Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:10 am

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


Andrea Kent
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:11 am

Assuming it's not like classified or secret or anything...
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:16 am

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.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:35 am

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]
 
EMBQA
Posts: 7798
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:52 am

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:53 am



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"
 
bingo
Posts: 278
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 11:08 am

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:46 am



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 avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:13 am



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.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2639
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:01 am



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.
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:37 am

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
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:32 am

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
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2639
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:54 am



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 avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:05 am



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.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:52 pm



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
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:16 pm

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
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:58 pm



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
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2639
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:49 pm



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.
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:07 pm

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..

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:15 am

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
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:02 pm



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
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Sun Jun 29, 2008 3:27 am

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
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:24 am



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.
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:31 am



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.
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Sun Jun 29, 2008 6:31 am

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
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Sun Jun 29, 2008 6:18 pm



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
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Mon Jun 30, 2008 3:07 am

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
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Mon Jun 30, 2008 3:17 am

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 F14A, with the underperforming engine, the extra weight of swing wings and carrier airframe/gear, heavy and expensive Phoenix missiles, mandatory extra crew member, higher price tag, more expensive maintenance.

The F15 proved out to be an exceptional platform. F15Es, F15Ks and AESA modernization efforts insure that they are still a top font line fighter.

F15+AESA, F18E/F+AESA, F22 are the top fighters flying today. And YES, I do mean that the F15/F18E/F with AESA are way better than Typhoon and Rafale which won't have a proper AESA (front end/back end) radar for years and years to come.

So lets review the choices. A) F15 - An airframe that is still in the top 3 fighters 3 decades later. B) F14 already retired from active service becaused it sucked.

I'd say the IDF got it right and can't really understand why the OP feels he needed to ask the question.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:57 pm



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 24):
What's a Python? Is that a type of Israeli missile?

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, late 80's or early 90's, early 2000's).

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 24):
It could outrun an Eagle or a Flogger clean...
1.) Period?
2.) At low altitudes?

I'm speculating that it may be able to outrun them clean at low altitudes.


LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Fri Jul 04, 2008 2:56 pm



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 22):
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.

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-15.


LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
Jabs
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:32 am

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Fri Jul 04, 2008 4:25 pm



Quoting LY744 (Reply 8):
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.

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 fitted with digital fuel control.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 7):
The weight and cost to be capable of carrier landings was rather useless to them.

Some of that capability could be deleted, more or less on the same way McDonnell Douglas did with the F-18L.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 7):
Even the Phoenix missiles were not exactly desired given the small area they have to cover, so carting around missiles that size for extra range is a bit silly.



Quoting LY744 (Reply 8):
Besides the pilot's 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.



Quoting LY744 (Reply 8):
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

The Phoenix would have been helpful chasing the MiG-25, without the need of a pre-planned ambush.

Quoting LY744 (Reply 18):
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.

It was a MiG-23MLD, without the maneuvering devices fitted to the Soviet MLDs.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 25):
F15+AESA, F18E/F+AESA, F22 are the top fighters flying today. And YES, I do mean that the F15/F18E/F with AESA are way better than Typhoon and Rafale which won't have a proper AESA (front end/back end) radar for years and years to come.

Let's wait and see.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 25):
F14 already retired from active service because it sucked.

The F-14 was retired from active service to save money.
It was replaced by the Super Hornet. Ask the crews what they think about the change.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 25):
Unless, of course, you were stupid enough to buy an F14A, with the under performing engine, the extra weight of swing wings and carrier airframe/gear, heavy and expensive Phoenix missiles, mandatory extra crew member, higher price tag, more expensive maintenance.

Ask the Iranians why they selected the Tomcat.
Ask the Iraqis how effective it was.


The point is that someone who reads the Osprey books on the Israeli F-15s and the Iranian F-14s say that both countries made the right choice for their needs.


Jose Barata
 
LMP737
Posts: 4857
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Fri Jul 04, 2008 9:48 pm



Quoting Baron95 (Reply 25):
F14 already retired from active service becaused it sucked.

Guess you have not spent much time around fighters.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
HaveBlue
Posts: 2108
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:01 pm

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:06 am



Quoting LMP737 (Reply 29):
Quoting Baron95 (Reply 25):
F14 already retired from active service becaused it sucked.

