SchorschCongrats, Phantom!
You have outlived some designs.
By design and evolution probably the best aircraft of the late 50ies / early 60ies.
By its specifications a highly useful aircraft for many years.
By performance the later versions were competitive with everything that came up until the arrival of the new generation (MiG-29, Suchoi 27).
By the looks, depends on taste, I like it.
I think an F-4F (representative of latest Phantom standard) with current turbofan engines and 1990ies avionics (incl. cockpit) would still be a tough contender on the battlefield.
The F-4C (IOC 1962) is in my eyes the first real multi-role aircraft that includes all capabilities demanded by modern aircraft: ability to compete in a dogfight, ability to engage targets in distance, ability to do ground attack with useful weapons load. Of course, it carries the limitations the technology put on it.
SchorschHere are the figures:
1965: 194 SAM launches. 11 US aircraft lost, a launch/hit ratio of 5.7%. In other words for every 1 downed aircraft it took over 17 missiles to register a hit.
1966: 1,966 SAM launches. 31 US aircraft lost, a launch/hit ratio of 1.2%. 63 missiles for every one hit.
1967: 3,202 SAM launches. 96 US aircraft lost, a launch/hit ratio of 3.0%. 33 missiles for every one hit.
1968: 322 SAM launches. 3 US aircraft lost, a launch/hit ratio of 0.9%. 107 missiles for every one hit.
Linebacker Operations
1972: 4,244 SAM launches. 49 US aircraft lost, a launch/hit ratio of 1.15%. 87 missiles for every one hit.As you can see, the success ratio is not going down exactly linearly. A bit more like up and down.
In 1965 the US pilots did not have much experience with SAMs. By 1972 the SA-2 was already obsolete. The SA-3, SA-4, SA-5, SA-6 and even SA-8 were in service.
Some details from the Vietnamese/Soviet side:
– The Vietnamese received a total of 7156 SAMs. They fired 5885 of them during the conflict.
– Multiple missile shooting at the same target was the norm. Some targets were hit more than once.
-Some targets were only damaged (the SA-2 is a near miss proximity fuzed missile with a large warhead) and made it back to base.
– Some missiles were mistakenly fired upon their own Migs (I don’t have reports of friendly kills).Please note the number of fired SAMs does not correlate to the US supplied figure.
The US attributes the majority of their aircraft losses to AAA. Only 190 to SAMs and about 100 or so to Migs. I sincerely doubt the figures. AAA performance has been dismal in all other modern conflicts, how come they are so successful in Vietnamese hands? I believe SAMs killed more than the 190 the US is saying. Just too many shootdowns are being attributed to AAA fire. I am not saying it is desinformation, just that a lot of aircraft/pilots don’t know what hit them…
You are providing interesting information.
The problem with US loss figures is that damaged and subsequently written off aircraft are often not considered as “lost to air defense”.
I would further say that many losses are not reasoned by the wrong cause on intention. A loss is a loss and you don’t parachute in an NTSB team to find the cause. If the aircraft was alone or the wing man didn’t have contact it remains basically guesswork.
AAA is not very effective, but the US tactics and the shear number of AAA sites made it effective. Most US attacks were on fixed targets. As the Vietnamese didn’t have so much of them they could easily concentrate their assets on these targets.
You are forgetting that the B-52 never operated alone over Vietnam. They and their supporting aircraft (including dedicated ECM aircraft) were doing a group ECM effort. On the other hand, the SR-71 will be flying alone and do all the jamming by itself…
But the B-52 lost any moment of surprise and were sometimes vectored over the SAM sites itself. I think ECM will be more effective when the SAM site operates on its limits, which is rather given for a M3.2@80kft target than for a M0.8@35kft target.
SchorschIt is 3.27% according to US provided numbers. I wonder what that number would have been if the Soviets had provided the more capable Volkhov variant (instead of the Dvina variant) to the Vietnamese. And how about all those US planes that had to jettision their bombs in order to be able to do evasive maneuvers/abort missions to avoid being hit by a SAM? US pilots took the SA-2 threat very very seriously.
