SchorschIn 1982, the Syrians thought that they were still fighting like the 1967 and 1973 wars, where numbers did effect on the balance of powers which meant that equal number of fighters meant that they will get a good kill ratio while themselves suffering losses as well. But they didn’t realize that the IDAF had become far superior with the new F-15s and F-16s and all the data being fed by AWACS.
I think war dependent on numbers was coming to its end.
No, not really, numbers till count. The key advantage was less the performance of the newer types but the dramatic information advantage of the Israelis.
The Syrians flew virtually blind into the battle, were forced to identify enemy aircraft visually, then try to bring them down with their missiles (which were very ineffective).
The Israelis were guided by AWACS, could usually achieve a lock with their own radar before visual contact was made and when they identified the other aircraft (they had to!) they could usually launch a missile only few seconds latter, possibly immediately (F-15s with AIM-7, which were rarely used).
In 1967 and 1973 most combats actually were classic WVR combats. And as the IR-AAM still required to get behind the enemy, seeing him first was an advantage, but not one you could immediately generate a kill with.
SchorschSome observers were drawing the conclusion that the warsaw pact airforces can be dealt with in a similar way by NATO as israelis defeated the syrians.
But from what I am hearing it does not seem that these 2 situations were alike.Rather it seems like the syrians had every possible disadvantage.
Surely the WP forces were better, but the system was clearly showing its shortcomings. Low level (<5000ft) fights in visual range in a heavily jammed environment were something the Soviets could expect when trying to attack NATO forces inland. The Soviet fighters were effectively blind, their weapons useless. The -ML and -MLD versions were better, but no game-changer compared to original -M/MF. The single pilot with his limited radar still had strong difficulties using his radar guided weapons, and the IR-AAM of the Soviets were poor.
Probably no 82-0 outcome, but losses versus an F-4E and F-16-dominated NATO force with all aspect IR-AAM would be heavy when the Soviets would strike with Suchoi 17/22 and MiG-23BN covered by MiG-23M/ML and MiG-21 in daylight raids (1983-86 scenario). The MiG-29 did not mean a huge improvement, as it too suffered from situational awareness shortcomings.
SchorschI have heard that IDAF was outnumbered 2 to 1 in Bekaa valley, facing the latest MiG-23MLDs and Mig-29s yet managed to score a 85 to zip kill/loss ratio ? is this true
I tried to research but found no substantiation for these claims, yes the IDAF score 85 forno loss, but I didnt find that they were so outnumbered or faced such latests types
any thoughts
The Syrians had mainly MiG-23MS and -MF as fighters (both downgraded versions of the -M), and Suchoi 7 as fighter bombers. All operating outside friendly radar coverage. The Israelis normally had local advantage in numbers. The -MLD was quite new at that time and wasn’t exported to Arabian nations at that time.
The Bekaa Valley air battle was largely decided by weapins technology (all-aspect IR-AAM) and support (AWACS). The aircraft are secondary, the Israelis themself say it that way.
Syiran AF had no confirmed air-to-air kills.
SchorschIndeed, nice pictures.
Unsure what it is about this forum in particular which always seems to turn threads into American was best disscussions.
Maybe because American hardware was in average the best from the mid 1950ies to at least the late 1990ies, with some very strong British, European and Russian contenders. All from the pure technical perspective, combat value does not relate linearly to technology.
SchorschOkay enough with the Phantoms. How does the Delta Dagger compare with the Flagon?
The Dagger not very well. The fact the F-102 remained in service quite a while is probably due to the fact that more interceptors never hurt, obsolete aircraft cannot be shot down and the aircraft were all relatively young.
The Delta Dart F-106 is largely similar in mission and performance.
Both F-102 and F-106 would be definitive losers in air to air combat versus fighters. An unsupported encounter between Suchoi 15 and F-106 would probably end in a draw, basically nobody is able to aim his weapons.
SchorschIn their worst month more than 40 F-105s went down, mostly to enemy fighters (the reason why Colonel Robin Olds was sent to Vietnam).
Actually, out of the over 350 F-105 lost in Vietnam, less than 30 (or less than 10%) were due to enemy fighters.
The Su-15 is basically a late Russian MiG-21 with better cruise performance, tougher radar and heavier missiles. But considering the success rate of AIM missiles at that time I’d say combat performance overall would be pretty much the same as the MiG (ie. better than the Phantom up high, not as good down low). Supersonic intercept range is better with the Flagon.