Guess you have not spent much time around fighters.

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 retired, but it was not because it sucked, and he knows that.
Here Here for Severe Clear!
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:14 am



Quoting LY744 (Reply 27):
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-15.

I hate it when that happens  Wow!
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
DeltaGuy
Posts: 3965
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 5:25 am

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:29 am



Quoting Jabs (Reply 28):
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 fitted with digital fuel control.

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 had an EEC, or Electronic Engine Control...still pretty much hydromechanical.

The F-100-220 was the next hack, it had seperate MFC's and AFC's for both main and augmentor fuel. The engine has a DEEC, or Digital Engine Electonic Control.

The F-100-220E was a retrofit of the older -100 motor, the ANG units did well with this kit.

The F-100-229....just a dream...great motor Big grin

DeltaGuy
"The cockpit, what is it?" "It's the little room in the front of the plane where the pilot sits, but that's not importan
 
LMP737
Posts: 4857
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:10 am



Quoting LY744 (Reply 14):
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.

In his book "Fulcrum" Alexander Zuyev talks what a handfull the MIG-23 was to fly. Interesting read, an aircraft that required constant attention.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Sun Jul 06, 2008 6:37 pm



Quoting Moose135 (Reply 31):
I hate it when that happens Wow!

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 granted. He did continue his service in the IDF/AF (and later in the IDF General Command) rising to the rank of Major General, and almost becoming the commander of the IDF/AF... when his candidacy was being considered the aforementioned incident suddenly surfaced in the media. He didn't get the job.


By the way, I had a chance to look up some more details about the process that lead to the IDF/AF choosing the F-15 in the early 70's. The fly-off between the F-14 and F-15 took place in September of 1974 (not '73 as I stated earlier) and lasted about 2 weeks. A group of 4 Israeli pilots flew just under 10 missions in total on each of the aircraft (plus at least one flight in a USN Skyhawk...). A report was produced, which cites the things we have all mentioned in this thread already. Also, high ranking IDF/AF officials had a chance to fly the F-14 and F-15 earlier, albeit very briefly. One General flew an F-15 prototype as early as 1972 and another had a flight in an F-14 sometime between 1973 and 1974.


LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
CTR
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:57 am

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Mon Jul 07, 2008 1:22 pm

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 not appear out of thin air. The F-14 was designed for performance at any cost and maintainability was almost an afterthought.

The F-15 incorporated lessons learned from the F-4 and designed from day one the aircraft to be maintainable.

Look at the Fi15's large hinged doors on the nose and the doors covering its engines. Then look at he access available on the F-14.

To be fair, the weight penalty to provide this type of maintainability on the F-14 would have been significantly greater than on the F-15 due to the airframe loads from carrier takeoffs and landings. Doors do not make the best structure.

This is one reason the F-18 flight performance is a step back from the F-14 in some areas. But the F-18 is far more maintainable. Look at all the doors!

Have fun,

CTR
Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
 
LMP737
Posts: 4857
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:45 pm



Quoting CTR (Reply 35):
Aircraft do not maintain themselves and spare parts do not appear out of thin air. The F-14 was designed for performance at any cost and maintainability was almost an afterthought.



Quoting CTR (Reply 35):
Look at the Fi15's large hinged doors on the nose and the doors covering its engines. Then look at he access available on the F-14.

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 only remember one occasion where we had to drop an engine to work on something up top. That was to change some TIT probes. Even then pulling the engine took only about an hour.

With engine changes on the F-14 what took so long is having to pull the CSD/GEN, starter, air/oil cooler, hyd pump and motive flow pump off the motor. In Nav Air jets those pieces of equipment stay with the aircraft. In other words it was the Navy way of doing things that added time to engine changes, not the design of the aircraft itself.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
CTR
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:57 am

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Mon Jul 07, 2008 4:52 pm



Quoting LMP737 (Reply 36):
On the F-14 with the large daily and weekly doors you could get at almost everything.

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
Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
 
LMP737
Posts: 4857
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Tue Jul 08, 2008 3:01 pm



Quoting CTR (Reply 37):
Doors or screwed on panels? I don't remember ever seeing any hinged doors with latches on the forward fuselage of an F-14.