I think the overall success rate of the SAMs is not really what is the mark. The question is rather how it affected the missions of the Americans. In the end, the Americans needed to put considerable effort into suppression of enemy air defence. In Linebacker II they put the air defence out of action after a week or so, but it needed considerable effort.
Overall the S-75 was a success in Vietnam, especially as the Vietnamese didn’t need to pay for it.
A lower altitude flying F-105 is not a sitting duck. It is far more maneuvrable target than the SR-71 at 90k feet and Mach 3.2. It can also fight back against the SAM (the SR-71 can’t).
Depends, if the SAM is used correctly the F-105 runs out of energy pretty quick, the third missile will hit it, provided the aircraft stays within the engagement envelope. In low level that can be 10nm or less (due to line of sight tracking). But a good SAM crew would try to lure an enemy fighter into a trap. Firing at aircraft at the edge of the missile’s range will not yield best results.
An SR-71 can probably be attacked but the window of opportunity is small. Another factor is the limited RCS of an SR-71. It may be visible on radar but if it suffices for a track versus the aircraft’s ECM is another story.
Even 20 years after the Vietnam war, the US ECM technology had still not neutralised the GUIDELINE threat. During the 1991 Gulf war, Iraqi SA-2 batteries are credited at least one US plane (F-14).
ECM is rarely a 100% solution.
Still the US and NATO was able in Iraq and Kosovo to operate at medium altitudes most of the time. Surely, Serbia and Iraq were not the best air defenses, but considering the loss rates both campaigns were far more successful than Vietnam. Another good yardstick is the Lebanon conflict 1982. In all conflicts specialized aircrafts were used to suppress the air defence, something nobody had 10 to 15 years earlier.
Some people don’t give the S-75 (SA-2) the credit it deserves. Yes, it is an early generation SAM with many limitations (especially at lower altitudes). But it is still effective and in use an air defense asset in many countries around the globe.
I think knowledgeable people know how to rate it. The introduction of affordable mobile high altitude SAM systems changed the way how air war was planned and aircrafts were designed.
SchorschWhere did you get that CEP figure from?
1960s analogue computers hardly allowed a subsonic bomber to drop his payload within a certain area. How do you think a bomb that passes two or three different aerodynamic regimes and 60000ft of atmosphere will behave? I have never heard that any tactical aircraft tried to drop 500kg bombs from 30000ft and actually hit anything. In Vietnam the Americans did carpet bombing using Phantoms with EB-66, but all tactical strikes were done from medium or low altitude with normally quite miserable results.
Besides that, I guess to deliver payload the MiG-25RB needs free view of the target. Or did it have high fidelity updated inertial navigation and navigation radar? I doubt it.
I could think of an -RB trying to intrude an airspace using its speed and then making a subsonic bomb attack. But I guess such rather suicidal attacks would be done using nuclear weapons.
Are these figures for the bombs?
[ATTACH]162523[/ATTACH]
I guess you know the source.
Martinez does, too, I assume.
A 1980s Tornado IDS was able to deliver conventional strikes with some accuracy. But a 500kg bomb needs to hit within ~100m to do any damage if you are not trying to attack a tent city.
SchorschNo, the dash up to M2.83 is for intercepts as well, the Mig-25RB can fly and toss four 500kg bombs at Mach2.75, why you think the P/PD variant was not able to do the same with missile load?
I would really like to know what these 4x 500kg bombs were supposed to hit from 60000ft@M2.75. With a CEP of 1000m even a small nuclear bomb becomes useless.
SchorschSpeed is not as important as some seem to think… remember the Falklands war… Subsonic Harriers seemed able to defeat supersonic Mirage fighters in combat…
Not really representative, I guess we can skip the details.
The Mig-25 has the record for the highest altitude… about 30km. The Mig-31 can’t fly that high, but then neither can the SR-71.
If I remember correctly that was a zoom climb. It is not an operational altitude.
The Mig-25 upgraded after Belenkos defection would be able to intercept the SR-71 reliably. Its avionics and missiles were both upgraded at that time… it was a fleet wide upgrade.
The Mig-31 should therefore also be able to intercept the SR-71 as it has even better missiles.
