Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?  
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 10726 times:

Out of curiousity, why did the IAF select the F-15 among the various other fighters in the United States' inventory?


Andrea Kent

44 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 10740 times:

Assuming it's not like classified or secret or anything...

User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6489 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 10735 times:

The F-15 was the biggest, baddest dog on the block. It was estimated to be the air superiority fighter that could take down anything else in the skies, by being able to hold its own in a dogfight what it could not nail at BVR. History has shown this to be true. Anything up until that point might be shown to be a good interceptor or a good dogfighter, but rarely both.


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 10719 times:

So if the US had an airplane that was a tiny bit better, they would have selected that one instead?

I additionally was wondering also if they preferred the fact that the plane was a single seater, and because of it's nice light work-load (HOTAS and advanced radar system) compared to many other contemporary aircraft, making it very easy to fly and easier to use in combat.


Andrea Kent

[Edited 2008-06-24 19:37:21]

User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 10708 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Thread starter):
Out of curiousity, why did the IAF select the F-15 among the various other fighters in the United States

What other fighters....?? Back in 1975-76 when they first started getting them is was the only choice.. the F-16 was still in flight test



"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineBingo From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 359 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 10680 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Thread starter):
Out of curiousity, why did the IAF select the F-15 among the various other fighters in the United States' inventory?

Because it can fly with one wing...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKpFLaFUbl4


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6489 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 10664 times:



Quoting EMBQA (Reply 4):
What other fighters....?? Back in 1975-76 when they first started getting them is was the only choice.. the F-16 was still in flight test

The only other choice would have been the F-14, which is a great BVR interceptor but not an air superiority fighter as such.

When you think about it, the IAF probably would have done just as well with the F-14 (eg. Bekaa would have still been wiped clean of aircraft) but the F-15 is just more suited to what they do.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3413 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 10644 times:



Quoting N328KF (Reply 6):
The only other choice would have been the F-14, which is a great BVR interceptor but not an air superiority fighter as such.

and the F14 trades insane cost, MX requiments, and other issues with its complexity for a bunch of crap the IAF has absolutely no interest in. Even the Phoenix missiles were not exactly desired given the small area they have to cover, so carting around missles that size for extra range is a bit silly. The wieght and cost to be capible of carrier landings was rather useless to them.

So regardless if the F14 could do the role, the F15 was far superior for THIER needs.


User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 10390 times:

Their choice was between the F-14 and the F-15. In the summer of 1973 a small Israeli delegation visited the States and flew early versions of both. The Israeli pilots were completely in love with the F-15 and loathed the F-14 (A model, TF-30, need I say more?) to the point of ridicule.

Besides the pilots' impression, there was also the fact that the IDF/AF had absolutely no use for all the fancy BVR toys the F-14 came with. Even AIM-7 kills by Israeli F-4's and F-15's are few and far between, all fighting was done in close range with visual ID. If the F-14 was purchased the AIM-54 would have never been fired operationally, and I'm not so sure that the Bekaa Valley battles would have been the same: the F-14 would probably not have been allowed into any engagements, and if it was it would have probably suffered at least some losses (the Syrians weren't suicidal: low altitude ambushes with formations of 3-4 MiG-23M/MF/MLs were the preferred method of initiating an engagement).

The F-15 was a big step forward for the IDF/AF, much more so than the F-16, and no one in their right mind would say that it was a bad choice.


LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 10340 times:

Bingo,

[quoteBecause it can fly with one wing...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKpFLaFUbl4 [/quote]

That kind of was somewhat after Israel actually bought the plane. And if you watched the video you'd have heard Major (He was a Captain then...) Nedivi saying that if he realized he actually lost a wing he would have just bailed out.


XT6Wagon,

Quote:
and the F14 trades insane cost, MX requiments, and other issues with its complexity for a bunch of crap the IAF has absolutely no interest in. Even the Phoenix missiles were not exactly desired given the small area they have to cover, so carting around missles that size for extra range is a bit silly. The wieght and cost to be capible of carrier landings was rather useless to them.