The AA-3 missile of the Suchoi 15 was unsuitable for any dogfight or attack on fighter like targets. The target needs to be high-up to be successfully intercepted. The Suchoi 15 in a tactical combat with other fighters is a disaster waiting to happen. The Phantom had a much better weapon system (AIM-7E) and overall performance, still its success ratio against the less sophisticated MiG-21 and -17 was limited at best. The SARH-guided missiles often proved to be useless.
Possibly, if they still had any left after the Americans improved operational doctrines and tactical deployment, they might’ve had an impact on the B-52s, which a Fishbed is still pretty hard pressed to do much about. But by then it was what, ’72 and Tomcats were appearing. I think they only had MiG-19 and less than a dozen Fishbeds then, and Russia pulled out from its “advisory” status.
Apparently you have seen the wrong documentaries on the History Channel.
Tomcats didn’t appear before 1975, more than 3 years late for Linebaker II.
And the B-52s were intercepted by SAMs, and usually the MiGs did not dare to get too close as they were in danger of being shot by their own SAMs.
SchorschI have difficulties to say how pathetic the Suchoi 15 was … it had zero innovation or leading concepts, it merely showed that Suchoi was now able to build Mach2 capable fighters with a useful weapons system, something the USN had at hand years earlier (and better).
SchorschA number of fairly clean aircraft of the 60s-70s can cruise supersonic, Foxbat and Flagon among them, it’s listed in published specifications.
You’re talking about Phantoms, yeah? They’ve got a subsonic max cruise. The Flagon (and Foxbat) are listed in published specifications with max cruise exceeding 1500km/h and faster. The Phantom you’ll find has a max cruise in the transonic range, it’ll only dash supersonic.
The Phantom has a lot of excess thrust for great power down in thick air, but at higher altitudes aerodynamically cleaner aircraft like the MiG-21 encountered in Vietnam were stated by Phantom pilots as much quicker. You wouldn’t notice this on paper but it’s hidden away in the cruise performance, Phantom has a great dash but the needlelike Soviet aircraft are much cleaner.
MiG-25 cannot do anything without its afterburner. The TurboJets of that era where fuel-thirsty and the Soviet aerodynamics weren’t that advanced either. The MiG-23 – a design with quite low drag at transonic speeds – cannot go substantially above Mach 1 without its reheat.
The Soviets maybe required longer distances to fly supersonic, which then resulted in afterburners being cooled better or having more heat resistant materials.
Aircraft like the Foxbat and Flagon have both an economy cruise and a supersonic cruise at altitude.
The MiG-25 is a gaz-guzzler at any speed and Mach number. Thanks to its engine.
The normal range is reduced by around 30% for supersonic cruise.
Mission or specific range? If you talk about the latter, you are wrong. The specific range [SR] (distance traveled per fuel unit consumed) drops between 60 and 80% when going supersonic (for modern aircraft). Suchoi 15 probably had less loss of SR, which wasn’t due to its magnificent design, but just because the subsonic SR was already bad (change of the denominator).
Many other aircraft cannot sustain a supersonic cruise but must dash-accelerate supersonic at maximum afterburner, top out and then decelerate subsonic when throttle is reduced, which would be aircraft like the Phantom or Tu-22 Blinder. Aircraft that can supersonic cruise can accelerate supersonic then with careful throttle management hold an intermediate supersonic speed for extended periods. The Hornet can maintain supersonic flight at 75% power for example (lightly loaded).
75% power of what? 75% max afterburner maybe.
Basically all aircraft of that time were able to fly supersonic for extended periods, normally limited by the available fuel, which meant for a fighter like the Phantom up to 10 or 15 minutes.
The combat radius of the early Flagon in interceptor configuration, internal fuel only is about 375km with an average speed following the climb of some 1500km/h. It’s about 400km and 1700km/h for the later versions. This isn’t just past the runway, and would allow for a very short maximum speed dash during the contact phase (ca. 850-930km total range supersonic).
400km = 216nm.
Return to base is subsonic.
So we have a subsonic climb, acceleration, supersonic dash of about 150-200nm, at M1.6 that is about 10 minutes. Fire missiles and return to base subsonic. The mission is over after 40 minutes.
We have to note that the -15 still beats a Suchoi 9 by margin, especially as those beam riding monsters carried by the Suchoi 9 required the pilot to be lucky and skillful at one time to hit something.