Equipped with the right missile technology there is no doubt that a MiG-25 can intercept an SR-71. Of course, given the high speeds involved such intercept must be guided by the ground and will not be a tail chase. But a good ground controller can place MiG-25 in the path of the SR-71. The Blackbird is limited in turn capability. Would be interesting if the Blackbird has a chance when it picks up the radar of the Foxbat as any option would be fatal: turning would slow it down and make it an easier target.
It is doubtful that the intercept needs speeds above Mach 2.5, but the Foxbat was as you know rather designed for prolonged supersonic cruise at M2.3 to M2.5, the rest is dash capability of use for reconnaissance primarily.
—————–
The upgrade after Belenko’s defection was if I remember correctly the upgrade to version PD, which included a new pulse-doppler radar. The question remains if the defection was really the reason. I guess an upgrade of the MiG-25P’s radar was necessary anyways. For the threat of incoming bombers at low level (even the slow B-52 with a speed of ~M0.5) the MiG-25P was the wrong aircraft. Su-15M, MiG-23M and P were better suited for this mission.
SchorschI know engines are advanced and take a long while but having the jet only equipped with the correct engines some 3 or 4 years after its first flight just seems rather a long time to have to wait.
It also demonstrates that a rather lengthy prototype phase is envisioned.
I guess the PAK-FA that flies this decade will be something like the YF-22 was for the F-22.
So don’t expect it to do service before 2020.
SchorschI am also quite amazed that the engines won’t be ready till 2012, why is it taking so long to design an engine? – there must surely be some real problems to have to wait 5 years for two engines, seems crazy.
Jon, your comments are sometimes funny to read and I like to do Garry-bashing from time to time, too. But I have to credit him much more knowledge than you, quoted excerpt is just a short proof.
The development of a new engine takes lots of time and money. In the times where aircrafts were not control configured the engine was more expensive than the aircraft. Guess why so many military designs share similar engines and if you compare the number of different engine families to the number of different aircraft families you will actually find more aircraft than engines.
It is a reasonable choice to make initial test flights with a different engine. The YF-22 may have used the F119 from the beginning, while reason was primarily that the engine was part of the ATF development contract and for the ATF procurement decision 4 aircrafts were tested.
The Eurofighter had RB199 initially.
Aircraft = Airframe + Engine.
SchorschDo you call Comanche a failure?
Expenditure of an amount roughly similar to A380 development budget (without delays), in the end two flyable prototypes. Several reasonably famous computer games, a few quite fascinating YouTube clips and some documentaries on Discovery Channel.
I would say with my newly Garry-acknowledged expert status (thanks for the flowers!) on this forum the Comanche was a huge ….
… FAIL.
By the way: when does the first PAK-FA arcade simulator make its first appearance?
SchorschWhy?
What else? How many truly new developed military aircraft have entered service since the Suchoi 27?
And by the way: still the same people, in the design offices, in the military.
So claims that engines and flight control systems and avionics are being tested in Su-30s must be rubbish? The Su-27BM is probably testing most of the systems intended for the PAK-FA too.
You seem to have forgotten that for a long time it has been tradition to test components in other airframes so that the prototype can be used largely for aerodynamics and integration.
New engines need a while, if they are really new.
Lots of new technology must be validated in flying testbeds, which doesn’t mean it is operational afterwards. Lots of issues only appear in the actual aircraft. That’s why they need prototypes at all, following your logic they could roll out the first combat ready aircraft and immediately shoot down a (enter hated western airframe of your choice).
Smart engineers don’t endanger there aerodynamic and FLCNT testing with a potentially unreliable engine. For the initial testing (which always concentrates on slow speed testing, subsonic/transonic flight envelope opening) the actual engine is secondary.
I feel a bit like giving Schorsch’ 101 lecture in aircraft design, development & testing. Many people here read a lot but don’t think much.
SchorschWell for one thing there isn’t a single thing that can be pointed to that demonstrates PAK-FA isn’t vaporware. Is there any piece of hardware that has been revealed (in more than press releases) as being for PAK-FA only? With the ATF there were numerous programs in the white world that were specifically for the ATF program. AESA technology, the YF119 & YF120, and many others all began in the 80s with test hardware being bench tested and so on WELL before any YF-22 or YF-23 flew. Sure, the convenient excuse is “they’re keeping everything secret for PAK-FA” but what’s the real answer? Personally I think “PAK-FA” will be another demonstrator along the lines of the S-37 or Mig 1.44 but looking a bit stealthy. I’m willing to eat my words but my money is that it’s not going to be the grand unveiling many think it will be.