So regardless if the F14 could do the role, the F15 was far superior for THIER needs.

What do you mean insane costs, and maintenance requirements, and complexity? You mean the swing wings? Because if you're talking computers, the F-15 was WAAAAY more complex....


LY744,

Quote:
Their choice was between the F-14 and the F-15. In the summer of 1973 a small Israeli delegation visited the States and flew early versions of both. The Israeli pilots were completely in love with the F-15 and loathed the F-14 (A model, TF-30, need I say more?) to the point of ridicule.

So, the gripe was primarily the thrust to weight ratio and temperamental engines (a big gripe!) then? The single-seat / twin-seat thing wasn't a big issue then?

By the way, is this normal when exporting a fighter to another country that delegates from that country come over here and fly early versions of our fighter? (Just curious as Israel tends to get special treatment -- They always got all the bells and whistles on their exports when most countries get stripped down planes)

Quote:
Besides the pilots' impression, there was also the fact that the IDF/AF had absolutely no use for all the fancy BVR toys the F-14 came with. Even AIM-7 kills by Israeli F-4's and F-15's are few and far between, all fighting was done in close range with visual ID.

Yeah for the most part the only times they actually used the AIM-7 was when they knocked down MiG-25's.

Quote:
If the F-14 was purchased the AIM-54 would have never been fired operationally, and I'm not so sure that the Bekaa Valley battles would have been the same: the F-14 would probably not have been allowed into any engagements,

Why wouldn't they have?

Quote:
and if it was it would have probably suffered at least some losses (the Syrians weren't suicidal: low altitude ambushes with formations of 3-4 MiG-23M/MF/MLs were the preferred method of initiating an engagement).

When you say low level ambush, do you mean they caught the IAF pilots at low altitude and ambushed from above (ambushing them at LOW level), or did they fly low and then pop up (low-altitude ambush)? Because I thought pulse-doppler radars aren't affected by ground-clutter... (The F-14 and F-15 both used 'em), so a low altitude attack sounds pointless as the radar could pick them out...


Andrea Kent


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3413 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 10336 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 9):
When you say low level ambush, do you mean they caught the IAF pilots at low altitude and ambushed from above (ambushing them at LOW level), or did they fly low and then pop up (low-altitude ambush)? Because I thought pulse-doppler radars aren't affected by ground-clutter... (The F-14 and F-15 both used 'em), so a low altitude attack sounds pointless as the radar could pick them out...

None of the radars at the time were that decent at picking other fighters out well enough to direct weapons fire with the target at low altitude. Even today dropping to the deck offers some nice protection even with our far more advanced radars.

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 9):
What do you mean insane costs, and maintenance requirements, and complexity? You mean the swing wings? Because if you're talking computers, the F-15 was WAAAAY more complex....

I think you haven't paid much attention to the real costs to keep the F14 rolling. Part of it is that the USN used them for carrier duty which jacks up the cost... but they were hardly push em hard, put em away wet planes. Add in that the F14 is filled with lots and lots of stuff the IDF couldn't care less about why would they get it?

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 9):
Quote:
If the F-14 was purchased the AIM-54 would have never been fired operationally, and I'm not so sure that the Bekaa Valley battles would have been the same: the F-14 would probably not have been allowed into any engagements,

Why wouldn't they have?