The Phantom always uses drop tanks on the example missions. Radius then easily exceeds 400nm.
By comparison a Phantom would intercept at transonic speed, include a short supersonic dash to the target and engage transonic at altitude. Hence Phantom pilots say at higher altitudes the newer Russian aircraft were quicker and very dangerous. The F-15 was designed to deal not just with the Foxbat but just as importantly the MiG-21 future variants and derivatives, based on Vietnam experience with this aircraft (which was more concrete than any Foxbat intel at the time).
The Phantom meets or exceeds the performance of the Suchoi 15. Especially considering the clumsy payload integration of the -15.
Generally, looking at a 1963 F-4C and comparing it to a 1965 Suchoi 15 “Flagon-A” shows a dramtic performance and capability gap. The Phantom could do any mission of the Suchoi, but better.
As such Schorsch, the restrictions you’re talking about are really much more relevant to the Phantom or similar aircraft, not so much the needlelike or very high thrust hotrods like the Fishbed, Flagon, Foxbat, or even several Century series fighters of the USAF. The F-104 is so clean it can reach over 1400km/h at sea level, it would have no problem at all maintaining supersonic speed at altitude under intermediate power.
Using words like “needlelike” you try to figure aerodynamics by looks. Even “needlelike” aircraft can have devastating drag coefficients. The Suchoi 15 is a perfect example for non-integrated design. No area ruling, clumsy engine integration, funny fuselage design. It either flies subsonic or supersonic, but never talk about the zone in-between.
Suchoi build a fuselage around two engines, put inlet in front and a nose that housed a pilot and the radar. Bolted a standard wing and tails on it – ready for take-off.
Schorschits a strange world we live in
DC9s first flew carrying about 90 passengers, and were eventually stretched to carry double that
the regional jets began from executive jet size until the carry 60 people
this new chinese plane looks like its filling the gap left by the now retired DC9/737 early series planes
Which is nicely filled with E195 and CRJ1000. No-one needs the ARJ21.
SchorschErrrr……..no….
The J-8II is a J-8I with MiG-23 style nose and intakes
You have to register to view this page following link from CDF :
China’s Egyptian AF Mig-23 – Link
Another Link – Link
The Suchoi 15 and the J-8 both came the same way: classic delta with nose intake, but widened fuselage for second engine and finally the ventral intake due to the need for a radar. Both not very sophisticated.
SchorschThe cruise speed for early versions is about 1.4 Mach and 1.6 Mach for later series, with a top speed approaching 2.2 Mach or about the same as a top line MiG-21 with a much bigger radar set and heavy missile load (it should, in layout it’s similar to a twin engine version of a late series MiG-21, like a big brother).
Cruise at supersonic speeds was something the Suchoi 15 could only dream off (like nearly all aircraft of that era). Subsonic LoD was bad, supersonic LoD was a catastrophe. Engine consume vast amounts of fuel, and a mission with a supersonic dash normally ends 300nm behind the base’s fence. As target acquisition and attack without ground radar support was rather pointless, there was no need to fly that far off the base.
Schorschaesthetically a magnificent machine!!! Damn fast in a straight line dash too!
I think its overall performance is pretty much comparable to F-106 of the USAF.
One thing that really hunted the Suchoi 15 was its crappy range. Still better than any previous Suchoi interceptor, but the short legs were something that prevented the aircraft from loitering for prolonged periods.
SchorschClassic single-mission Soviet aircraft of the 1960ies era. The better solution to the interception problem than the MiG-25, as it was more affordable. The aircraft itself wasn’t that fine, with atrocious handling and bad safety record. Suchoi actually needed to call it a Suchoi 9 version initially to get the funding.
I think it didn’t have any potential.
SchorschBasically three options:
1. Go in with absolute stealth
2. Have stealth, get detected later and when detected use ECM and tactics to do the mission
3. No stealth but brute force
1: F-117 idea versus a 1980ies style Soviet air defense.
2: F-35 idea
3: F-15E and others
Actually, (1) is pretty much impossible as detection technology develops. With sufficient research and some money there is a 100% chance to build a stealth-killing detection system. Although it makes (1) impossible and (2) pretty tricky, it is questionable if it survives as soon as I use some (3).
Schorschi’m even more surprised by eurocanard fanboys delusions that they can go up against PAK and chinese gen 5
We hope that the Eurofighter is still in service when those become operational.
Sign In
