Mig25 mach 3 capable?

[Toad]

OK, sorry for the hijack.

Call it an NV "win" if you like. I doubt their squadrons saw it that way. 3/1 suxxors if you're on the "1" side. 12/1 is unimaginably worse.

But, I understand your desperation.



Out.

[FUNKED1]

Originally posted by GScholz
You seem to have read it. Inform us Oh Funked one!

I read it.  It's too complicated to explain here.  I will just say that the individual attributes of the aircraft often had little to do with the outcome of engagements.  It's written from a mostly US perspective (the author had amazing access to US military records and personnel) but it doesn't come off very "pro-US" at all.  It's very critical of US tactics, equipment, command and control, and planning.  It's also critical of the other side because they had many of the same problems.  It even covers Have Donut and other programs which allowed US pilots to train against the same equipment the NVAF was using.  I think you guys would really enjoy the book.

PS A good WW2 analogy for the air battles over North Vietnam would be the Battle of Britain and the RAF incursions over the Continent in 1941 and 1942.

[Toad]

Just read the clips on Amazon. It does sound interesting, I'll probably find a copy.

[pugg666]

what's the ISBN Funky?

[mjolnir]

Now come on GScholz, you must admit that the US answered with a single purpose plane that has so far never failed:  the F-15C.  Over 100 air to air kills and not a single air to air loss.  Sure, it might need a paved runway instead of a dirt strip, but that's a small price to pay for a plane as well designed and lethal as an Eagle.

[Toad]

Originally posted by GScholz
Lol Toad, you know they did actually win the war. I'm sure you'll tell me otherwise though.

I'll just say they beat our politicians. Because that, my friend, is the truth of it.

You probably think they "won" Tet, right? Politically, they did. Militarily, the VC was essentially wiped out in the South. They got slaughtered.

Oh, btw, we understood their design philosophy and their doctrine and their tactics. We didn't agree with it. As to which was best... well, thank goodness the world never had to find out on a massive scale. On the small scales that were tested, however, it sure looks like we did very, very well with our choice. Not sure they can say the same. In fact, they doctrine and tactics changed more over the years than ours did.

The F-15 A's were pure air superiority fighters, which includes "interception, dog fighting, long range patrolling, bomber escort" in our doctrine. They were made to do all those things, in the course of engaging whatever enemy they found in the air and shooting him down. Simple Air Superiority. In fact, the "multirole" aspect of air-to-mud came with the E.

The idea that there should be an "air superiority dogfighter" and another "air superiority bomber escort" and an "air superiority long range patrol plane" just isn't our doctrine. Not when you can make a basic airframe that does all of that.

[FUNKED1]

Originally posted by pugg666
what's the ISBN Funky?

1557505853

[Chairboy]

8675309

[newtype]

Originally posted by GScholz
Now come on? I haven't even mentioned the Eagle! And btw. the F-15 isn't a single purpose aircraft (see, some westerners still don't understand the fundamental differences). The F-15 is a highly versatile aircraft capable of interception, dog fighting, long range patrolling, bomber escort, and more. It is abhorrently expensive and very complicated. The Mig-25 is a simple and cheap short-range bomber interceptor. The F-15 and Mig-25 are so completely different in concept that I really don't see any grounds for comparison!

I disagree, the F-15 was created because of the threat of the mig-25. though the F-15 was a much better and more versatile fighter than the mig-25. In comparison, the F-15 is a superior and not only towards the mig-25 but just about anything that flies today.

[LLv34 Jarsci]

By the way, as someone mentioned SR-71 intakes , Finnish pilots which flew Mig-21Bis managed to measure SR-71 intake system while on trip visiting some airshow.

Measures are comparable easily with mig-21 intake system, almost exactly same measures scaled up.. Who copied...????

[GRUNHERZ]

You mean they were both circular?

[Nilsen]

the F15 was developed as an airsuperiority plane, like the 14 for the navy

[Toad]

Originally posted by GScholz
The F-15 was developed to counter the perceived threat of the Mig-25.

Horse exhaust. It was developed to give the USAF a pure air superiority fighter that could beat anything it came up against. It was not focused or in response to any single "perceived threat".

We needed a new air superiority fighter. That's all.

F-15 Eagle
F-15 Eagle


 
History

pb[The Eagle’s history is long and distinguished. It began as a Air Force fighter study in the early 1960s and was known as the Fighter Experimental (FX).[/b] By 1967 the Air Force began development of a new high performance fighter aircraft that would be extremely agile and would be capable of gaining and maintaining air superiority through air-to-air combat. The new design had to be optimized for combat with the power and agility to overcome any current or projected Soviet threat. The F-15 was the first air-to-air fighter requested by the Air Force since the F-86 Sabre. The resulting F-15 Eagle had an unequaled combination of performance, firepower, and avionics. It was the benchmark--the plane to beat.

Experience in the Vietnam conflict showed the F-4 Phantom II to have maneuvering performance inferior to that of the Soviet-built MiG21. In response to this finding, the USAF developed a set of requirements for a dedicated air-superiority fighter with a maneuvering capability greater than any existing or foreseeable-future fighter aircraft.

Using lessons learned in Vietnam, the USAF sought to develop and procure a new, dedicated air superiority fighter. Such an aircraft was desperately needed, as no USAF aircraft design solely conceived as an air superiority fighter had become reality since the F-86 Sabre. The intervening twenty years saw a number of aircraft performing the air-to-air role as a small part of their overall mission, such as the primarily air-to-ground F-4 Phantom and the F-102, F-104 and F-106 interceptor designs. The result of the FX study was a requirement for a fighter design combining unparalleled maneuverability with state-of-the-art avionics and weaponry.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-15-history.htm

[AKIron]

Originally posted by GScholz
The Soviets made cheap capable airplanes, but put their best weapons on them. Reliability is another thing the Russians were obsessed with (and still are), all Russian fighters can be operated from primitive air fields and are very robust and easily maintained.  

Since the topic of who won what war has been broached, you do realize that the US won the war (not always so cold) with the Soviets, right? The Soviets did win a battle or two, Vietnam included, but they lost the war.

[Toad]

Twist it any way you want. They were interested in designing a pure air superiority capable of meeting and defeating all threats.

The MiG-25 was just another threat. To say "the F-15 was an expensive overreaction to the perceived, but unfounded threat of the Mig-25." is, at best, horse exhaust. Clearly, development of the F-15 started long before they even knew of the MiG-25 and it was ALWAYS intended to be a pure air superiority platform in the tradition of the F-86.

The F-15 was developed to be the world's best air superiority fighter. Period. That would include beating the MiG-25, along with every other airplane that anyone else had or would have for the near term future. As new threats appeared, they were countered, that's all. Either in the design phase or in the evolutionary design phase.

And "expensive overreaction"? Now THAT'S funny.

From the Boeing site:

The F-15 Eagle has a perfect combat record of 101 victories and zero defeats.

Looks like an excellent product, worth every cent we spent on it. Oh... wait... we should have built something cheaper and less capable but 5 times as many of them and accepted the loss of 25% of the pilots in combat, right? Let's check with the pilots and their families and see if they agree.

This November will mark 30 years since the first Eagle delivery. Three decades of Total Air Dominance, and it's nowhere near done yet.

It was a bargain.



Oh, BTW... you're using an unattributed Geocities page as documentation and support of your argument?

Should I get Rude's kid to run up a webpage real quick and put it on Geocities supporting my argument?

YGBSM! Geocities! No author, no sources.