I think you need to spend some time with a map, and the range figures for the AIM-54. Nevermind that they couldn't possibly use it at long range over land for 99.9% of the time they needed to fire on something. Air to Air combat over Isreal isn't quite knife fight in a closet tight, but it certainly doesn't give you the luxury of running around or opening the range on your opponent to fire off a huge ol missile.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6489 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 10271 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 9):
By the way, is this normal when exporting a fighter to another country that delegates from that country come over here and fly early versions of our fighter? (Just curious as Israel tends to get special treatment -- They always got all the bells and whistles on their exports when most countries get stripped down planes)

I don't know about some of them, but certainly some types of allies warrant this. The Brits have had a pilot involved in X-35C/F-35C testing for some time.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 10241 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 9):
When you say low level ambush, do you mean they caught the IAF pilots at low altitude and ambushed from above (ambushing them at LOW level), or did they fly low and then pop up (low-altitude ambush)? Because I thought pulse-doppler radars aren't affected by ground-clutter... (The F-14 and F-15 both used 'em), so a low altitude attack sounds pointless as the radar could pick them out...

A formation of MiGs takes off and flies in a tight formation (to deny the Israelis the ability to tell how many a/c there are in the flight), and penetrates the area where combat is taking place at very low altitude, to hopefuly avoid detection by radar. One MiG pops up a bit somewhere at the edge of the firing envelope of the Israeli formation they're attacking. The idea was to "tease" the F-15s/F-16s to close in on the bait while the rest of the MiGs were still down low, hopefully hidden. Dogfight ensues.

This is the tactic that the Soviet advisors worked out for the Syrians to use. It was probably their best shot but it didn't work in practice, not the least because the Israelis themselves have been using similar ambush tactics for the better part of 15 years.

If the F-14 was out there, I don't think the IDF/AF command would have been comfortable having it duke it out with MiG-21s and 23s in a tight turning fight in low altitude.

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 9):
The single-seat / twin-seat thing wasn't a big issue then?

Probably not, although it did take the IDF/AF a while to catch up on training enough navigators (what they call WSOs) to fill the back seats of their F-4Es when those started arriving in the late 60's/early 70's. If they felt that the things that the F-14 excelled in were the things the IDF/AF needed, then I'm sure they would have gone for the Tomcat, despite the two-seat layout.


LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 10163 times:

XT6Wagon,

Quote:
I think you haven't paid much attention to the real costs to keep the F14 rolling. Part of it is that the USN used them for carrier duty which jacks up the cost... but they were hardly push em hard, put em away wet planes. Add in that the F14 is filled with lots and lots of stuff the IDF couldn't care less about why would they get it?

Push 'em hard, put 'em away? I thought that's what all fighters were designed for? The F-14 had both air superiority, and air-defense/interceptor functions...

I have no idea what you're talking about when you're saying it was filled with lots of stuff the IDF couldn't care less about... Are you talking about the AIM-54 Phoenix? Or the equipment to enable it to land on a carrier-deck?

Quote:
I think you need to spend some time with a map, and the range figures for the AIM-54. Nevermind that they couldn't possibly use it at long range over land for 99.9% of the time they needed to fire on something. Air to Air combat over Isreal isn't quite knife fight in a closet tight, but it certainly doesn't give you the luxury of running around or opening the range on your opponent to fire off a huge ol missile.

So 99% of the time the missile was in the R-min? I figured it could be fired within the ranges shown, just wouldn't be worth the million bucks to fire it when you could pop a sidewinder or a sparrow off...

Quote:
I don't know about some of them, but certainly some types of allies warrant this. The Brits have had a pilot involved in X-35C/F-35C testing for some time.

So this has happened before...


LY744,

Quote:
A formation of MiGs takes off and flies in a tight formation (to deny the Israelis the ability to tell how many a/c there are in the flight), and penetrates the area where combat is taking place at very low altitude, to hopefuly avoid detection by radar. One MiG pops up a bit somewhere at the edge of the firing envelope of the Israeli formation they're attacking. The idea was to "tease" the F-15s/F-16s to close in on the bait while the rest of the MiGs were still down low, hopefully hidden. Dogfight ensues.

Understood.

Quote:
This is the tactic that the Soviet advisors worked out for the Syrians to use. It was probably their best shot but it didn't work in practice, not the least because the Israelis themselves have been using similar ambush tactics for the better part of 15 years.