When we use the latest Soviet era programs as yardstick we can assume that the PAK-FA will not be combat ready the day after tomorrow but will start with a set of technologies, basically a low observable airframe, supercruise and internal weapons bay. Engines may (and most likely will) still be preliminary, as are avionics and flight controls. After a couple of years they arrive at something that comes close to production status, then probably with the definitive engine.
Avionics and other stuff will be integrated later. I think the initial aircraft will be a bit like a Suchoi 27 in new dress. The majority of people posting here obviously forget how aircraft become a weapon system.
Any stated IOC before 2015 is embarrassing for the poster, any real operational service before 2020 is still somehow optimistic. The Suchoi 27 needed 9 years under Cold War conditions and being a comparatively simple design.
SchorschThree points:
[…]
What I wanted to say is: distance does matter.
The USA have no official control, but they have a realistic military option on the table. The Chinese don’t have useful power projection capabilities outside the home waters/home turf. The Chinese know that.
The USN can also stop all shipping into Venezuela from the Atlantic always given the political will to overcome the considerable political price.
SchorschSens, everybody knows that the max. and normal operation data are diferent, that goes to every plane in the world, but still that data is for comparative value, i really dont know if the climb give (2.5 min to 14km) was in some kind of combat configuration or not, still i think that if is in that case ,your data could be a typo or mistake
Not at all.
In dry thrust with typical load (which came close to max load) the performance did not rock the boat. Common problem of all turbojets, especially those with high wing loading. The “best values” are reached when part of the climb is done supersonically and the engines produce much more thrust in reheat.
An empty A319 climbs equally fast under such conditions, at least in the beginning.
SchorschPostponed from late 2008 to 2009, is that the big deal?
For combat aircraft I think the actual first flight is of limited significance as the initial batch is purpose built for testing and validation. We cannot judge from the pure look how maturity is inside.
Civil aircraft need about 12 to 18 month from first flight to certification and EIS.
Military aircraft need about 3 to 5 years from first flight to “production status” and then another 1 to 4 years until operational capability is established, while the latter is more an issue of the military, still has something to do with the maturity of the system, too.
Eurofighter and F-22 needed about 12 years from first flight to IOC.
SchorschMan you still haven’t learned anything from all that? As one Argentinian journalist put it , not to be taken seriously is Chávez biggest strength. In 1999 nobody took him seriously, now he is the longest serving president in Latin America and has transformed Venezuela in his personal democratorship. When he started to talk about socialism nobody took him seriously now look at what’s going on in Venezuela. Everybody thinks that the talk about war is just a show and that he wouldn’t dare it, have you all forgot that he had the guts to stage his own bloody coup d’etat? Sending thousands of troops to the border could easily have resulted in war (Latin America has a long history of tense atmosphere and accidental skirmishes turning into war) and this step clearly demonstrates that he is not only ranting around. I’m more and more convinced that Chávez is deliberately trying to appear ridicoulous. Do you think that a dead serious president (let’s say a person like Ahmadinejad) in Venezuela who threatens the US with war, who builds up his own militia composed of one million people, supports terrorists and forms strategic alliances with Belarus and Iran would still be in power by now? Surely not, and Chávez has done all these things, the only reason the US doesn’t do more against him (apart from the oil) simply is that they don’t take him seriously.
While currently Venezuela’s ability to fight a war that truly endangers its neighbors is very very limited. Aside the shiny (and yet not operational) Suchois the rest is pretty much the usual South American extended police force. The history of South American wars have showed us that ground wars were in majority inconclusive. And his direct borders are in majority jungle, and Colombia (which has a more urban borderline to V) has an army three times as big.
What he could do effectively is some kind of “sabotage war” by attacking sea links. But that call for the USA, which Chavez cannot have an interest to have armed conflict with (just a nice political).
Sign In
