104 aerial victories without a single defeat - the official results of the Eagle's combat use look simply frightening. Do the US and its allies have global air superiority?
- The official data of the US Air Force and other countries operating fighters of this type, of course, do not reflect the real state of affairs, if only because multibillion-dollar contracts revolve around the myth of the "invincible" F-15.
It's incredible anyway …
- Even 100 confirmed aerial victories cannot serve as an objective criterion of technical superiority. Among the "victims" of the F-15, at best, there are only nine front-line fighters of the fourth generation. The rest of the destroyed aircraft - various modifications of the MiG-21, MiG-23, Su-22, Mirage F.1 - i.e. obsolete aircraft of 2-3 generations, by now almost completely decommissioned in all countries of the world.
A total of nine downed fourth generation fighters. What kind of planes were they?
- Export modifications of the MiG-29, which were in service with Iraq and the FRY. All victories were won by the F-15 pilots with an overwhelming numerical superiority and using external target designation means - against single, desperately brave MiGs who risked to take off, a well-oiled system of several battle groups operated (bait, ambush, cover group). This whole company received accurate data on the air situation from the AWACS E-3 Sentry aircraft, and the EF-111 Raven and EC-130 Compass Call, which patrolled at low altitude, literally tore the air with squalls of electronic interference - not to win in such conditions it would be just a shame.
Wait, you keep talking about the "outdated" MiG-23. This fighter took off in 1967 - just 5 years earlier than the F-15! And by the time of their first "meeting" in the skies of Lebanon (1980), the latest modifications of the "twenty-third" - MiG-23MF and MiG-23ML, went into battle against the F-15. The newest Soviet fighter with variable wing geometry
- I don’t argue that in the 1970s, the "designers' cup" went to the Americans. At the time when the MiG-23 was being developed in the United States, machines of a completely different order were created - the F-14 Tomcat heavy deck interceptor and the F-15 Eagle air superiority aircraft. The Americans did not have the third generation of fighters, the second (Phantom) was immediately replaced by the fourth (Tomcat, Eagle, and later, Fighting Falcon).
How did the "fourth generation" differ from all previous developments?
- The experience of previous conflicts was fully taken into account in the design of these fighters. Air battles in the skies of Vietnam clearly showed the fallacy of all the hypotheses of modern air combat: the 20-ton "universal" fighter-bomber Phantom turned out to be a clumsy fighter and an unimportant bomber, and the pilots of the light 8-ton MiG-21 quickly realized that the two missiles " air-to-air "- unacceptably small in modern conditions.
Did you need a compromise between maneuverability and missile armament?
- Exactly. It was decided to simultaneously "pump" both important directions. Superhigh maneuverability was achieved, first of all, due to a radical increase in the thrust-to-weight ratio of the fighter - undoubted progress in aircraft engine building was evident.
But what about the layout and aerodynamics?
- Speaking specifically about the "Eagle", then to a lesser extent. The F-15, in contrast to the domestic Su-27, had a classic aerodynamic design, without any "integral solutions" and "static instabilities." It is no coincidence that it is so often compared to the MiG-25.
Was the Eagle copied from our MiG?
- Unlikely. The F-15 took off in 1972. Belenko hijacked a MiG to Japan in 1976.
But the Yankees were familiar with the appearance of the MiG-25 before. Surely there were some borrowings …
- And then! American experts still believe that the MiG-25 was "copied" from the A-5 Vigilent carrier-based bomber (1956). They really had a lot in common: two wings, for example. What are you laughing at? They are really quite similar: bucket-shaped air intakes, two-keel tail. The appearance of an airplane is determined by the laws of aerodynamics common to all, which is why similar features are often found in aviation.
It's clear about super-maneuverability. What happened to the onboard electronics?
- The changes were enormous. With the advent of new air-to-air missiles, fourth-generation fighters were able to confidently conduct air battles outside the line of sight - exchanges of missile strikes at ranges of tens of kilometers, corrected according to radar data. Finally, the perfect ergonomics of the pilot's workplace and rich sets of suspension elements that can quickly "adjust" the characteristics of the aircraft to the current situation - the result is cool fighters with an ideal balance of cost and combat capabilities.
HM interesting…
- Because the F-15 and F-16 have been in operation for more than 30 years, and no adequate replacement is seen for them - the American program to create a "fifth generation" fighter is nothing more than an expensive failed experiment. The results achieved are too small compared to the costs of creating the Raptors and Lightnings.
Let's get back to the MiG-23 … Was the Soviet plane of the "third generation" so much inferior to the "Eagles"?
- Terribly conceded. Just a trough against the backdrop of a sports yacht. Another thing is that all this had little to do with real air battles.
Are you kidding ?! Score 104: 0
- "Orlov" was shot down. It's just that CNN storytellers are prohibited from showing the wreckage of American technology. No defeats? It doesn't work that way. Think logically - can you name at least one commander who would never fail and lose a single battle? Suvorov? Yeah, he was running away from the French across the Alps.
And the F-15 fighter is not Suvorov. As I said, the F-15's superiority over obsolete Soviet aircraft was not at all so obvious in real combat. And the battles were real - deadly air battles in the skies over Beirut and Damascus.
Not obvious? The rate of climb of the F-15C is over 250 m / s, and the rate of climb of the MiG-23ML is only 200 m / s! The thrust-to-weight ratio of "Eagle" is more than one, our car has only about 0.8 …
- This is all nonsense from paper booklets. Your numbers have nothing to do with reality.
In terms of? Do you doubt that modern fighters can climb at such a breakneck speed?
- Why, they can. Sometimes, even twice as fast.
Just don't say that the MiG-23 is capable of climbing half a kilometer in a second. Even the super-maneuverable Su-35 cannot do this
- The paper charts show the maximum values of the steady rate of climb at the surface of the earth. But if you accelerate the "twenty-third" to 2000 km / h and smoothly take the handle, it will go into the stratosphere like a candle. Remember the incredible MiG-25, after horizontal acceleration to three speeds of sound, it was "thrown" up 37 kilometers!
I seem to be starting to understand … a lot depends on the speed of the fighter and its position in space at the very beginning of the battle
- Exactly. School physics lesson - the sum of the kinetic and potential energies of the body is unchanged, the speed is converted into height, height into speed. And woe to the F-15, if at this moment its accumulated energy is less than that of the MiG - no thrust-to-weight ratio of the Eagle will save it.
Incredible. It turns out that all the talk about the superiority of the Raphael, the F-15 or the Eurofighter Typhoon is just meaningless chatter? All fourth-generation fighters have approximately the same flight characteristics …
- It turns out that way. The minimal differences in the "tabular" flight characteristics are simply leveled out by the pilot's aerobatic skill. Man is the measure of all things.
Then it is not clear what is the point of creating new aircraft? We would fly on the MiG-23, and not think about creating a "fifth generation"
- Let's just say that with a dramatic improvement in the characteristics of an aircraft, the likelihood of it being in a more advantageous position during an air battle increases. A deflected thrust vector, developed wing mechanization, a statically unstable layout - all this, to one degree or another, affects the successful outcome of the battle. Don't touch the fifth generation, it's a separate long topic with an unclear ending. The emphasis is on avoiding return fire altogether (to reduce the detection range of enemy radar and thermal assets).
Well, I convinced you. A MiG-23 with a trained pilot could boldly go into battle against the F-15
- Yes, the chances were not the worst.
But how did you manage to live up to close combat at all? The Soviet R-23 medium-range air-to-air missiles were obviously inferior to the AIM-7F Sparrow missiles in service with Israel - a launch range of 23 kilometers instead of 33 kilometers for an American-made missile
- The MiG-23 was by no means so bad at long distances. The RP-23 and AN / APG-63 radars had approximately the same range for detecting air targets - about 100 kilometers, both radars had the ability to detect targets against the background of the earth, the only difference - the AN / APG-63's field of view was somewhat wider (up to 60 ° in each plane). The R-23 guided missiles you mentioned, indeed, had many drawbacks, the main of which was the long preparation time for firing. Syrian pilots more than once brought excellent footage of Israeli planes, which they kept in sight for a long time, but they simply did not have time to shoot down. But with the advent of the new R-24 medium-range missiles, the Israelis' air superiority was severely shaken.
Nevertheless, the superiority was still …
- Purely organizational aspects, better organization of the battle, the use of radio interference and AWACS aircraft. But in technical terms, Hel Haavir was not particularly superior. The outcome of most battles was decided in close combat, where the main role was played by aircraft cannons and short-range missiles R-60. It was these little ones that brought us most of the victories.
(approx. Hel Haavir - Israeli Air Force)
Strange, your words run counter to the results of the American exercises in Alaska in 2006. Fights between the F-15 and F-22 were simulated, as a result, only in three cases out of a hundred, the confrontation turned into a melee phase. In other cases, the "Raptors" shot the F-15 from extreme distances and, remaining undetected, disappeared into the sky without a trace
- The Americans simulated one-on-one battles - a very rare and specific combination of events. In reality, each group air battle inevitably turns into a "dump for dogs." The convergence of opponents occurs on average at a speed of about 1 km / s - in a short time, the pilots manage to release only one or two missiles, after which they are forced to face the enemy face to face.
When was the first Eagle shot down?
- According to Russian data, on May 13, 1981, an Israeli F-15 was shot down over Lebanon by the Kvadrat air defense missile system. The next day, the Soviet crew intercepted another Eagle.
And what are the results of air battles?
- "Eagle" was plucked again in July of the same year - 1981-29-07 a pair of Israeli F-15s came under attack from the Syrian MiG-25. One plane was shot down, the second was damaged (according to some reports, it never made it to the air base and crashed in the desert).
Ie. the Israelis suffered significant losses even before the start of the Lebanese war?
- Yes sir. The 1982 war generally turned into a fierce massacre - in the first week of active hostilities, the Syrian Air Force destroyed 42 Israeli aircraft in air battles, including at least five F-15s and six F-16s of the first modifications. Another 27 aircraft were shot down by the fire of Syrian air defense systems with Soviet crews.
Did Hal Haavir admit these losses?
- Of course no. Representatives of the Israeli Air Force stubbornly insist on the version of the destruction of 102 Syrian aircraft over the Bekaa Valley in exchange for the loss of the only fighter-bomber "Kfir". This sounds even funnier than 104 F-15 aerial victories without a single defeat.
But is there any good reason to doubt the data of Hel Haavir?
- The quality of Israeli propaganda raises doubts even among their closest allies - the president of the Washington Center for International Security, George Chorba, who visited Israel immediately after the end of hostilities, was indignant that he was refused to provide any specific information about the use of "new types of American weapons" in hostilities.
In other words, the official Israeli data …
- The most impudent lie. Two years later, American carrier-based aircraft tried to poke into the Bekaa Valley, but on the very first day they lost two attack aircraft (A-6 "Intruder" and A-7 "Corsair"). After the failure of the air operation, the Yankees preferred to "process" the positions of the Syrian air defense systems from 406 mm guns of the battleship "New Jersey". And the planes of the Israeli Air Force are completely indestructible, I know that for sure, I was there (laughs)
Well, besides the Syrians, who else managed to "clip the wings" of the F-15?
- Imagine, the very same F-15. On November 22, 1995, Japanese F-15Js accidentally "solved" each other during a training air battle. Captain Tatsumi managed to eject safely. Of course, this case, like many others, was not included in the "official statistics" of the combat use of the F-15.
It's funny. How did the Eagles perform in Iraq and Yugoslavia?
- In Iraq, two F-15E Strike Eagle fighter-bombers were officially (!) Lost. Alas, this is the F-15 with the index "E" - just one of the many modifications of the F-15, so it may not be included in the official statistics (here are the cheats!). And how many "Eagles" were shot down unofficially - go now and prove that the territory of Iraq is under American occupation. All the debris has long been taken out or buried deep in the sand.
I heard that two years ago, another invincible "Strike Eagle" crashed in Libya, footage with the downed plane went around the world
- You mean the one that fell in the suburb of Benghazi on March 22, 2011? Colonel Gaddafi's supporters "removed" him from a conventional MANPADS. As for Yugoslavia, everything is quite vague there. F-15s fought to the death with Serbian MiG-29s more than once, there were losses on both sides. The MiG-29 is an extremely dangerous enemy, this factor cannot be ignored. There is a famous video filmed in the vicinity of Aviano airbase (Italy) - after returning from a combat mission over the territory of Serbia, one of the Eagles behaves strangely in flight, and a whitish plume of smoke trails behind him. How many of these "wounded" returned to NATO airbases? - perhaps a lot, considering the fact that after the next "victorious campaign" in the US Air Force, massive "write-offs" of aircraft begin, of course, for various non-combat reasons … let's have a toast.
Let's
- There was a goat on the mountain. An eagle flew across the sky, saw a goat, grabbed it and flew on. A hunter stood on the ground, saw an eagle and fired. The eagle fell like a stone on the grass, and the goat flew on!
So let's drink to our eagles being shot down, and the goats not flying.