Odd, I've they'd been using this tactic for 15 years, why didn't the Syrians or Soviets know about this?

Quote:
If the F-14 was out there, I don't think the IDF/AF command would have been comfortable having it duke it out with MiG-21s and 23s in a tight turning fight in low altitude.

Really? I could sort of understand the MiG-21, but the MiG-23's from what I heard had all sorts of limitations on their wings... the pivots didn't swing the wings forward or back fast enough, while in transit there were all sorts of G-limits, if not limits with varying wing-position (The F-14's wing to the best of my knowledge could be pivoted faster back and forth and full G's could be used regardless of wing-position) unless at low altitudes they virtually always had their wings swept back (which at high airspeeds would make sense)...

Quote:
Probably not, although it did take the IDF/AF a while to catch up on training enough navigators (what they call WSOs) to fill the back seats of their F-4Es when those started arriving in the late 60's/early 70's. If they felt that the things that the F-14 excelled in were the things the IDF/AF needed, then I'm sure they would have gone for the Tomcat, despite the two-seat layout.

Understood.


Andrea Kent


User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 10150 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 13):
I have no idea what you're talking about when you're saying it was filled with lots of stuff the IDF couldn't care less about... Are you talking about the AIM-54 Phoenix? Or the equipment to enable it to land on a carrier-deck?

Its weapons system (radar, optical-far-looking thingy, Phoenix) and a swing wing are two things that make it considerably more complicated than an F-15. Betcha the F-14 was going to cost more too.

...and one more thing about the two seat aspect: maybe it was a disadvantage in 1973-75, I'm not sure, but from the early 80's and onwards, the Israelis made it a point to purchase as many two seater fighters as they could, to be used for much more than just training. The 3 batches of F-15C/Ds they purchased included a high percentage of Ds (13 Ds and 18 Cs were bought in total). When they received some used USAF F-15A/Bs in the early 90s only the Bs were put to use, while the As were scavenged for parts, put in storage or used for decoration.

Currently the IDF/AF has 2 squadrons completely composed of F-16Ds, and I suppose nothing more needs to be said about the F-15Is and F-16Is.

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 13):
Odd, I've they'd been using this tactic for 15 years, why didn't the Syrians or Soviets know about this?

They probably did.

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 13):
Really? I could sort of understand the MiG-21, but the MiG-23's from what I heard had all sorts of limitations on their wings...

The MiG-23 is legendary in its various short-comings, many Soviet flight cadets killed themselves trying to land early model -23s. It should be noted that there were about 3 different generations of MiG-23s, with the earliest ones being the worst in all respects (the fuselage of a -23 with the engine and avionics of a MiG-21) and the later ones being somewhat more manageable. The one thing that the Flogger could, apparently, do better than the F-15 and F-16 is accelerate in a straight line, with the wings swept back of course.

Could the F-14A out fly the MiG-23MF in a dogfight? Probably, but 25 years ago we wouldn't be so sure of that.

Bottom line is that both the F-14A and the MiG-23 would (were) have been ill suited for the kind of air war that took place in June of 1982. Syrian MiG-23s (and 21s) were severely outclassed in all respects, something that Russian story tellers don't seem to take into account while passing down yet another legend about Israeli F-15s and -16s being shot down one after another by heroic Syrian pilots (who are always subsequently shot down by the Israeli wingman, conveniently destroying any possible evidence of the kill). That's why Israeli pilots that have flown in the 60's 70's and 80's will always appreciate a Mirage or an F-4 kill much more than a 1982 kill.


LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3413 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 10088 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 13):
So 99% of the time the missile was in the R-min? I figured it could be fired within the ranges shown, just wouldn't be worth the million bucks to fire it when you could pop a sidewinder or a sparrow off...

No, do more research into the Aim-54. Its a HUGE missile. It costs you the ability to carry a decent QUANTITY of missles. It costs you alot of extra money to buy, train, and fly around with it compared to other missiles. All for a range advantage that is of no use to them.