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 servicing points are that way.

As for the avionics bays they use Tridair fasteners along with latches. You used an Allen key to open them, with a speed handle of course. What's nice about the Tridairs, Mark IV in the link, is that they are kept in place with a retaining ring which means you don't have to worry about losing them. And they are hard to over torque and even if you did you don't have to worry about striping them out like you would with a Philips tip.

When the F-14 first came out it used what we called a Calfax fastener. On the link its called a Live Lock. You could loosen it a bit faster than the Tridair. However it seemed like you were constantly replacing the barrels. The Navy eventually switched over to the Tridair, MarkIV.

You are probably wondering why all those panels were held in place by latches and multiple fasteners. The F-14 had no keel beam running the length of the aircraft. Those panels were considered structural, that's why it ws important not loose them in flight due to a bad or improperly secured latch or two.

< http://www.unirexinc.com/catalogs/tr...air-structural_panel_fasteners.pdf >
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Tue Jul 08, 2008 3:01 pm

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 before being used in the USAF)


Andrea Kent
 
Jabs
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:32 am

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:15 pm



Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 32):
The F-100-220E was a retrofit of the older -100 motor, the ANG units did well with this kit.

And also the F-16 Blk 15 OCU and the F-16 MLU.

Jose Barata
 
Jabs
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:32 am

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:34 am



Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 32):
The F-100-229....just a dream...great motor

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 the F100-PW-220 engine had a limited weapons load and general performance capability in many situations, being delivered to the ANG, training and test units. The F-16 Block 32 was delivered to South Korea, and only one unit of the PACAF was equipped with the F-16 Block 42.
With the new engine they are able to fly with heavy payloads, refuel and fly combat orbits at a higher altitude.
With an additional 5,000lb of thrust available, the Viper has excess power even at the maximum payload allowable for a Block 42.
The 220s engines removed from the F-16s are being transferred to ANG F-15 Eagles, to replace the much older F100-PW-200s originally installed. Though the 220s do not increase thrust for the F-15s, they improve reliability and maintainability.

Jose Barata
 
Max Q
Posts: 5644
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:07 am

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 made, and could certainly hold it's own against the Eagle.


It really was the Ultimate fighter for the USN and retired way too soon.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
wvsuperhornet
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:18 pm

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:44 am



Quoting LY744 (Reply 14):
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.

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 russian equipment at the time, so I am pretty sure they knew the capabilities of any of the Migs 25 years ago.

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?

Knowing about them and stopping them are two different things, the Israeli airforce had better pilots than any of their middle eastern counter parts back then and today even the russians would have a difficult time countering them

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....

When the first F-15A flew off the assembly line cars in the 80's had more complex computer sysystems, while Israel has always been privy to the best US equipment where most countries havent been, the US has always been very,very protective of the F-14 the only other country at the time which had access to the F-14 was Iran as it turned out Iran was the only country that could afford it, my guess if the F-15 overall cost was cheaper and had more room to expand, it was almost 15 years before the US even upgraded the F-14's and it didnt last long, the F-14 was a great plane just too expensive to keep up.

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.

The F-14 flew rings around the F-15 in the Iranian fly off at the time so I wouldnt say the F-14 wasnt a great air superiority fighter, it could hold its own with anyone at the time and probably today.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6689
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Why Did The IAF Choose The F-15?

Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:46 am

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 missiles could lift more fuel and stay on station longer. As for the "thingy" I assume you are talking about the TV camera system installed on the F-14, Navy pilots have used that to identify targets way beyond the range of the human eye without using radar either their own or AWACS, in the restricted confines that the IAF operates would that have been helpful?

The F-14 major initial problems were it's engines, and I somehow - with no source whatsoever - believe two things consipred against the a/c, imcompetent Navy brass and US Air Force "political pressure" to ensure that their a/c was the one ie the F-15, certainely the mandate that they should have used common a/c prior to these a/c being designed and put into service did raise hackles in both services.

Once the F-14 got better engines pilots were able to operate the a/c to its true capabilities, however, the die had already been cast and even when the D model was introduced, if they had a fly off with the F-22 and it won it would still have been cancelled, too many blows had already been piled up against her, and the Navy brass were not her best friend.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests