By: bgnewf
- 14th July 2010 at 16:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
One does not need an agile dogfighter to shoot down a B-52. The Soviets at the time needed a cheap, relatively long legged interceptor that could launch radar guided AAM's at intruders coming in from the north. That is what the Flagon was designed for. Russia is an absolutely immense country. Sometimes an an affordable single role option is the best.
By: UAZ
- 14th July 2010 at 17:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
One does not need an agile dogfighter to shoot down a B-52. The Soviets at the time needed a cheap, relatively long legged interceptor that could launch radar guided AAM's at intruders coming in from the north. That is what the Flagon was designed for. Russia is an absolutely immense country. Sometimes an an affordable single role option is the best.
Not only B-52s. An agile dogfighter is not needed to shoot down ANY bomb-laden aircraft (maneuvrable or otherwise). In case of a hypothetical war, Soviet Flagons would tackle any enemy aircraft that crosses the border.
New
Posts: 67
By: cessna
- 14th July 2010 at 23:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
By: vanir
- 15th July 2010 at 00:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Actually, out of the over 350 F-105 lost in Vietnam, less than 30 (or less than 10%) were due to enemy fighters.
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.
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.
Schorsch you're speaking with an obvious personal agenda and it's boring me.
I'm going by Robin Olds own words about the situation versus enemy fighters leading into Operation Bolo. I'll take his word over yours.
You're aware the Vietnam era Sidewinder couldn't track in more than a 3G turn, right?
Tomcat deliveries began in '72. Operational status '73. On station making CAP off the coast of Vietnam from September '74. Provided air cover for the embassy evacuation in '75 which is when it first entered Vietnamese airspace.
So they started appearing in '72. Had the US been in a critical air combat situation it is perfectly reasonable to assert both operational status and combat missions might've easily been pushed forward. The point is it began appearing in '72 and had station-worthy numbers (a carrier wing) during '73 for a better representation of a "what if" timeline since that was what was being discussed when I mentioned it.
We're talking here, and you want to have a swordfight. I'm not interested.
By: Sens
- 15th July 2010 at 00:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Agreed.
One tactic was for the Fishbeds to make a quick dash towards bomb laden US aircraft forcing them to abort mission, jettision bombloads prematurely, take evasive measures etc. Air defense is about disrupting the enemy attack and making a mission kill. Any aircraft shot down in the process is just a bonus.
If the Vietnamese had the Su-15, they would have defended their airspace better. Compared to the MiGs they had, the Flagon was faster, had a better combat radius, more capable radar and pocessed radar guided missiles. It probably also had better overall visibility from the cockpit.
Later versions of the Su-15 had modified wings, better avionics and were also equipped with IR missiles.
The Flagon (particularly the later versions) were not as terrible in maneuvrability as some people here think. They were not a dogfighter for sure, but very suitable for the tactic used by the Vietnamese described above).
It was useles over North-Vietnam as it was over Egypt in the PVO role.
It was useful in that role over the SU and its main target the B-52s. There was a good reason why the Su-15s were never deployed outside the SU.
To challenge the EW-suit of the B-52 the Su-15 fire-control radar and AAMs were in a constant upgrade. It was the first Russian single seat all-weather interceptor.
From Sept. 1983 over Sachalin. Over Kamschatka the MiG-23s were unable to intercept the B-747.
The Su-15TM alias Su-21 or Flagon E scrambled from Dolinsk-Sokol AB at 17:42. The internal fuel load was 5,55 tons and the external load two R-98M alias AA-3 Anab.
From the radio report of the pilot with callsign 805
18:07:50 has reached a position behind the B-747 and his fuel-state is 3 tons flying west. In ~26 minutes ~2,55 tons of fuel were burned already.
18:14:41 the reported full-state of callsign 805 is 2,7 tons.
At subsonic speeds high-up ~ 33 Kft an armed Flagon consumes ~ 300 kg of fuel in ~ 7 minutes or ~ 43 kg/min.
At 18:26:20 one Anab is fired, two seconds later the target hit and 5 seconds later the notified his return and destruction of target. Till that time the mission was ~45 minutes and ~3,35 tons or 60% of the max interanal fuel used. For the return leg of ~45 minutes 2,2 tons of fuel is available and from that we have to distract the typical fuel reserve 0,5 tons. By that ~ 1,7 tons of fuel are left over for that flight-leg.
All that gives an AR of ~600 km at subsonic speeds during a real scramble in full burner against an easy target and plenty of alert-time.
Not sure if mentioned before but Flagon`s main task was to intercept Mach2 bombers rather than B-52, to shot down targets flying up to 2500km/h and altitude 27km according to initial PVO requirements and later on, it did prove to be better than his predecessor Su-11 regarding weapon performance and flight characteristics. Speaking of inovations and novelties in the Su-15 design, how can one forget the change from the Mig-21 like inlet cone to two side-mounted intakes(prototype P-1 flew in 1957) allowing to fit more powerful radar into the interceptor`s nose than ever seen before in the USSR? The OREL-D radar had much greater range compared to fighter sized one and was the first radar in the USSR using early look-down, shot-down techniques called OLPS (Odno-Lutchevoy Prostranstvennoy Selekcii - Single Beam Space Selection ), what enabled to lock-on targets on earth background, but at medium and high altitudes only. The OLPS principle was later used as a supplementary method to doppler processing algorithms in more advanced soviet lookdown/shootdown RP-23, RP-25, RP-26 radars. Not to mention the R-98 missiles with much higher range, all aspect and low sensitivity to ground clutter compared to the RS-2-US,R-3S,R-3R and big enough to knock down a bomber from the sky with one hit. Following with the very complex SAU-58 flight control system allowing to carry out fully automatic, semi-automatic and manual target interceptions with help of datalinks Vozdukh-1M and Rubezh, all systems superior to those used with small Mig-21 fighter versions. I have no doubt that in sixties the Flagon was the most valuable asset in Soviet PVO, probably the reason why never exported abroad.
Of course the Flagon had its own downsides and diseases, but tell me what aircraft doesnt have them,... F-4 Phantom?:D
Sometimes an an affordable single role option is the best.
Totaly agree
Has anyone any idea what is the purpose of the black and yellow square stripes often seen painted on the air intake fence of the Su-15? is it for some sort of camera calibration or something?.
Safety-hazard markings on the SU-15, it says OCTOPOZHNO BO3DYXOZABOPNIK, "CAUTION INTAKE"
By: Sens
- 15th July 2010 at 01:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Schorsch you're speaking with an obvious personal agenda and it's boring me.
I'm going by Robin Olds own words about the situation versus enemy fighters leading into Operation Bolo. I'll take his word over yours.
You're aware the Vietnam era Sidewinder couldn't track in more than a 3G turn, right?
Tomcat deliveries began in '72. Operational status '73. On station making CAP off the coast of Vietnam from September '74. Provided air cover for the embassy evacuation in '75 which is when it first entered Vietnamese airspace.
So they started appearing in '72. Had the US been in a critical air combat situation it is perfectly reasonable to assert both operational status and combat missions might've easily been pushed forward. The point is it began appearing in '72 and had station-worthy numbers (a carrier wing) during '73 for a better representation of a "what if" timeline since that was what was being discussed when I mentioned it.
We're talking here, and you want to have a swordfight. I'm not interested.
How about to learn the details first. Schorsch is a member in other forums too. In one of that from the former GDR the Vietnam War and the details were a great topic, where Eastern and Western views clashed.
The first USAF Rolling Thunder missions were flown from March 1965. (= bombing in the Hanoi-Haiphong area) The related strike packages of F-100 and F-105 fighter-bombers were challenged by a single regiment of MiG-17Fs interceptors in a "guerrilla warfare in the air" (To ambush or create a mission kill, when all in the strike package dropped its ordonance to face the "MiG-threat") Just a further regiment was receiving MiG-21F13/PFs.
In late 1966 the F-105 formations used to fly every day at the same time in the same flight paths and used the same callsigns over and over again. The North Vietnamese realized that and took the chance for hit and run or deny the fight when unfavorable.
The USAF could not strike back at the nemy airfields, forbidden by restrective rules of engagement dictated in Washington.
To overcome that "guerrilla warfare in the air" the 8th TFW was tasked with MiG-sweeps (Operation 'Bolo' in 1967)
The VPAF pilots simply were busier than their US counterparts, and they "flew till they died." They operated in a target rich enviroment. They had no rotation home after 100 combat sorties because they were already home. American pilots generally finished a tour of duty and rotated home for training, command, or flight test assignments. They seldom saw a MiG at all and not much expertise could be built that way, when doing A2G work mainly. At that time scale the US-forces had still to learn the rules of that political war and asymmetrical air-combat.
All the claims at that time scale were political at first the related home-audiance in mind. :cool:
By: Sens
- 15th July 2010 at 02:38Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
OKB Sukhoi reveals that the first three production Su-15s were shown in July 1967 during the Domodedovo display. In that year it started entering service because the RP-15M (Orel-D58M) was accepted. It was refitted into the examples already built. We have to keep in mind that the Su-15 was accepted into service despite the specifications for ceiling and range were not reached despite a lowering of that. Even the later refinements did not change that really.
From September 1967 until July 1969, the Su-15-98 interception system was successfully tested in a combat unit with ten interceptors. From that time scale the Su-15 was combat ready.
As I claimed before it was a useful tool for the specific purposes of the PVO.
The limited number of B-58A was gone in Nov. 1969.
All the later claims about the Su-15 were not at hand from the service introduction, but added in later years like the UPK-23-250 gun pod from 1975. It was even tested with rocket pods for a secondary ground-support/attack role should that extra need arise.
By: pagen01
- 15th July 2010 at 09:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Excellent pictures cessna, to me that late '60s to late '80s Cold War period is fascinating and remember being in awe of these Soviet types. Probably not as capable as what we were led to believe, but then neither were our own aircraft. Also has to be considered the harsh operating environment and sheer vastness of landscape that the Soviet types had to deal with.
I suppose as an interceptor the Su-15 would have had to deal with anything from RAFG Canberra B(I).8s, through to Vucans, B-52s, TSR.2s and even the B-1 if it had been built to its original schedule.
By: pagen01
- 15th July 2010 at 10:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Totally fake photo - of Czech origin, IIRC.
The Su-15 was never used by any aerobatic team, ever.
It was never that maneouverable, for a start.
Ken
Is that true, I thought there was an outfit called the Red Falcons that used Su-15s that looked similar to those in the picture?
Display teams didn't always use particularly manouverable types, Blue Angels Cutlass, thunderbirds F-105Bs, RAF Lightning teams etc.
Fantastic pictures above Ken and great to see them up close and in detail.
New
Posts: 27
By: luca
- 15th July 2010 at 10:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nice pictures.
But can it fight ? Wise guys, any official data ?
It can be found for F-22 or MiG-31, what about Su-15 ?
New
Posts: 67
By: cessna
- 15th July 2010 at 12:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
:DCessna thank you so much for posting those wonderful pictures
Posts: 593
By: bgnewf - 14th July 2010 at 16:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
One does not need an agile dogfighter to shoot down a B-52. The Soviets at the time needed a cheap, relatively long legged interceptor that could launch radar guided AAM's at intruders coming in from the north. That is what the Flagon was designed for. Russia is an absolutely immense country. Sometimes an an affordable single role option is the best.
Posts: 573
By: UAZ - 14th July 2010 at 17:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not only B-52s. An agile dogfighter is not needed to shoot down ANY bomb-laden aircraft (maneuvrable or otherwise). In case of a hypothetical war, Soviet Flagons would tackle any enemy aircraft that crosses the border.
Posts: 67
By: cessna - 14th July 2010 at 23:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
More pictures for Nastle and pagen01
http://avvakul.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1706&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40
http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/static.panoramio.com/photos/original/31995043.jpg
Posts: 67
By: cessna - 14th July 2010 at 23:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Enjoy Nastle the Su-15
http://www.svvaulsh.ru/e107_files/public/211_polk.jpg
http://www.svvaulsh.ru/e107_files/public/2085_252.jpg
http://www.svvaulsh.ru/e107_files/public/2085__279.jpg
http://www.svvaulsh.ru/e107_files/public/2085_img083.jpg
http://www.svvaulsh.ru/e107_files/public/2085__071.jpg
http://www.svvaulsh.ru/e107_files/public/211_3864_.jpg
http://www.svvaulsh.ru/forum_viewtopic.php?54.69721.60
Posts: 165
By: vanir - 15th July 2010 at 00:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Schorsch you're speaking with an obvious personal agenda and it's boring me.
I'm going by Robin Olds own words about the situation versus enemy fighters leading into Operation Bolo. I'll take his word over yours.
You're aware the Vietnam era Sidewinder couldn't track in more than a 3G turn, right?
Tomcat deliveries began in '72. Operational status '73. On station making CAP off the coast of Vietnam from September '74. Provided air cover for the embassy evacuation in '75 which is when it first entered Vietnamese airspace.
So they started appearing in '72. Had the US been in a critical air combat situation it is perfectly reasonable to assert both operational status and combat missions might've easily been pushed forward. The point is it began appearing in '72 and had station-worthy numbers (a carrier wing) during '73 for a better representation of a "what if" timeline since that was what was being discussed when I mentioned it.
We're talking here, and you want to have a swordfight. I'm not interested.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 15th July 2010 at 00:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It was useles over North-Vietnam as it was over Egypt in the PVO role.
It was useful in that role over the SU and its main target the B-52s. There was a good reason why the Su-15s were never deployed outside the SU.
To challenge the EW-suit of the B-52 the Su-15 fire-control radar and AAMs were in a constant upgrade. It was the first Russian single seat all-weather interceptor.
From Sept. 1983 over Sachalin. Over Kamschatka the MiG-23s were unable to intercept the B-747.
The Su-15TM alias Su-21 or Flagon E scrambled from Dolinsk-Sokol AB at 17:42. The internal fuel load was 5,55 tons and the external load two R-98M alias AA-3 Anab.
From the radio report of the pilot with callsign 805
18:07:50 has reached a position behind the B-747 and his fuel-state is 3 tons flying west. In ~26 minutes ~2,55 tons of fuel were burned already.
18:14:41 the reported full-state of callsign 805 is 2,7 tons.
At subsonic speeds high-up ~ 33 Kft an armed Flagon consumes ~ 300 kg of fuel in ~ 7 minutes or ~ 43 kg/min.
At 18:26:20 one Anab is fired, two seconds later the target hit and 5 seconds later the notified his return and destruction of target. Till that time the mission was ~45 minutes and ~3,35 tons or 60% of the max interanal fuel used. For the return leg of ~45 minutes 2,2 tons of fuel is available and from that we have to distract the typical fuel reserve 0,5 tons. By that ~ 1,7 tons of fuel are left over for that flight-leg.
All that gives an AR of ~600 km at subsonic speeds during a real scramble in full burner against an easy target and plenty of alert-time.
Posts: 1,189
By: martinez - 15th July 2010 at 00:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
At first something serious to read about the Su-15.
http://rapidshare.com/files/57967511/AiV_62_03-01.rar
Not sure if mentioned before but Flagon`s main task was to intercept Mach2 bombers rather than B-52, to shot down targets flying up to 2500km/h and altitude 27km according to initial PVO requirements and later on, it did prove to be better than his predecessor Su-11 regarding weapon performance and flight characteristics. Speaking of inovations and novelties in the Su-15 design, how can one forget the change from the Mig-21 like inlet cone to two side-mounted intakes(prototype P-1 flew in 1957) allowing to fit more powerful radar into the interceptor`s nose than ever seen before in the USSR? The OREL-D radar had much greater range compared to fighter sized one and was the first radar in the USSR using early look-down, shot-down techniques called OLPS (Odno-Lutchevoy Prostranstvennoy Selekcii - Single Beam Space Selection ), what enabled to lock-on targets on earth background, but at medium and high altitudes only. The OLPS principle was later used as a supplementary method to doppler processing algorithms in more advanced soviet lookdown/shootdown RP-23, RP-25, RP-26 radars. Not to mention the R-98 missiles with much higher range, all aspect and low sensitivity to ground clutter compared to the RS-2-US,R-3S,R-3R and big enough to knock down a bomber from the sky with one hit. Following with the very complex SAU-58 flight control system allowing to carry out fully automatic, semi-automatic and manual target interceptions with help of datalinks Vozdukh-1M and Rubezh, all systems superior to those used with small Mig-21 fighter versions. I have no doubt that in sixties the Flagon was the most valuable asset in Soviet PVO, probably the reason why never exported abroad.
Totaly agreeOf course the Flagon had its own downsides and diseases, but tell me what aircraft doesnt have them,... F-4 Phantom?:D
Safety-hazard markings on the SU-15, it says OCTOPOZHNO BO3DYXOZABOPNIK, "CAUTION INTAKE"
Posts: 784
By: slipperysam - 15th July 2010 at 00:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"Cessna" posted this on the previous page...
No one commented....
Isnt that a buddy refueling pod (same as that used on the Fencer?)?
Posts: 67
By: cessna - 15th July 2010 at 01:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Su-15 video for Nastle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaHNAyg0aJE&feature=related
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 15th July 2010 at 01:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How about to learn the details first. Schorsch is a member in other forums too. In one of that from the former GDR the Vietnam War and the details were a great topic, where Eastern and Western views clashed.
The first USAF Rolling Thunder missions were flown from March 1965. (= bombing in the Hanoi-Haiphong area) The related strike packages of F-100 and F-105 fighter-bombers were challenged by a single regiment of MiG-17Fs interceptors in a "guerrilla warfare in the air" (To ambush or create a mission kill, when all in the strike package dropped its ordonance to face the "MiG-threat") Just a further regiment was receiving MiG-21F13/PFs.
In late 1966 the F-105 formations used to fly every day at the same time in the same flight paths and used the same callsigns over and over again. The North Vietnamese realized that and took the chance for hit and run or deny the fight when unfavorable.
The USAF could not strike back at the nemy airfields, forbidden by restrective rules of engagement dictated in Washington.
To overcome that "guerrilla warfare in the air" the 8th TFW was tasked with MiG-sweeps (Operation 'Bolo' in 1967)
The VPAF pilots simply were busier than their US counterparts, and they "flew till they died." They operated in a target rich enviroment. They had no rotation home after 100 combat sorties because they were already home. American pilots generally finished a tour of duty and rotated home for training, command, or flight test assignments. They seldom saw a MiG at all and not much expertise could be built that way, when doing A2G work mainly. At that time scale the US-forces had still to learn the rules of that political war and asymmetrical air-combat.
All the claims at that time scale were political at first the related home-audiance in mind. :cool:
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 15th July 2010 at 02:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
OKB Sukhoi reveals that the first three production Su-15s were shown in July 1967 during the Domodedovo display. In that year it started entering service because the RP-15M (Orel-D58M) was accepted. It was refitted into the examples already built. We have to keep in mind that the Su-15 was accepted into service despite the specifications for ceiling and range were not reached despite a lowering of that. Even the later refinements did not change that really.
From September 1967 until July 1969, the Su-15-98 interception system was successfully tested in a combat unit with ten interceptors. From that time scale the Su-15 was combat ready.
As I claimed before it was a useful tool for the specific purposes of the PVO.
The limited number of B-58A was gone in Nov. 1969.
All the later claims about the Su-15 were not at hand from the service introduction, but added in later years like the UPK-23-250 gun pod from 1975. It was even tested with rocket pods for a secondary ground-support/attack role should that extra need arise.
Posts: 545
By: nastle - 15th July 2010 at 05:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
:DCessna thank you so much for posting those wonderful pictures
Posts: 545
By: nastle - 15th July 2010 at 05:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=56140
I started this topic some time back which puts su-15s against B-52s
Posts: 27
By: luca - 15th July 2010 at 09:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Interesting plane. I wonder what it could do on airshow ?
Posts: 10,647
By: pagen01 - 15th July 2010 at 09:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Excellent pictures cessna, to me that late '60s to late '80s Cold War period is fascinating and remember being in awe of these Soviet types. Probably not as capable as what we were led to believe, but then neither were our own aircraft. Also has to be considered the harsh operating environment and sheer vastness of landscape that the Soviet types had to deal with.
I suppose as an interceptor the Su-15 would have had to deal with anything from RAFG Canberra B(I).8s, through to Vucans, B-52s, TSR.2s and even the B-1 if it had been built to its original schedule.
Are there any Su-15s flying now at all?
Posts: 3,652
By: Flanker_man - 15th July 2010 at 10:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not AFAIK.
Some of my photos........ from various museums...
The one at Monino that purports to be a Su-15 is actually a T-58L prototype.
There are a few different versions at Khodynka - but they are gradually falling apart through neglect & vandalism.
There is a Su-15TM at the Central Armed Forces Museum......
The best one in Moscow is at Victory Park.......
The intake markings - 'Danger Intake'.......
There is a Su-15TM on Sukhoi's ramp at Zhukovsky - presumably an ex-trials machine, dunno if it's airworthy though ???
This Su-15TM is at a museum in Kiev....
.....note the peeling laquer coat - they were not the 'natural metal' so favoured by modellers! ......
This one is at Lugansk, Ukraine......
Ken
Posts: 10,647
By: pagen01 - 15th July 2010 at 10:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Is that true, I thought there was an outfit called the Red Falcons that used Su-15s that looked similar to those in the picture?
Display teams didn't always use particularly manouverable types, Blue Angels Cutlass, thunderbirds F-105Bs, RAF Lightning teams etc.
Fantastic pictures above Ken and great to see them up close and in detail.
Posts: 27
By: luca - 15th July 2010 at 10:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nice pictures.
But can it fight ? Wise guys, any official data ?
It can be found for F-22 or MiG-31, what about Su-15 ?
Posts: 67
By: cessna - 15th July 2010 at 12:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
you are welcome:)
The Su-15 is a beauty for a 1960s aircraft, pretty much an airplane i like, specially the Su-15TM
i hope you like these Su-15 videos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so50Me1a0tk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so50Me1a0tk
Posts: 784
By: slipperysam - 15th July 2010 at 13:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If often wondered why the aircraft came out with a conical nose, then finally the ogival (however its spelt!!) nose on the later aircraft appeared.
Was it a manufacturing problem they couldn't sort out?