Quoting LY744 (Reply 14):
Its weapons system (radar, optical-far-looking thingy, Phoenix) and a swing wing are two things that make it considerably more complicated than an F-15. Betcha the F-14 was going to cost more too.

The navalization that needs to take place for a plane to be used on a carrier also hurts it hard. Thats alot of extra wieght that you don't need unless you are trapping on a pitching carrier deck its entire life. Extra wieght for no benifit is lower performance, higher costs, and overall makes for a more troublesome weapon system.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 10080 times:

The F15 has great performance, still superior to most fighters. Also great payload range. I think that what makes it dated now is the fact that it is a flying radar reflector, worse then almost all other fighters..



User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 10018 times:

LY744,

Quote:
Its weapons system (radar, optical-far-looking thingy, Phoenix) and a swing wing are two things that make it considerably more complicated than an F-15. Betcha the F-14 was going to cost more too.

Actually the vid-cam system was not part of the original F-14 design. It was added during the first few years in service. I'm pretty sure the plane could fly without it. Touche about the swing-wings though...

As for radar, I thought the F-14 radar while longer range and such, was actually less sophisticated than the F-15's which was actually better at picking out targets from noise (although not as long a range)...

Quote:
...and one more thing about the two seat aspect: maybe it was a disadvantage in 1973-75, I'm not sure, but from the early 80's and onwards, the Israelis made it a point to purchase as many two seater fighters as they could, to be used for much more than just training. The 3 batches of F-15C/Ds they purchased included a high percentage of Ds (13 Ds and 18 Cs were bought in total). When they received some used USAF F-15A/Bs in the early 90s only the Bs were put to use, while the As were scavenged for parts, put in storage or used for decoration.

Why did they make it a point to purchase as many twin-seaters?

Quote:
Currently the IDF/AF has 2 squadrons completely composed of F-16Ds, and I suppose nothing more needs to be said about the F-15Is and F-16Is.

Wow...

Quote:
They probably did.

Then why the hell did they use a tactic that they knew their opponent was familiar with!?

Quote:
The MiG-23 is legendary in its various short-comings, many Soviet flight cadets killed themselves trying to land early model -23s. It should be noted that there were about 3 different generations of MiG-23s, with the earliest ones being the worst in all respects (the fuselage of a -23 with the engine and avionics of a MiG-21) and the later ones being somewhat more manageable. The one thing that the Flogger could, apparently, do better than the F-15 and F-16 is accelerate in a straight line, with the wings swept back of course.

It can out-accelerate an F-15 and F-16? Holy sh*t! I take it, it's top-speeds are lower than the F-15 and F-16 though...

Quote:
Could the F-14A out fly the MiG-23MF in a dogfight? Probably, but 25 years ago we wouldn't be so sure of that.

So the MiG-23MF's specs were not known well then?

Quote:
No, do more research into the Aim-54. Its a HUGE missile. It costs you the ability to carry a decent QUANTITY of missles. It costs you alot of extra money to buy, train, and fly around with it compared to other missiles. All for a range advantage that is of no use to them.

Okay, I know what you're talking about now. That makes sense. Although, I don't know there's any rule that says you can't take the AIM-54's off the design to reduce drag and increase T/W ratio


User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 9939 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 17):
Why did they make it a point to purchase as many twin-seaters?

Nothing has been said officially, but the move coincided with increasing number of PGMs entering service, more sophisticated SEAD/DEAD missions becoming a priority after 1973, increasing need to perform long range strikes (1981, 1985 - which was performed entirely by 8 F-15B/Ds with A/R and use of guided bombs).

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 17):
Then why the hell did they use a tactic that they knew their opponent was familiar with!?

It was probably their best shot. What were they going to do? Send formations of MiG-21s and MiG-23s straight into the combat zone at medium altitude in a combat spread? Hit and run with their few MiG-25PDs? Coincidentally, IIRC a Syrian -25 did get a hit on an IDF/AF F-15, albeit the latter landed safely.

The baiting tactic was mostly aimed at Israeli F-15s, but those weren't too keen to get into a BVR chase towards Syria. Instead, Syrian flights usually ended up being sandwiched by pairs of Israeli F-16s. IMO the Soviets/Syrians did not expect the IDF/AF to use F-16s so extensively for intercept missions, they were probably expecting the F-15 to be everywhere. Once the F-16s closed in on the Syrian fighters the battle was over. In the case of the Floggers, they may have gotten some head-on shots off with their R-23Rs, but with no success.

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 17):
So the MiG-23MF's specs were not known well then?

Probably not too thoroughly. The U.S. did have their hands on first gen MiG-23s (MS IIRC) courtesy of Egypt which gave them up in the late 70's, but those aircraft were considerably different from a proper -23.

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 17):
It can out-accelerate an F-15 and F-16? Holy sh*t! I take it, it's top-speeds are lower than the F-15 and F-16 though...

That's what the Israelis said after flight testing that Syrian MiG-23ML(A/D?) that defected to Israel in 1989. Don't know what conditions this statement is valid for though. Also, I highly doubt that the -23's top speed is lower than the F-16 (~M1.9?). It's gotta be something around M2.1-2.3.


LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (6 years 3 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 9731 times:

LY744,

Quote:
Nothing has been said officially, but the move coincided with increasing number of PGMs entering service, more sophisticated SEAD/DEAD missions becoming a priority after 1973, increasing need to perform long range strikes (1981, 1985 - which was performed entirely by 8 F-15B/Ds with A/R and use of guided bombs).

DEAD means Destroy Enemy Air Defenses right?

Quote:
It was probably their best shot. What were they going to do? Send formations of MiG-21s and MiG-23s straight into the combat zone at medium altitude in a combat spread? Hit and run with their few MiG-25PDs? Coincidentally, IIRC a Syrian -25 did get a hit on an IDF/AF F-15, albeit the latter landed safely.

The F-15 got hit with a missile and landed safely? Jesus Christ that's a tough plane... What kind of missile?

Quote:
The baiting tactic was mostly aimed at Israeli F-15s, but those weren't too keen to get into a BVR chase towards Syria. Instead, Syrian flights usually ended up being sandwiched by pairs of Israeli F-16s. IMO the Soviets/Syrians did not expect the IDF/AF to use F-16s so extensively for intercept missions, they were probably expecting the F-15 to be everywhere. Once the F-16s closed in on the Syrian fighters the battle was over. In the case of the Floggers, they may have gotten some head-on shots off with their R-23Rs, but with no success.

The IAF used the F-16's to sandwhich the F-15's so when the enemy engaged the F-15's they found themselves nailed with the F-16's correct?

Or were the F-16's used in pairs as interceptors without F-15's? If so, why? The F-15 is faster...

Quote:
That's what the Israelis said after flight testing that Syrian MiG-23ML(A/D?) that defected to Israel in 1989. Don't know what conditions this statement is valid for though. Also, I highly doubt that the -23's top speed is lower than the F-16 (~M1.9?). It's gotta be something around M2.1-2.3.

Just out of curiousity... at what speeds did it accelerate better in a straight line? All of 'em, subsonic to low supersonic, or supersonic only. I've been told the F-16's inlet, and ram compression effects (it was a public source) allows extroardinary acceleration at supersonic speeds.


Andrea Kent


User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (6 years 3 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9717 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 19):
The F-15 got hit with a missile and landed safely? Jesus Christ that's a tough plane... What kind of missile?

Not only that, but it managed to return and land safely with its starboard wing almost entirely missing.



The "missile" it hit was an A-4 Skyhawk.


User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (6 years 3 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9716 times:



Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 20):
Quoting Blackbird (Reply 19):
The F-15 got hit with a missile and landed safely? Jesus Christ that's a tough plane... What kind of missile?

Not only that, but it managed to return and land safely with its starboard wing almost entirely missing.

Sorry, I just realized he was talking about an entirely different incident. In 1982 an Israeli F-15 was hit by an R-60 fired by a Syrian MiG-21. It landed safely. I believe there was also an incident where an Alaskan F-15 was accidentally hit by an AIM-9 fired by another F-15 during a training exercise. It also landed safely.


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 9690 times:

Flyf15,

I'm glad you noticed... An AA-8 Aphid isn't that big a missile luckily. Things would have turned out a lot worse if they got hit with an AA6-Acrid.


Andrea Kent


User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 9606 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 19):
The IAF used the F-16's to sandwhich the F-15's so when the enemy engaged the F-15's they found themselves nailed with the F-16's correct?

Or were the F-16's used in pairs as interceptors without F-15's? If so, why? The F-15 is faster...

F-16s were used in flights of 4 for interception missions (hell, you could call it air superiority), they would split up into pairs and come around both sides of the Syrian formation in the scenario I mentioned above.

F-15s were used just as extensively, don't get me wrong. Nobody was holding them back, I was just theorizing that the Syrians might have expected to see ONLY F-15s. Keep in mind that once those drop tanks are off the F-16, and it's flying with nothing but 4 Sidewinders or Pythons, it's a beast at low altitude. Not just at turning but also at accelerating. I wouldn't be surprised if it could out run an Eagle or a Flogger in those conditions.

The bottom line is that the Syrians would have had great difficulty executing ANY tactics properly, for lack of good radar coverage and communications, due to both geographical reasons and extensive countermeasures used by the IDF/AF. SyAAF pilots were mostly flying blind.

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 19):
Just out of curiousity... at what speeds did it accelerate better in a straight line?

I don't know.


LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 9553 times:

LY744,

Quote:
F-16s were used in flights of 4 for interception missions (hell, you could call it air superiority), they would split up into pairs and come around both sides of the Syrian formation in the scenario I mentioned above.

Understood

Quote:
F-15s were used just as extensively, don't get me wrong. Nobody was holding them back, I was just theorizing that the Syrians might have expected to see ONLY F-15s. Keep in mind that once those drop tanks are off the F-16, and it's flying with nothing but 4 Sidewinders or Pythons, it's a beast at low altitude. Not just at turning but also at accelerating. I wouldn't be surprised if it could out run an Eagle or a Flogger in those conditions.

What's a Python? Is that a type of Israeli missile?

It could outrun an Eagle or a Flogger clean...
1.) Period?
2.) At low altitudes?
(I'm not certain which one you meant?)


Andrea Kent


25 Baron95 : What else from the US inventory could the IDF have bought in the 70s? There was no other choice. Unless, of course, you were stupid enough to buy an F
26 LY744 : Yes, family of Israeli short range AAMs that includes the Shafrir 1 and 2 (introduced mid and late 60's), Python 3, 4 and 5 (introduced late 70's, la
27 LY744 : BTW, in the late 80's, an Israeli F-15 was again hit by an AAM and landed safely. This time the missile was launched accidentally by another IDF/AF F
28 Jabs : The Pratt and Whitney F100-PW-200 fitted to the F-15 and the F-16 also had their share of problems, which were solved with the F100-PW-220E variant f
29 LMP737 : Guess you have not spent much time around fighters.
30 HaveBlue : That was an arrogant and boneheaded statement made by him, with nothing at all to back it up. Almost like he was trolling for responses. The F-14 was
31 Moose135 : I hate it when that happens
32 DeltaGuy : IIRC, the F-100 originally was the F-100-100, which had a unified fuel control (both main and augmentor fuel came from the same module). The engine h
33 LMP737 : In his book "Fulcrum" Alexander Zuyev talks what a handfull the MIG-23 was to fly. Interesting read, an aircraft that required constant attention.
34 LY744 : So did the squadron CO, who was the one that launched the missile. Following the incident he asked to be relieved of his command, a request that was
35 CTR : The IAF pilots were not the only votes counted when the IAF selected the F-15 over the F-14. Aircraft do not maintain themselves and spare parts do no
36 LMP737 : The F-14 has pretty good access to the engines. On the F-14 with the large daily and weekly doors you could get at almost everything. In fact I can o
37 CTR : Doors or screwed on panels? I don't remember ever seeing any hinged doors with latches on the forward fuselage of an F-14. Have fun, CTR
38 Post contains links LMP737 : On the nose the LOX bay which also holds the video recorder is hinged with quick release latches. As is the refueling receptacle on the, all servicin
39 Blackbird : I would have never known the F-14 had any maintainability issues. As, the F-4 did not from what you all said (The F-4 operated off carriers first befo
40 Jabs : And also the F-16 Blk 15 OCU and the F-16 MLU. Jose Barata
41 Jabs : Indeed! The F100-PW-229 was the key of the success of the F-16 Block 52+. It also gave a new lease of life to the F-16s Blocks 32/42. Aircraft with t
42 Max Q : No question the F15 was and still is a superb Aircraft and probablt the best choice for the IAF. However, the F14D was one of the best fighters ever m
43 Wvsuperhornet : The Israelies did they had a captured version of the Mig-23 at the time and their intelligence was probably as good if not better than the CIA's on r
44 Par13del : To add a couple points, some posters seem to think that the F-14 could not fly without the Phoenix attached, wonder why. The F-14 without the Phoenix
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Did The Sikorsky S-72 "X-Wing" Fail? posted Tue Jul 3 2007 18:14:17 by N231YE
Why Did RB-57F Need The Extra J 60 Turbojets? posted Sat Sep 23 2006 23:20:31 by 747400sp
Why The Usaf Did Not Rengine The C-141 Starlifter posted Fri Feb 3 2006 20:21:58 by 747400sp
The X-33: Why Did It Fail? posted Tue Aug 16 2005 05:26:48 by Citation X
Why Did The French Navy Operate The F-8 posted Sat Mar 19 2005 18:58:58 by RampRat74
Why No US Planes For The IAF posted Tue Feb 10 2004 09:57:01 by HAWK21M
RAH-66 Commanche-Why Can't It Replace The Apache? posted Sun May 13 2007 05:12:53 by AirRyan
Why Not A B-736 For The Army's Sigint? posted Tue Aug 29 2006 01:57:52 by DEVILFISH
Did You Know The F-14 Was Nearly Powered By TF-41? posted Wed Jun 21 2006 01:46:28 by 747400sp
Why Would Israel Want The Dhruv. posted Sat Jan 29 2005 11:21:45 by HAWK21M
Why Did The Sikorsky S-72 "X-Wing" Fail? posted Tue Jul 3 2007 18:14:17 by N231YE
Why Did The French Navy Operate The F-8 posted Sat Mar 19 2005 18:58:58 by RampRat74
Why Did Canada Choose The F-18? posted Tue Feb 17 2004 10:35:53 by Vio
Why Did The Usaf Pick The 742 Over The 743? posted Tue Mar 30 2010 14:31:04 by overloaduk
Why Did RB-57F Need The Extra J 60 Turbojets? posted Sat Sep 23 2006 23:20:31 by 747400sp
The X-33: Why Did It Fail? posted Tue Aug 16 2005 05:26:48 by Citation X
Why No US Planes For The IAF posted Tue Feb 10 2004 09:57:01 by HAWK21M
Did Obama Snub The F-22 At Elmendorf? posted Mon Dec 7 2009 13:20:41 by Alberchico
Why No Cannons On The Mustang? posted Thu Jul 30 2009 01:47:43 by ThirtyEcho
RAH-66 Commanche-Why Can't It Replace The Apache? posted Sun May 13 2007 05:12:53 by AirRyan

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format