-21 have advantage in air combat only at speeds over 0.8 Mach. Below that, 19 is better. This is because 19 has advantage in T/W, wing loading, and lift coeficient.
Official USAF statement say that Mig-19 is outstanding fighter even today.
firebarThe rout suffered by the Syrian AF in Bekaa ’82 was not only a matter of individual plane or pilot superiority.
They were certainly “somewhat” inferior in that respect, how much exactly not being the question here, but the crux of the matter is that they had to go into battle piecemeal, without ground control, basically blind. Their ATC assets had been wiped out. And they had to rise in defense of their ground forces against an air force that had full ground control and even E-2 awacs.
They did not stand a chance. This is almost completely independant of the personal value of each pilot and plane.
The crux: the tally of Bekaa ’82 does not reflect plane-vs-plane values, nor pilot-vs-pilot. It reflects the value of battlefield management and organized formations against a blinded and piecemeal enemy.
82-to-0 or 100-to-0, or whatever the tally is, basically reflects only how many planes the Syrians did send before giving up. In those conditions they could have sent any numbers, the poor sods just did not have a chance.
I agree with you that battlefield management, AWACS, communication jamming etc had decisive influence in outcome of air combat in1982 war.
Israeli pilots have been precisely guided by AWACS a/c to Syrian fighters and other side did not have this capability.
Beacuse of that, nobody doubts that kill ratio was heavily on Israeli favor.
Take into account, also, that F-15 and F-16 were newly introduced fighters.
What is highly doubtful is kill ratio of 80:0 which is statistically impossible even in this, for Israelis, favorable conditions.
Please, read outcome of RED FLAG and AIMVAL/ACEVAL exercises between F-15s and F-5 Tigers in USA.
It is very interesting reading and is of paramount importance for any air combat researcher.
firebarHi,
the pic shows a loss of a F-4 during YKW. I know it. Please can you give the courtesy of that pic. I know, it is from OSPREY book p 70 (Tom Cooper collection).
Yes, it is from Osprey book but as you know there are many pictures like this from western sources and point, according these pictures, is in this:
Israelis apparently hide their air to air losses claiming that these losses are from AAA fire. That is the main problem facing any researcher.
It can not be checked.
firebarIt is mobile too. See M-548 (MTW M-113A) similar to ZRK Kub 2P25 SPU.
Both sytems could not fire in the move. Even the SA-8 ‘Gecko’ telar needs a tactical stop. 😉
What do we compare? The systems with technology from the 60s or sytems built/modernized in the 90s ?! :confused:
Something you did not post our readers is reaction time and hitting envelope.
Of cause you can overcome jaming, but you have to pay a price for that in time.
A fighter going near ground at 900 km/h = 15 km/min.
Practical detection distance in ingress is ~ 20 km.
You have be lucky, that this fighter will head over you in straight line.
If your first firing solution is foiled through jamming, the next one will open up, when those fighter had passed your dead-zone. To catch the fighter through egress is not very promising. So you need more than a single system targeting the same fighter to ashure a kill. Not very cost-effective, when the other fighters went through by that. 😮
HAWK is also mobile in later versions, that is true, but differnce of mobility of these two systems is too great. Also, compare reaction times of them after stopping. Difference is also too big.
Regarding guidance, even first version of SAM-6 had frequency changing duel tracker, combined CW-pulse. That rendered it unjammable. The same tracker also had ZSU-23/4.
Propulsion system, integral rocket/ramjet, ensure very long burn time, so that speed is still 2,5 Mach after 30 seconds of flight. That was remarkable.
firebarIsrael admitted all its losses in 1973, 1967 and 1948. As a democratic state with freedom of speech, the government can’t neither wants to hide such information from public. Such info can’t be hidden from the public in a democratic state.
How is it possible that democratic state do not allow UN representatives for nuclear energy to check its nuclear facilities ?
Israels nuclear program is completely hiden, and that cast suspection to all other areas.
Even North Korea has allowed inspection.
firebarSeriously, I didn’t want to prove we shot down 82, 100 or 50, I want to show you that no Israeli fighter jet was lost in 1982. I’m pretty sure the Syrians would have been posting as least one photo of a “downed Israeli fighter jet over Lebanon”.
I have read that Syrians are very reluctant to show any war evidence, also for security reasons like Israelis.
That is reason why it is almost impossible to know kill ratio between Israel and Arab fighters with any certainty. Neither Israel nor Syria allow any foreign researcher to investigate the losses.
Simply, we have to accept the claims.
I can tell you that I have mostly western sources and there are many doubts about Israeli claims. I wrote about American claims in Vietnam. They say it was 4:1 between F-4 and Mig-17, and as you know, F-4 was far better than Mig-17 that F-15 is compared to Mig-23.
Comparing pilots, Americans were better trained than Vietnam ones, also.
Or this: Me-262 was indeffinitely better than Mustang or Spit, but nobody claimed than kill ratio has been 50 or 100:0.
firebarRegarding gun camera pictures that I have presented, if you can’t open them here, copy them at new window.
firebarErez
I am neither Russian or Arab. And I have no prejudice about Israelis.
IAF pilots are among the best in world. But they, also, always have the latest American equipment, even before US pilots. Look at gun modified F-4E fighter. It entered IAF inventory before in USAF.
And Arabs get only second rate, export versions of Russian fighters.
1982 war gun camera pictures are classified yet. Could you give proof of 80 Syrian a/c downed. Of course not.
What I am saying is that IAF hide its losses in air combat because of security reasons, and that is understandable, and it applies in any war, 1973 or 1982.
Look at RED FLAG air combat exercises in USA. Official statement say that 3 F-5 always beat one F-15, and that 2 F-5 are about equal to one F-15. And have in mind that Mig-23 or Mig-21 are better that F-5.
firebarThe US SAM “HAWK” used/use a similar system before. Anti HAWK/SAM-6 tactics are similar.
HAWH missile system has no frequency changing capability and has pure CW tracker for low level targets. It is also static which means vulnerable compared to highly mobile SAM-6. Late versions of SAM-6 have also monopulse tracking capability like SAM-8 and is for this reason highly difficult to jamm.
American and Israeli missile experts know that too well.
firebarhttp://shone.8k.com/Ostalo/sl2_3.jpg
That is main problem. IAF do not want to recognize its losses in air combat.
I have many such gun camera pictures from Arab fighters and they are all from western sources.
Sign In
